TMZ's "The Fifth Plane" Documentary on Fox

[smartcooky]

While I fully expect this to be a biased CT exposé (not sure I'll be persuaded to watch it) I have to ask...
In 20 years, with the mountain of physical and electronic evidence of the planning of the attack, why is this the first I'm hearing of there being 24, not 19, hijackers and five of them are vanished and in the wind, never to have been spoken of again?

ETA... also... just wanted to be in before this becomes "Lockerbie 2023". [emoji12]

If its the first time you've heard about it, then you might not have been paying attention. Personally, I first heard about the idea that there may heave been a fifth airliner around 15 years ago. The FBI actually investigated this in the years shortly after 9/11 but have said nothing about the investigation at all... not even that it was inconclusive.

 

[Jim_MDP]

If its the first time you've heard about it, then you might not have been paying attention. Personally, I first heard about the idea that there may heave been a fifth airliner around 15 years ago. The FBI actually investigated this in the years shortly after 9/11 but have said nothing about the investigation at all... not even that it was inconclusive.

I phrased it poorly, even thought about putting this explanation in an ETA...

I did not follow the alternate investigations closely, true. Found most to be ludicrous CTs.
Upthread is mention of what you say about this one being looked into as early as that year.

And as you say... then dropped from any major mention thereafter. That's closer to why I'm skeptical about it being brought up now, and as I said... to my attention.

 

[smartcooky]

I phrased it poorly, even thought about putting this explanation in an ETA...

I did not follow the alternate investigations closely, true. Found most to be ludicrous CTs.
Upthread is mention of what you say about this one being looked into as early as that year.

And as you say... then dropped from any major mention thereafter. That's closer to why I'm skeptical about it being brought up now, and as I said... to my attention.

Well, just for some clarification

https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/were-there-other-planes-on-september-11--66308

https://whyy.org/articles/the-5th-plane-to-be-seized-on-911-and-the-terrorists-who-got-away/

https://news.utdallas.edu/campus-community/9-11-author-to-discuss-aviations-dark-day-of-chaos/

 

[gabeygoat]

having not yet watched or read up on it, is there any theories on where these suspicious peeps went?

 

[smartcooky]

having not yet watched or read up on it, is there any theories on where these suspicious peeps went?

Probably disappeared into the multitude off people rushing to evacuate JFK!

 

[Robin]

I want to watch the documentary first.

Have to admit it's nice to get a possible CT that doesn't involve phantom missiles and nonexistent explosives for once.

For this reason it probably won't be very popular among conspiracy theorists

 

[bknight]

I phrased it poorly, even thought about putting this explanation in an ETA...

I did not follow the alternate investigations closely, true. Found most to be ludicrous CTs.
Upthread is mention of what you say about this one being looked into as early as that year.

And as you say... then dropped from any major mention thereafter. That's closer to why I'm skeptical about it being brought up now, and as I said... to my attention.

I'm in the same situation, I haven't heard anything about this until the movie was announced.

 

[Axxman300]

I find the witnesses credible. The question is if this is just them assigning the actions of the five passengers as potential terrorists, and not just entitled Middle Easterners.

Here's a personal example: On September 5th, 2001, I went to the local Army Surplus store to buy pants, and look a the odds and ends they have. At the time I was a regular there. On this day there is a pair of high-end BMWs parked out front, blocking the drive way. Once I get inside I find three well-dressed Arab men at the knife counter. The stood out in the way the Kardashians would stand out at the Dollar Store, or Waffle House. At the time it was not much of a big deal, but everyone working there thought it was weird.

Then 9/11 happened the next week. I did file a report with the FBI. But the fact is it was likely just three Arab guys looking to buy knives either for themselves or as gifts (the shop has a great selection). And Moss Landing and Castroville has a Mosque with a decent population of Iraqi immigrants. This their presence would not be out of line, and the store is right on Highway 1.

But in the weeks after 9/11 I was convinced I'd seen men who were either Al Qaeda, or knew about the upcoming attacks and wanted to protect themselves. Today? Not so much. It is still strange, I've never seen them again, but honestly there are strangers in that store I've only seen once without assuming they were shopping in preparation for a crime.

It is possible all these things were just coincidence. But it is very weird.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I find the witnesses credible. The question is if this is just them assigning the actions of the five passengers as potential terrorists, and not just entitled Middle Easterners.

Here's a personal example: On September 5th, 2001, I went to the local Army Surplus store to buy pants, and look a the odds and ends they have. At the time I was a regular there. On this day there is a pair of high-end BMWs parked out front, blocking the drive way. Once I get inside I find three well-dressed Arab men at the knife counter. The stood out in the way the Kardashians would stand out at the Dollar Store, or Waffle House. At the time it was not much of a big deal, but everyone working there thought it was weird.

Then 9/11 happened the next week. I did file a report with the FBI. But the fact is it was likely just three Arab guys looking to buy knives either for themselves or as gifts (the shop has a great selection). And Moss Landing and Castroville has a Mosque with a decent population of Iraqi immigrants. This their presence would not be out of line, and the store is right on Highway 1.

But in the weeks after 9/11 I was convinced I'd seen men who were either Al Qaeda, or knew about the upcoming attacks and wanted to protect themselves. Today? Not so much. It is still strange, I've never seen them again, but honestly there are strangers in that store I've only seen once without assuming they were shopping in preparation for a crime.

It is possible all these things were just coincidence. But it is very weird.

That IS weird. Were you in a city where any 9/11 terrorists were known to have visited/trained?

 

[Axxman300]

That IS weird. Were you in a city where any 9/11 terrorists were known to have visited/trained?

Nope. San Diego is over 400 miles away.

 

[Brainster]

I'm doubtful. First of all is the obvious; there were passenger manifests for Flight 23 just as there were for the other four planes, so the FBI would have had names they could investigate. Second, what would be the purpose of putting one of the men in a burqa? Third, none of the other hijack crews included a young boy, and putting a lad in an operation like this makes no sense. And BTW, it is not suspicious that a father would want to show his son the cockpit; indeed I'm surprised one of the flight attendants didn't immediately agree to open the door for him.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm doubtful. First of all is the obvious; there were passenger manifests for Flight 23 just as there were for the other four planes, so the FBI would have had names they could investigate.

Prior to 9/11 you did not need official ID to get on a domestic flight in the US. In fact, some of the 9/11 hijackers lacked proper identification, yet they were allowed to board due to the flights being domestic aircraft. These potential terrorists could simply have given false names or fake IDs so a passenger manifest would be next to useless in finding them.

Second, what would be the purpose of putting one of the men in a burqa?

Arab terrorists, particularly Al Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf, routinely used men dressed as women in their operations, and they still do, so this would be nothing unusual.

Third, none of the other hijack crews included a young boy, and putting a lad in an operation like this makes no sense.

Except they also routinely do this in order as pass as not-terrorists. Also, if you think these people have any compunction about killing children, I point you to the number of school buses blown up by Arab (and other) terrorists.

And BTW, it is not suspicious that a father would want to show his son the cockpit; indeed I'm surprised one of the flight attendants didn't immediately agree to open the door for him.

Really? After the cabin crew already had their suspicions about this group of people?

Don't make the mistake of trying to rationalize terrorists' behaviour by what you think they would or would not do. These people are mentally twisted by warped, hate-ridden versions of their religion. They do not see personal death the way we do in the west, and are perfectly willing to martyr themselves and their families, and take thousands of other lives with them just to make a religious point.

There are also other issues and strange things the cabin crews saw, and that the FBI found, not the least of which is that the FBI and other security agencies have always been suspicious that the four airliners that were hijacked were not the only ones in the plan. After all, if you are going to have an all out attack on the USA, why do a half-arsed job? Why not go the whole hog? The known targets were the Two WTC Towers and the Pentagon. There was also Flight 93 where the target was likely either the White House or the Capitol. Lets assume for argument's sake that Flight 93's target was the White House. Flight 23 could have been targeting the Capitol, a sixth flight might target the CIA at Langley, a seventh might target the UN Building in New York... all of which were in range of these airliners.



ETA: I'm not saying the theory that Flight 23 was a fifth airliner is fact, but I am saying that its tenable, that it would be in accord with long held theories by security agencies that the four airliners were not all that was planned. I also put it to readers this theory is not as easily dismissed as other Truther nutjobbery. Actually Truthers won't go along with this as it runs directly counter to their inside job / demolition / no-planes stupidity - if confirmed it would torpedo any idea that there were no planes on 9/11 and would severely dent the inside job idea.

 

[pgimeno]

Prior to 9/11 you did not need official ID to get on a domestic flight in the US. In fact, some of the 9/11 hijackers lacked proper identification, yet they were allowed to board due to the flights being domestic aircraft. These potential terrorists could simply have given false names or fake IDs so a passenger manifest would be next to useless in finding them.

But we have the manifests of the other hijacked planes with the arab names in them. Why would this one be different?

 

[smartcooky]

But we have the manifests of the other hijacked planes with the arab names in them. Why would this one be different?

It wouldn't be. It was not just the flight manifests that identified the 19 hijackers, it was also airport surveillance and a ship load of other investigations by intelligence agencies Some of then were in fact not identified directly and solely from the flight manifests, and some were incorrectly identified (right name but wrong person).

Also, we know the FBI investigated, but they never cleared Flight 23 or the people the cabin crew brought to their attention. Nothing has ever been released. Perhaps the FBI do know who these people were, but they are not saying anything about them.

 

[Brainster]

It wouldn't be. It was not just the flight manifests that identified the 19 hijackers, it was also airport surveillance and a ship load of other investigations by intelligence agencies Some of then were in fact not identified directly and solely from the flight manifests, and some were incorrectly identified (right name but wrong person).

Bzzt! Wrong! Here's Richard Bonner, testifying before the 9-11 Commission:

MR. BONNER: Well, it was pretty simple actually. We were able to pull from the airlines the passenger manifest for each of the four flights. We ran the manifest through the TECS/IBIS system. This is essentially the lookout system that both U.S. Customs and INS use but it's maintained by Customs. We ran it through the system. Two of the passengers on those aircraft were hits for having been entered on the watchlist in August of 2001. That was al Mihdhar and I forget the other one's name but they were the two people that had gone to Singapore that the CIA had identified. But they actually were put on the watchlist in August of 2001 by the FBI. So they hit on those two.

Just using those two hits and taking a look at some other basic data about the flight manifest, both in terms of -- I don't want to go into a lot of detail -- but where they were seated, where they purchased their tickets, you could do just a quick link analysis and essentially, I remember I was at Secret Service headquarters, as I said, but I would say whether it was 45 minutes, I don't know but my recollection is that certainly by 11:00 a.m., I'd seen a sheet that essentially identified the 19 probable hijackers. And in fact, they turned out to be, based upon further follow-up in detailed investigation, to be the 19.

Some of the initial photos were incorrect, but they had the correct names from the manifests very quickly.

 

[bknight]

Prior to 9/11 you did not need official ID to get on a domestic flight in the US. In fact, some of the 9/11 hijackers lacked proper identification, yet they were allowed to board due to the flights being domestic aircraft. These potential terrorists could simply have given false names or fake IDs so a passenger manifest would be next to useless in finding them.



Arab terrorists, particularly Al Qaeda and Abu Sayyaf, routinely used men dressed as women in their operations, and they still do, so this would be nothing unusual.



Except they also routinely do this in order as pass as not-terrorists. Also, if you think these people have any compunction about killing children, I point you to the number of school buses blown up by Arab (and other) terrorists.



Really? After the cabin crew already had their suspicions about this group of people?

Don't make the mistake of trying to rationalize terrorists' behaviour by what you think they would or would not do. These people are mentally twisted by warped, hate-ridden versions of their religion. They do not see personal death the way we do in the west, and are perfectly willing to martyr themselves and their families, and take thousands of other lives with them just to make a religious point.

There are also other issues and strange things the cabin crews saw, and that the FBI found, not the least of which is that the FBI and other security agencies have always been suspicious that the four airliners that were hijacked were not the only ones in the plan. After all, if you are going to have an all out attack on the USA, why do a half-arsed job? Why not go the whole hog? The known targets were the Two WTC Towers and the Pentagon. There was also Flight 93 where the target was likely either the White House or the Capitol. Lets assume for argument's sake that Flight 93's target was the White House. Flight 23 could have been targeting the Capitol, a sixth flight might target the CIA at Langley, a seventh might target the UN Building in New York... all of which were in range of these airliners.



ETA: I'm not saying the theory that Flight 23 was a fifth airliner is fact, but I am saying that its tenable, that it would be in accord with long held theories by security agencies that the four airliners were not all that was planned. I also put it to readers this theory is not as easily dismissed as other Truther nutjobbery. Actually Truthers won't go along with this as it runs directly counter to their inside job / demolition / no-planes stupidity - if confirmed it would torpedo any idea that there were no planes on 9/11 and would severely dent the inside job idea.

IIRC KSM initially wanted either 14 or 17 planes involved and he would have been in the last one. OBL vetoed that as too large a number and reduced it to something more manageable.

 

[smartcooky]

Bzzt! Wrong! Here's Richard Bonner, testifying before the 9-11 Commission:



Some of the initial photos were incorrect, but they had the correct names from the manifests very quickly.

Of course, if indeed they were all their actual names.

From closely following the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, I have noticed that these terrorist suspects often go many different names.

Regardless, even if they found out who these people on Flight 23 were by inspecting the flight manifests it doesn't explain why they were never cleared, and why the FBI investigation had no apparent result.

It also does not explain why

1. There were uniformed people running up and down the aisles of a locked down aircraft while the airport was being evacuated. This was personally observed by multiple members of the cabin crew and aircrew just minutes after they locked the aircraft, and

2. Why the both the internal and external Forward E&E Bay hatches were open.

As someone with extensive experience in both aircraft and airport operations, I can tell you there is NO valid explanation for this happening at this time. The ONLY reason the E&E Bay would normally be accessed is to perform maintenance, and even then, it is almost always accessed from the cabin because perform any maintenance at all in that bay, such as swapping out an electronics or avionics box, you first must pull and tag any relevant circuit breakers - all of the circuit breakers are on the flight deck. There was no flight that day, therefore there would be no maintenance log entry for that flight, therefore no reasons to access the E&E Bay.

No, there is only one reason I can think of for those access hatches to both be open... someone gained unauthorized access to the cabin.

 

[smartcooky]

IIRC KSM initially wanted either 14 or 17 planes involved and he would have been in the last one. OBL vetoed that as too large a number and reduced it to something more manageable.

True that. Remember the story about the 2006 attempted liquid (drink bottle) bombings... that was going to be eight airliners all timed blow up at around the same time over the Atlantic so there would be no witnesses.

 

[KDLarsen]

From what I can tell, in order to make this story stick, you basically have to accept eyewitnesses from 20+ years ago, and for the majority of it you have to slant it to a negative angle.

Adult and child asks to see the cockpit? Pre-9/11 this was so common, it wasn't unusual for aviation enthutiasts to spend the entire flight up front if the crew let them.

Person in a burqa has hairy hands, so it must be a man? Because no woman has ever had hairy hands?

Passengers on board annoyed that their flight won't be departing? Welcome to the aviation industry since forever.

Boxcutters found on the neighbouring aircraft, therefore they must be planted? But boxcutters weren't banned from aircraft pre-9/11, so why go through the hassle of smuggling them in? And that's without going down the wormhole of aircraft registration.

As for the crew observing persons in the aircraft after leaving it, I have several issues with that. First off, airplanes aren't locked. Accepting that maybe the doors were closed (though I can't imagine why), most ground crew and certainly any maintenance crew would know how to open the door from the outside. And then there's the question of how they were able to observe it, since aircraft generally park nose-in at terminals (they certainly do at JFK), so it wouldn't have been possible to view it from the terminal, and the jetways in the US are only just now beginning to switch over to glass jetways.

But that may just be my 2 AM insomnia writing...

 

[smartcooky]

From what I can tell, in order to make this story stick, you basically have to accept eyewitnesses from 20+ years ago, and for the majority of it you have to slant it to a negative angle.

Except that it was contemporaneous... they reported what they saw and experienced immediately, and were questioned about at length by the FBI at the time. Their story has not changed in all that time.

Adult and child asks to see the cockpit? Pre-9/11 this was so common, it wasn't unusual for aviation enthutiasts to spend the entire flight up front if the crew let them.

Asks? Yes.

But granted after that adult and the other adults with him were observed by the cabin crew to be acting suspiciously....seriously enough for them to report it to the captain? Err, no so much!

Person in a burqa has hairy hands, so it must be a man? Because no woman has ever had hairy hands?

Large hairy hands, and both of the female cabin crew suspected that this was a man wearing women's clothes and a burqa

Passengers on board annoyed that their flight won't be departing? Welcome to the aviation industry since forever.

Firstly, they were not just annoyed, they became agitated. It might be reasonable to say things such as "we have connecting flights", or "we have to be at our (destination) by such and such a time" but "we just want to take off" is highly suspicious wording given that is was later discovered that the pilot hijackers only wanted to learn how to fly the aircraft (as in to control the aircraft in the air) and were not interested in learning about taking off or landing.

Boxcutters found on the neighbouring aircraft, therefore they must be planted? But boxcutters weren't banned from aircraft pre-9/11, so why go through the hassle of smuggling them in? And that's without going down the wormhole of aircraft registration.

Really? You think it would be normal for things like boxcutters to be found in the seat pockets of aircraft?

As for the crew observing persons in the aircraft after leaving it, I have several issues with that. First off, airplanes aren't locked.

Well they are shut, and the air bridge is retracted. After that, there are only two ways to get in.

1. Get a set of air stairs and move it to the main cabin entrance. There are very few sets of air stairs at JFK, and they are vehicle-driven either with the stairs themselves built onto a light truck, or they are towed using an aircraft tug. All vehicle movements on the tarmac and apron require authorization from ATC... nothing, but nothing moves on a tarmac without their permission, especially at an airport like JFK. So, using air stairs would be out of the question. Someone doing so without prior authority will be spotted by the control tower.

2. Access through the Forward E&E Bay access hatch.

Accepting that maybe the doors were closed (though I can't imagine why)

Because the flight crew were instructed to do so!

...most ground crew and certainly any maintenance crew would know how to open the door from the outside.

Christ on a bike! Aircraft maintenance personnel do not just wander into aircraft off their own bat and/or without authority. They must first have a legitimate reason for entry (i.e. an actual logged and authorized maintenance task to perform) and they must have permission from the airline's maintenance division or their maintenance contractor. Furthermore, entering through the E&E bay hatch is a very, very rare occurrence for the reasons I have mentioned earlier.

Oh, and in case you were wondering if this has just been the case since 9/11, it hasn't. this has been SOP the world over since forever. It certainly was the case when I was involved in the 1990s

And then there's the question of how they were able to observe it, since aircraft generally park nose-in at terminals (they certainly do at JFK), so it wouldn't have been possible to view it from the terminal, and the jetways in the US are only just now beginning to switch over to glass jetways.

Yes and No, and it depends on which terminal you are talking about (there are 8 terminals at JFK that have between 10 and 30 gates each). Many of the terminals have aircraft gate parking at angles between 22½° and 0°. You would not have to be far to the left (767s always board/deboard on the left) to be able to see what is going in inside an airliner from the terminal building.

But that may just be my 2 AM insomnia writing...

Yes