TMZ's "The Fifth Plane" Documentary on Fox

[Allen773]

We know through local reporting that the FBI raided apartments in New Jersey in relation to 9/11, and to my knowledge the nature of these raids, and the itel behind them remains secret.

From Chapter 7 of the 9/11 Commission Report:

By the time Atta and Shehhi returned to Virginia Beach from their travels in Georgia, Hazmi and Hanjour had also arrived in Virginia, in Falls Church. They made their way to a large mosque there, the Dar al Hijra mosque, sometime in early April.73

As we mentioned earlier, one of the imams at this mosque was the same Anwar Aulaqi with whom Hazmi had spent time at the Rabat mosque in San Diego. Aulaqi had moved to Virginia in January 2001. He remembers Hazmi from San Diego but has denied having any contact with Hazmi or Hanjour in Virginia.74

At the Dar al Hijra mosque, Hazmi and Hanjour met a Jordanian named Eyad al Rababah. Rababah says he had gone to the mosque to speak to the imam, Aulaqi, about finding work. At the conclusion of services, which normally had 400 to 500 attendees, Rababah says he happened to meet Hazmi and Hanjour. They were looking for an apartment; Rababah referred them to a friend who had one to rent. Hazmi and Hanjour moved into the apartment, which was in Alexandria.75

Some FBI investigators doubt Rababah's story. Some agents suspect that Aulaqi may have tasked Rababah to help Hazmi and Hanjour. We share that suspicion, given the remarkable coincidence of Aulaqi's prior relationship with Hazmi. As noted above, the Commission was unable to locate and interview Aulaqi. Rababah has been deported to Jordan, having been convicted after 9/11 in a fraudulent driver's license scheme.76

Rababah, who had lived in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, told investigators that he had recommended Paterson, New Jersey, as a place with an Arabic-speaking community where Hazmi and Hanjour might want to settle. They asked for his help in getting them an apartment in Paterson. Rababah tried without success. He says he then suggested that Hazmi and Hanjour travel with him to Connecticut where they could look for a place to live.77

On May 8, Rababah went to Hazmi and Hanjour's apartment to pick them up for the trip to Connecticut. There he says he found them with new room-mates-Ahmed al Ghamdi and Majed Moqed. These two men had been sent to America to serve as muscle hijackers and had arrived at Dulles Airport on May 2. Rababah drove Hanjour to Fairfield, Connecticut, followed by Hazmi, who had Moqed and Ghamdi in his car. After a short stay in Connecticut, where they apparently called area flight schools and real estate agents, Rababah drove the four to Paterson to have dinner and show them around. He says that they returned with him to Fairfield that night, and that he never saw them again.78

Within a few weeks, Hanjour, Hazmi, and several other operatives moved to Paterson and rented a one-room apartment. When their landlord later paid a visit, he found six men living there-Nawaf al Hazmi, now joined by his younger brother Salem, Hanjour, Moqed, probably Ahmed al Ghamdi, and Abdul Aziz al Omari; Hazmi's old friend Khalid al Mihdhar would soon join them.79

https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch7.htm

Anwar Aulaqi/al-Alwaki would of course later earn global infamy as an English-language jihadist propagandist and an important leader in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, until he was killed in a US drone strike in Yemen in 2011. But he was clearly involved in some suspicious Salafi/Islamist stuff in the US even before 9/11, which included multiple contacts with the 9/11 hijackers, as well as multiple contacts with some of the same Saudi government officials who have come under suspicion, or at least people who were paid by the Saudi government (like Omar al-Bayoumi)—though it can’t be stressed enough, 20+ years after the attacks it remains an open question as to what extent any of these people knew of the hijackers’ plans beforehand, and a significant reason for that, once again, is that the US government and especially the FBI have been frustratingly slow in declassifying their files.

Who knows what will eventually come out via efforts like the JASTA-enabled lawsuit against Saudi Arabia or simply as a result of the normal declassification process as 9/11 continues to recede into the past. National security, protecting sources and methods, etc. may be perfectly justifiable reasons for keeping a lot of things secret, but that’s a hard sell to a lot of the 9/11 victims’ family members and the American people in general—not to mention the rest of the world, since people from dozens of countries were killed in the attacks, and the downstream effects of 9/11 and the Global War on Terror continue to shape the world to this day, often for the worse IMHO.

 

[Axxman300]

What annoys me about 9/11 truthers is this is the kind of subject we should have been discussing and debating twenty years ago. Most of my knowledge of the side issues and stories on this subject is really rusty now. Websites are gone, and once go-to sources gone with them.

 

[smartcooky]

What annoys me about 9/11 truthers is this is the kind of subject we should have been discussing and debating twenty years ago. Most of my knowledge of the side issues and stories on this subject is really rusty now. Websites are gone, and once go-to sources gone with them.

Indeed. I mean some of the 9/11 Truther stuff is just plain bonkers (no planes, mini-nukes, missiles, thermite charges etc) and can be debunked just by watching the live newscasts. (unless you are nuts enough to believe the airliners were all holograms or remote-piloted empty aircraft)

But this is a whole different story. People witnessed this, were involved, and experienced it first hand - it is not easy to debunk. Yes, there are some inconsistencies, but there always are in any theory or report. Just think about some of the best known occurrences in history, for example, the sinkings of the Titanic, or the Lusitania, or the Andrea Doria, or the Empress of Ireland - you'll struggle to find historical stories with more inconsistencies than these, yet, we know they happened, we know they sunk. Other examples are the Eschede train disaster, the Duffy Street train derailment and subsequent gas pipe explosion, Pam Am 103 over Lockerbie, Pan Am/KLM at Tenerife, and of course, MH370.

Do we actually know for certain if all of the airliners that were hijacked, were in fact hijacked using the exact same plan? No, we don't, and we never will.

Do we actually know for certain if all of the hijackers all carried on their weapons, or were some planted by accomplices? No, we don't, and we never will.

Do we actually know for certain exactly how each hijacking was carried out, right down to the last detail. No, we don't, and we never will.

To use Mythbusters' terminology, this is not "Confirmed", but nor is it "Busted". IMO, it is simply "Plausible"

 

[MBDK]

To use Mythbusters' terminology, this is not "Confirmed", but nor is it "Busted". IMO, it is simply "Plausible"

100% agree.

 

[Shrinker]

I agree there are inconsistencies between the two articles I presented, and can offer no authoritative support for the first link other than the second link. In retrospect, I probably should not have included that first link at all, as it does just muddy the waters. However, the second link, being from the official government site, is and has been for over 10 years, subject to scrutiny by any and all public relation monitors, and it is highly, highly unlikely they would allow information of this nature to remain available, if it were false and/or speculative. And, as mentioned in my previous post, the primary source is Air Force Brig. Gen. Carol A. Timmons, director of the Delaware National Guard joint staff, who was at the time first officer on flight 23 that day, although it is unclear if she was also the primary source for the information of the al-Qaeda material left behind.

If they had a B team planned to plant box cutters onto the plane, they obviously would not need them in their carry-on. They may have only planned that for this particular flight if it was the only one they had a crew that had access to one of them. We also don't know for certain whether any of the other four flights' terrorists actually carried their box cutters on with them, as it is possible they were also staged previously. Also, since they were unwilling to take the box cutters with them when they boarded AND unboarded the flight, it would be no surprise that they would leave other incriminating evidence behind in their attempt to escape, as they were unaware as to the extent they would be investigated upon deplaning (unfortunately there was none performed). It has already been explained that if the box cutters were mistakenly staged on the wrong plane, the conspirators that did so would have done it several hours earlier, prior to anyone being aboard and could easily have not realized their mistake, but there would be no mistake about the returning, disembarking plane being their target..

Since this incident would already be the fifth plane involved, and there is reasonable belief ABL nixed the plans for an even larger number of hijackings, an additional ground crew already in place is barely significant.

Until they headed back to the terminal, there was no reason for any terrorist to act overtly suspicious. Once that happened, their actions speak for themselves, and were reported accordingly.

Weak stuff in your opinion is actually inculpatory evidence as explained above, and you waving it away does not make it actually disappear. The bulk of your "maybe" conjectures are far more unlikely than the hijacking proposals, when that evidence is taken seriously. Your 2nd to last question is indeed a mystery, but whatever the actual reason(s), that does nothing but add suspicious behaviour to the group, rather than deflect it. As for the last question - who is to say they did not actually do so?

I think you were right to include both articles since this showed how well-meaning people can mislead. You said the second corroborated the first, but the first was literally just an article about the second one. The author of the first strongly implies that Timmons said there were boxcutters in the Arabs' luggage, but the second article doesn't even mention that, let alone quote Timmons on it. Innocent mistakes I'm sure, but they bolstered the story when they shouldn't have.

Otherwise, I'm still not getting the plot. It's not just inconsistent, it fundamentally makes no sense. I don't even understand why the Arabs would get agitated when the plane returned to the gate. The insinuation is that they wanted to complete their mission, but their weapons were on a different plane! They'd had easily half an hour to come to terms with this and start planning the rest of their day. (Please don't tell me they had back-up weapons in their carry-on because that would be even more bizarre).

If this had just been four angry Arab men on a plane I'd actually been more inclined to buy it. A 5th team that screwed up? Yeah, why not? But with more detail and evidence, it makes less and less sense, which is a pattern common with all kinds of poor quality investigations where absolutely anything is sewn into the story if it manufactures doubt or alarm, regardless of whether it presents a rational hypothesis.

 

[smartcooky]

I think you were right to include both articles since this showed how well-meaning people can mislead. You said the second corroborated the first, but the first was literally just an article about the second one. The author of the first strongly implies that Timmons said there were boxcutters in the Arabs' luggage, but the second article doesn't even mention that, let alone quote Timmons on it. Innocent mistakes I'm sure, but they bolstered the story when they shouldn't have.

Otherwise, I'm still not getting the plot. It's not just inconsistent, it fundamentally makes no sense.

The overall concept makes sense to me, even if there are some minor inconsistencies (which IMO are simply due to lack of information)

I don't even understand why the Arabs would get agitated when the plane returned to the gate.

That isn't what the witnesses said. The Arabs became agitated long before that point, when it became clear that they were not even pushing back from the gate and starting up.

The insinuation is that they wanted to complete their mission, but their weapons were on a different plane!They'd had easily half an hour to come to terms with this and start planning the rest of their day.

They might not have known that, because

a. They may not yet have discovered their weapons were missing

b. Retrieving the weapons before they got airborne might not have been in the plan.

Perhaps Arab terrorists have ESP?

if this had just been four angry Arab men on a plane I'd actually been more inclined to buy it. A 5th team that screwed up? Yeah, why not? But with more detail and evidence, it makes less and less sense, which is a pattern common with all kinds of poor quality investigations where absolutely anything is sewn into the story if it manufactures doubt or alarm, regardless of whether it presents a rational hypothesis.

Its also a pattern in reality when the full facts are not known. I mentioned the sinking of the Titanic earlier - there were aspects of that event which changed once the wreck was discovered. Recently as six years ago, information has come to light about a coal fire weeks before she left Southampton that could have weakened the hull in the spot where the iceberg hit.

As in all things, we don't know what we don't know. I maintain that inconsistencies do not debunk a theory - if they did, then the Relativity and Evolution would both be debunked.
.
.

 

[MRC_Hans]

To use Mythbusters' terminology, this is not "Confirmed", but nor is it "Busted". IMO, it is simply "Plausible"

I also agree.

Whatever you think of Al Qaeda[sp?], they are/were no fools. They knew that this was their only chance; afterwards, the element of surprise would be gone, and security would be heavily increased, so quite possibly, they would launch several back-up teams.

So, in this case, and probably some we never heard of, weapons were placed by accomplices.

Once the flight was cancelled, the would-be terrorists would not retrieve their baggage, as it might compromise them, and as they were expecting a suicide mission, it would not likely include anything important to them, personally.

The one disguised as a female: Well, Arab terrorists are known to use this to avoid being searched (works best in the Middle East, but still), and perhaps this individual had reasons to avoid showing his face.

After the fact, the would-be terrorists made themselves invisible, and the overall evidence was flimsy, so authorities did not have any obvious case, and simply filed it as inconclusive, given the overall situation.

So, yes, I join the "plausible" camp.

Hans

 

[Brainster]

Here's another point against from Miles Kara, a 9-11 Commission staffer (from a 9-11 CT debunkers email list):

I am aware that Commission staff members have been approached. I have not, yet. Consensus at the Commission staff level is that this is skeptical, from all aspects.

My take remains unchanged. This is not part of the Atta/al Shehhi orchestrated plan/plot/attack. The attack leaders plotted most everything in detail, including the last night document. This story is far removed from Atta. Moreover, had their been other mission ready muscle one of them would have been diverted to UA93 to fill out Jarrah’s crew. And, who was the 5th pilot to be? There is nothing in this that points out the need for a leader/pilot.

The point about the missing 20th hijacker is a very good one; the UA 93 team was short one muscle hijacker, which may have been crucial in keeping that plane from reaching its target.

 

[smartcooky]

Here's another point against from Miles Kara, a 9-11 Commission staffer (from a 9-11 CT debunkers email list):



The point about the missing 20th hijacker is a very good one; the UA 93 team was short one muscle hijacker, which may have been crucial in keeping that plane from reaching its target.

Maybe you forgot that the MOST crucial reason UA 93 didn't reach its target was because of the time... the passengers knew that the other hijacked planes had been flown into buildings.

 

[Brainster]

Maybe you forgot that the MOST crucial reason UA 93 didn't reach its target was because of the time... the passengers knew that the other hijacked planes had been flown into buildings.

Way to miss the point entirely.

1. Why would Atta and the other ringleaders allow Flight 93 to have only three muscle hijackers when all the other planes had 4? Obvious answer: Because there were only 15 available. IIRC it has been speculated that Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh was to have been the 16th, but he could not get a visa and served as the paymaster instead.

2. Speaking of available, who was the fifth pilot? Remember Moussaoui had been jailed a few weeks before 9-11, and was nowhere near being able to fly. After the attacks, I'm pretty sure the FBI were all over any Middle Easterners taking flight training. But I get that you think the FBI fails to follow up on obvious leads.

 

[Axxman300]

Way to miss the point entirely.

1. Why would Atta and the other ringleaders allow Flight 93 to have only three muscle hijackers when all the other planes had 4? Obvious answer: Because there were only 15 available. IIRC it has been speculated that Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh was to have been the 16th, but he could not get a visa and served as the paymaster instead.

2. Speaking of available, who was the fifth pilot? Remember Moussaoui had been jailed a few weeks before 9-11, and was nowhere near being able to fly. After the attacks, I'm pretty sure the FBI were all over any Middle Easterners taking flight training. But I get that you think the FBI fails to follow up on obvious leads.

There were 19 hijackers. Each team had 2 pilots and 3 muscle/assaulters. 93 went with 2 pilots and 2 muscle/assaulters. They also claimed to have a bomb in a shoe box, something not reported by the other hijacked planes.

Two teams launched out of Logan Airport, in Boston, one team launched out of Dulles, in Washington D.C., and one launched out of Newark. It's not unthinkable that there was a second team planning to launch out of Newark.

We know some of the hijackers carried their box-cutters in their pants pockets as they showed them to security while being wanded. Box-cutters and pocketknives were allowed on commercial planes prior to 9/12/2001. What we don't know is if any of the other aircraft had box-cutters pre-placed in seatback pouches in advance. There are hundreds of details we can never know about what went on inside each aircraft from take-off to impact.

As the story is now, only one plane went to D.C.. And it struck the Pentagon. Most of us are familiar with the final flight-path, the dramatic turn AA77 makes to line up and strike the Pentagon. There was speculation the Pentagon was not the primary target of that plane, and instead it was the Capitol Building, or the White House. It's possible the pilot became confused about his primary target, and turned to find the Pentagon since it's easier to locate from the air, as it's on the river. We know UA93 was headed to Washington D.C., and we assume their target was either the Capitol Building, or the White House.

I guess a reasonable question is why only send two planes to D.C. where there are three important, symbolic targets, but send two planes to NYC, one for each tower of the WTC? Why not hit one tower, and devote the second plane to hit D.C. before anyone on the ground can figure out what's going on? And this leads back to this subject; what if they had planned to hijack enough planes to strike both towers in NYC, and three targets in D.C.?

And another frustrating, real problem, is the United States has yet to try KSM and the others in a court of law. All of this speculation could be buried under cross examination..

 

[MBDK]

Way to miss the point entirely.

1. Why would Atta and the other ringleaders allow Flight 93 to have only three muscle hijackers when all the other planes had 4? Obvious answer: Because there were only 15 available. IIRC it has been speculated that Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh was to have been the 16th, but he could not get a visa and served as the paymaster instead.

2. Speaking of available, who was the fifth pilot? Remember Moussaoui had been jailed a few weeks before 9-11, and was nowhere near being able to fly. After the attacks, I'm pretty sure the FBI were all over any Middle Easterners taking flight training. But I get that you think the FBI fails to follow up on obvious leads.

1) What makes you so sure there were only 3? The fourth could have been a passenger that blended better with the rest of the travelers, so wasn't noticed. The designated person could have missed the flight for a plethora of reasons.

2) There is a major difference between following up on leads and circumstances that prevent it, or at least prevent you from knowing they did, such as person's escaping/disappearing, continued investigation into the entire breadth of the organization, etc. Just because you haven't heard of any others certainly does not preclude their existence. How many FBI files from the time are inaccessible? Just as I can't say for certain there were other pilots, you cannot so claim otherwise, but it still makes it plausible.

 

[smartcooky]

Way to miss the point entirely.

1. Why would Atta and the other ringleaders allow Flight 93 to have only three muscle hijackers when all the other planes had 4? Obvious answer: Because there were only 15 available. IIRC it has been speculated that Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh was to have been the 16th, but he could not get a visa and served as the paymaster instead.

2. Speaking of available, who was the fifth pilot? Remember Moussaoui had been jailed a few weeks before 9-11, and was nowhere near being able to fly. After the attacks, I'm pretty sure the FBI were all over any Middle Easterners taking flight training. But I get that you think the FBI fails to follow up on obvious leads.

Because only having three muscle hijackers when the others had four would have made ALL the difference when this particular set of hijackers were the only ones to claim they had a bomb.

Two teams launched out of Logan Airport, in Boston, one team launched out of Dulles, in Washington D.C., and one launched out of Newark. It's not unthinkable that there was a second team planning to launch out of Newark.

We know some of the hijackers carried their box-cutters in their pants pockets as they showed them to security while being wanded. Box-cutters and pocketknives were allowed on commercial planes prior to 9/12/2001. What we don't know is if any of the other aircraft had box-cutters pre-placed in seatback pouches in advance. There are hundreds of details we can never know about what went on inside each aircraft from take-off to impact.

Agree.

As the story is now, only one plane went to D.C.. And it struck the Pentagon. Most of us are familiar with the final flight-path, the dramatic turn AA77 makes to line up and strike the Pentagon. There was speculation the Pentagon was not the primary target of that plane, and instead it was the Capitol Building, or the White House. It's possible the pilot became confused about his primary target, and turned to find the Pentagon since it's easier to locate from the air, as it's on the river. We know UA93 was headed to Washington D.C., and we assume their target was either the Capitol Building, or the White House.

I guess a reasonable question is why only send two planes to D.C. where there are three important, symbolic targets, but send two planes to NYC, one for each tower of the WTC? Why not hit one tower, and devote the second plane to hit D.C. before anyone on the ground can figure out what's going on? And this leads back to this subject; what if they had planned to hijack enough planes to strike both towers in NYC, and three targets in D.C.?

And another frustrating, real problem, is the United States has yet to try KSM and the others in a court of law. All of this speculation could be buried under cross examination..

Remember, one of the Arabs asked the flight crew "Did they get the White House?" as he was leaving the aircraft. If that was a potential hijacker, then it could indicate that the White House could have been Flight 93's intended target, and Flight 77 was heading towards the Capitol before pulling a sharp descending 360° right turn, which it would likely have done because it was too high to lose sufficient altitude to hit the Pentagon.

So, what other targets could there have been? There's a few high-value targets to choose from...

CIA Headquarters at Langley VA,

The United Nations HQ in New York NY

NSA Headquarters at Fort Meade MD

Empire State Building in New York NY

The Prudential Tower in Boston MA

FBI HQ in DC

All well within range of any of the hijacked airplanes

 

[Brainster]

There were 19 hijackers. Each team had 2 pilots and 3 muscle/assaulters. 93 went with 2 pilots and 2 muscle/assaulters. They also claimed to have a bomb in a shoe box, something not reported by the other hijacked planes.

Got a cite for the two pilots per team?

Two teams launched out of Logan Airport, in Boston, one team launched out of Dulles, in Washington D.C., and one launched out of Newark. It's not unthinkable that there was a second team planning to launch out of Newark.

This really is not going well. Here's a hint: Flight 23 was not out of Newark.

We know some of the hijackers carried their box-cutters in their pants pockets as they showed them to security while being wanded. Box-cutters and pocketknives were allowed on commercial planes prior to 9/12/2001. What we don't know is if any of the other aircraft had box-cutters pre-placed in seatback pouches in advance. There are hundreds of details we can never know about what went on inside each aircraft from take-off to impact.

Pre-placed box-cutters on five flights now, departing from four different airports. How many more people would that require? This is what the 9-11 Truthers do--they just keep expanding the conspiracy.

I guess a reasonable question is why only send two planes to D.C. where there are three important, symbolic targets, but send two planes to NYC, one for each tower of the WTC? Why not hit one tower, and devote the second plane to hit D.C. before anyone on the ground can figure out what's going on? And this leads back to this subject; what if they had planned to hijack enough planes to strike both towers in NYC, and three targets in D.C.?

There are plenty of other, important and symbolic targets they could have hit in NYC as well--the Statue of Liberty would have been quite easy to spot and target. Ditto for the Brooklyn Bridge or the GWB. I tend to think Flight 93 was headed for the Capitol Building, because the White House can be a bit tricky to spot from the air. As for why they hit both towers, I assume KSM wanted to complete the job his nephew had tried to accomplish 8 years earlier.

And another frustrating, real problem, is the United States has yet to try KSM and the others in a court of law. All of this speculation could be buried under cross examination..

Even if they do try KSM do you think Flight 23 will come up at all? I sure don't.

 

[Axxman300]

Got a cite for the two pilots per team?



This really is not going well. Here's a hint: Flight 23 was not out of Newark.

You're right. I apologize. I was writing while at work, and it's been a while since immersed myself in 9/11 lore. I get confused as they did have two hijackers in the cockpits, but one was a pilot. And JFK is just about an hour drive from Newark if you take the toll roads.

Pre-placed box-cutters on five flights now, departing from four different airports. How many more people would that require? This is what the 9-11 Truthers do--they just keep expanding the conspiracy.

As I said, the known hijackers brought their box-cutters onto the planes in their pockets, or carry-on. And since the box-cutters reported in this story were not actually seen directly by the witnesses interviewed, they are hearsay. I recall hundreds of rumors about all kinds of events surrounding 9/11 which turned out to be misunderstandings, misidentifications, and ghost stories.

And we're talking about nanothermite, micronukes, or holographic aircraft. Just the possibility of a fifth crew.

There are plenty of other, important and symbolic targets they could have hit in NYC as well--the Statue of Liberty would have been quite easy to spot and target. Ditto for the Brooklyn Bridge or the GWB. I tend to think Flight 93 was headed for the Capitol Building, because the White House can be a bit tricky to spot from the air. As for why they hit both towers, I assume KSM wanted to complete the job his nephew had tried to accomplish 8 years earlier.

The WTC was targeted because it was a symbol of American financial power, and it was in NYC, the media capitol of the world. The towers also had thousands of people inside, which insured a high body-count. That's why they targeted it the first time. UA93 was likely meant to hit the Capitol Building.

I doubt bridges and the Statue of Liberty would have been targeted due to the fact in the many terrorist attacks since 9/11 the targets have been trains, buses, cafe's, and shopping areas. Nobody's gone after Big Ben, the Eifel Tower or any bridges.

Just always seemed strange not to take advantage of surprise, and send three planes into D.C. instead of two.

Even if they do try KSM do you think Flight 23 will come up at all? I sure don't.

I doubt it, but who can say what would be revealed in court? It would be nice to find out. The US Government would have to lay out all of their intelligence and many records which the public has yet to see.

If nothing else, it would give us something factual to discuss.

 

[MBDK]

Flight 23 was not out of Newark.

No, it was scheduled from JFK to fly to LA. So as another fuel-laden plane, it would have been another desirable weapon of choice.

Pre-placed box-cutters on five flights now, departing from four different airports. How many more people would that require? This is what the 9-11 Truthers do--they just keep expanding the conspiracy.

The statement was. "What we don't know is if any of the other aircraft had box-cutters pre-placed in seatback pouches in advance." There was no claim that they ALL had them pre-staged, just the fact that we don't know. Your Straw Man of an ever-expanding conspiracy is just that.


In addition, we already KNOW three of four flights had coordinated plans that worked to sufficient degree as to accomplish several of their primary goals, and the fourth would have had a much better chance had the hijackers not allowed (and encouraged) phone conversations. Those flights and their known actions are FACT. Fact that provides context for the possibility of the fifth plane. Your dismissal of these facts is exactly what the 9/11 truthers do, not our usage of them for support.

 

[Brainster]

And we're talking about nanothermite, micronukes, or holographic aircraft. Just the possibility of a fifth crew.

And in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I am sure the FBI was diligently running down any leads on a fifth crew, found there was none, and focused their efforts elsewhere. If they failed to follow up on the leads given about Flight 23, it would be insanely gross incompetence. Again, all the hijackers on the known flights were traveling under their own name; law enforcement knew their identities before 11:00 that afternoon, by looking at the names, the seat locations (IIRC, the pilot hijacker was always in the front row in the seat closest to the cockpit), where the tickets were purchased, etc. It would be trivial for the Feds to look at similar data for Flight 23 and determine if anything resembling that pattern emerges.

There are three options here:

The FBI failed to follow up on very obvious leads (and it took TMZ to reveal it).

The FBI did follow up, found a fifth crew was indeed likely and didn't tell anybody.

The FBI did follow up and found that the people suspected on Flight 23 were completely outside the profile of the hijackers.

I'm going with door #3.

 

[Axxman300]

There are three options here:

The FBI failed to follow up on very obvious leads (and it took TMZ to reveal it).

The FBI did follow up, found a fifth crew was indeed likely and didn't tell anybody.

The FBI did follow up and found that the people suspected on Flight 23 were completely outside the profile of the hijackers.

I'm going with door #3.

Yes. This would all be against the backdrop of an FBI which had few Arab speakers, was instantly undermanned after 9/11, and was forced to dredge up agents from across the country just to staff their ground operations in NYC, D.C., and the many follow-on investigations that grew from incoming intelligence.

In those first two weeks the FBI was overwhelmed by the job. And the Bureau was still suffering from the management decisions which led to the failures to head off the attacks in the first place. Their primary focus would be on the actual attacks, the planes, and backtracking the evidence from the boarding all the way to their entrance into the United States. There must have been hundreds of "suspicious" accounts to investigate in those first weeks. The story I'd heard about angry Arab men on 9/11 passenger jets came out of Denver and Sky Harbor in Arizona. I doubt there was anything significant to those stories.

 

[smartcooky]

Pre-placed box-cutters on five flights now, departing from four different airports. How many more people would that require? This is what the 9-11 Truthers do--they just keep expanding the conspiracy.

Firstly, 9/11 Truthers also handwave away evidence, which is exactly what you are doing.

Secondly, no-one here is "expanding a conspiracy". Aviation security experts and the FBI have long thought that were more that four aircraft were to be involved in 9/11, and they have also long thought that the hijackers had help at the actual airports themselves, but they have never been able to find h solid evidence.

And in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I am sure the FBI was diligently running down any leads on a fifth crew, found there was none, and focused their efforts elsewhere. If they failed to follow up on the leads given about Flight 23, it would be insanely gross incompetence. Again, all the hijackers on the known flights were traveling under their own name; law enforcement knew their identities before 11:00 that afternoon, by looking at the names, the seat locations (IIRC, the pilot hijacker was always in the front row in the seat closest to the cockpit), where the tickets were purchased, etc. It would be trivial for the Feds to look at similar data for Flight 23 and determine if anything resembling that pattern emerges.

There are three options here:

The FBI failed to follow up on very obvious leads (and it took TMZ to reveal it).

The FBI did follow up, found a fifth crew was indeed likely and didn't tell anybody.

The FBI did follow up and found that the people suspected on Flight 23 were completely outside the profile of the hijackers.

I'm going with door #3.

Would this be the same FBI that was told by their own agents that , just months earlier, Arab students at flight schools had stated they were not interested in learning how to land and take off, only how to fly once airborne - and didn't think this fact was worth further investigation?

 

[Brainster]

Yes. This would all be against the backdrop of an FBI which had few Arab speakers, was instantly undermanned after 9/11, and was forced to dredge up agents from across the country just to staff their ground operations in NYC, D.C., and the many follow-on investigations that grew from incoming intelligence.

In those first two weeks the FBI was overwhelmed by the job. And the Bureau was still suffering from the management decisions which led to the failures to head off the attacks in the first place. Their primary focus would be on the actual attacks, the planes, and backtracking the evidence from the boarding all the way to their entrance into the United States. There must have been hundreds of "suspicious" accounts to investigate in those first weeks. The story I'd heard about angry Arab men on 9/11 passenger jets came out of Denver and Sky Harbor in Arizona. I doubt there was anything significant to those stories.

Seriously, it doesn't take a speaker of Arabic to look at the flight manifest of Flight 23 and check a few things:

Who was seated in first class or business class? In all four of the hijacked flights no hijacker was seated in economy. On UA 175, they occupied 5 of the front 40 seats, but because the plane was not even close to full they were 5 of the first 20 passengers. How hard is it to scan a flight manifest for the first 20 passengers and see if there are a few Arab-sounding names? When you look at the flight manifests of the other flights it's really easy.

BTW, I will correct myself on one point I made earlier. Hanjour and Jarrah were in the front seat closest to the cockpit, while Al-Shehhi and Atta chose to sit a few rows back, with muscle hijackers both behind and in front of them.

Can we match any of those names with pilots? All four of the pilot hijackers had commercial pilot licenses.

If I were the FBI, I'd have done that check for quite a few flights, certainly any that had been reported as having suspicious passengers.