TMZ's "The Fifth Plane" Documentary on Fox

[Axxman300]

TMZ has a documentary airing on Fox at 9PM, Monday 20 March:

https://www.tmz.com/2023/03/18/9-11-the-fifth-plane-suspicious-passengers-food-united-23-hijackers/

The hook:

TMZ has conducted a 6-month investigation into United Flight 23 -- scheduled to leave JFK at 9 AM ... bound for Los Angeles. We interviewed 3 flight attendants, the pilot, the United dispatcher, a member of the 9/11 Commission and others about a series of suspicious activities on the plane ... suspicious enough for the FBI to get involved.

There were other reasons the flight attendants were suspicious of the 4 passengers in first, along with 2 others in business class.

The plane taxied to the runway and was close to taking off when the World Trade Center was hit and the airport shut down. United 23 went back to the gate and was evacuated -- the plane was empty and locked. Twenty minutes later, people on the ground saw 2 uniformed people running in United 23's passenger cabin. Authorities came a short time later, opened the door and found the hatch -- that led from the belly of the plane to the cabin -- was open.

This story kicked around the internet throughout late 2001 through mid-2002.

I'm curious to see this one.

 

[gabeygoat]

does sound interesting

 

[smartcooky]

This sounds bloody interesting.

The finding of four box-cutters in some first-class seat pockets of the aircraft parked next to where United 23 was parked sounds fascinating. It would be interested to know which seats they were in, and if they were the same seat numbers that the four suspicious people were booked in.

If these were put in the wrong aircraft by mistake, that would imply the 9/11 hijackers had help from one or more persons on the airport ground staff.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Aircraft parked at boarding gates have all sorts of hatches open while various things are loaded and unloaded, and systems checked, etc. If the aircraft was then evacuated and closed in a hurry, it's perfectly reasonable that one of the ground crew forgot to close a hatch or two in the rush.

 

[bknight]

I don't buy into this one. The four planes that did crash were all to take off within a few minutes of each other, the last was delayed a bit, but finally took off. When the fourth plane hijack was executed the passengers began to use phones to find out about the three others that had crashed into buildings. So the planning was to have all the planes take off around the same time, not one to be on the ground when the airport was closed down. Doesn't fit the plan, IMO.

 

[Axxman300]

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.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't buy into this one. The four planes that did crash were all to take off within a few minutes of each other, the last was delayed a bit, but finally took off. When the fourth plane hijack was executed the passengers began to use phones to find out about the three others that had crashed into buildings.

07:59 – American Airlines Flight 11 departs Logan

08:14 – United Airlines Flight 175 departs Logan

08:20 – American Airlines Flight 77, departs Washington Dulles

08:42 – United Airlines Flight 93 departs Newark

09:00 - United Airlines Flight 23 was scheduled to depart JFK

The four 9/11 planes took off over a period of 43 minutes. That is a spacing of 15, 6 and 22 minutes respectively. 17 minutes later for a fifth plane is not unreasonable.

So the planning was to have all the planes take off around the same time, not one to be on the ground when the airport was closed down. Doesn't fit the plan, IMO.

09:03 – Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower. It was only at this point that everyone realizes the US is under attack. Flight 23 would already have been well in the air if it had departed JFK at its scheduled time. US Airspace was not shut down until 09:45.

 

[bknight]

07:59 – American Airlines Flight 11 departs Logan

08:14 – United Airlines Flight 175 departs Logan

08:20 – American Airlines Flight 77, departs Washington Dulles

08:42 – United Airlines Flight 93 departs Newark

09:00 - United Airlines Flight 23 was scheduled to depart JFK

The four 9/11 planes took off over a period of 43 minutes. That is a spacing of 15, 6 and 22 minutes respectively. 17 minutes later for a fifth plane is not unreasonable.



09:03 – Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower. It was only at this point that everyone realizes the US is under attack. Flight 23 would already have been well in the air if it had departed JFK at its scheduled time. US Airspace was not shut down until 09:45.

That is closer than I estimated without checking the exact times, so it is possible. One question remains, were there a group of Muslims on flight 23?

 

[bknight]

For all those that watched, What is the prevailing opinion on the premises? Remember we're dealing with 20 year old memories!

 

[smartcooky]

That is closer than I estimated without checking the exact times, so it is possible.

Just let me say that I am open to the possibility but will need some pretty compelling evidence to convince me.

One question remains, were there a group of Muslims on flight 23?

There were apparently several people of Arab appearance on the plane. The behaviour of some of them was sufficiently concerning (including becoming very agitated and saying "we just want to take off" when it became apparent that the flight was bring delayed) that a couple of the flight attendants felt compelled to inform the captain about them.

Now I have not yet seen this documentary, but I have read about some of its content. As I said, I will be approaching it with an open mind.

 

[Axxman300]

For all those that watched, What is the prevailing opinion on the premises? Remember we're dealing with 20 year old memories!

I agree with Smartcooky on both points.

As I said, this was a story that kicked around the internet in the months just after 9/11, and it has been consistent. The Pilot and the lawyer interviewed had a good point that the FBI never got back to them to say those Arab passengers were cleared, and there was no issue. In fact, this side investigation has never been made public, if for no other reason than to shut down speculation.

Doesn't make it 100% true, though. We've seen the FBI and government keep so many ridiculous things classified for no reason in relation to 9/11, and this might just be a long string of extremely odd coincidences.

 

[The Common Potato]

It's in the Daily Mail so it must be true!

 

[bknight]

I agree with Smartcooky on both points.

As I said, this was a story that kicked around the internet in the months just after 9/11, and it has been consistent. The Pilot and the lawyer interviewed had a good point that the FBI never got back to them to say those Arab passengers were cleared, and there was no issue. In fact, this side investigation has never been made public, if for no other reason than to shut down speculation.

Doesn't make it 100% true, though. We've seen the FBI and government keep so many ridiculous things classified for no reason in relation to 9/11, and this might just be a long string of extremely odd coincidences.

I had never heard of this fight but was working offshore. No TV just internet but that was focused on the job, not newsy items.

 

[smartcooky]

OK, so I have just finished watching the TMZ documentary, and I have to say it was compelling.

1. Five Arabs, four of whom who were acting suspiciously enough that the cabin crew reported them to the captain.

2. According to the two flight attendants, one of the Arabs was a man dressed as a woman (with full face hijab) but "she" had large hairy hands.

3. These Arabs became agitated when there were delays, stating that they "just wanted to take off".

4. After everyone was evacuated from the plane the aircraft was locked and the whole airport was in lock-down, yet the cabin crew saw (through the cabin windows) uniformed people running up and down inside cabin of the plane.

5. When the FBI entered the aircraft, they found both hatches (the exterior tarmac access and the interior cabin access) to the Forward Electronics and Equipment Bay open. There is no valid reason why anyone should have been accessing the forward E&E bay or the cabin of a locked aircraft, least of all during an airport lock-down.

6. The FBI found box cutters in the first class seat pouches of the aircraft that had been parked next to the Flight 23 on the tarmac - an aircraft with a tail number that differed from flight 23 by only one digit.

If all these observations and facts is just a string of co-incidences, it is a hugely unlikely string.

 

[Norman Alexander]

OK, so I have just finished watching the TMZ documentary, and I have to say it was compelling.

1. Five Arabs, four of whom who were acting suspiciously enough that the cabin crew reported them to the captain.

2. According to the two flight attendants, one of the Arabs was a man dressed as a woman (with full face hijab) but "she" had large hairy hands.

3. These Arabs became agitated when there were delays, stating that they "just wanted to take off".

4. After everyone was evacuated from the plane the aircraft was locked and the whole airport was in lock-down, yet the cabin crew saw (through the cabin windows) uniformed people running up and down inside cabin of the plane.

Could that have been the FBI doing a search? Or the cleaning crew leaving the plane in a hurry?

5. When the FBI entered the aircraft, they found both hatches (the exterior tarmac access and the interior cabin access) to the Forward Electronics and Equipment Bay open. There is no valid reason why anyone should have been accessing the forward E&E bay or the cabin of a locked aircraft, least of all during an airport lock-down.

Wrong. There could be any number of reasons why these may have been open during normal ground operations, and accidentally left open after the area was evacuated in a hurry. Also, if the aircraft was locked, how did the FBI get on board?

6. The FBI found box cutters in the first class seat pouches of the aircraft that had been parked next to the Flight 23 on the tarmac - an aircraft with a tail number that differed from flight 23 by only one digit.

Seriously?? All the aircraft from the same company pull up to to same wing of an airport. And airlines tend to have a fleet of aircraft of the same type. So the possibility of them being sister aircraft is not insignificant. Also, why is the tail-number significant in this? It is the flight-number that is important to the story - that determines where the plane is routed on this flight.

If all these observations and facts is just a string of co-incidences, it is a hugely unlikely string.

An irrelevant string of coincidences.

 

[smartcooky]

Could that have been the FBI doing a search? Or the cleaning crew leaving the plane in a hurry?

No. The aircraft was locked and the whole of JFK Airport was on lock-down and in the process of being evacuated. This observation was by the cabin crew just a few minutes after they had left and locked the aircraft. There would be NO cleaning crews doing anything other than going exactly wherever they were being instructed to go, and the FBI didn't arrive until later.

Wrong. There could be any number of reasons why these may have been open during normal ground operations, and accidentally left open after the area was evacuated in a hurry.

No. It was the FBI who found the hatches open, and I repeat, there is NO reason why any one would be accessing the E&E Bay hatches while the airport was being evacuated. There is no maintenance to do and no duties to perform. Also, as someone who is very familiar with airport tarmac operations, it is very, very unusual for the outer hatch to E&E Bay hatch to be used, and it is certainly never used to egress the aircraft unless someone is left behind in the cabin. Maintenance crews will almost always access via the cabin for the simple reason that they have to leave that way to replace the carpet over the cabin hatch... you cannot do that from inside the E&E bay.

Also, if the aircraft was locked, how did the FBI get on board?

Via the air-bridge later in the day. By that time, there were no ground staff, no aircrew and no passengers anywhere in JFK, only the FBI themselves and other investigators.

Seriously?? All the aircraft from the same company pull up to same wing of an airport. And airlines tend to have a fleet of aircraft of the same type. So the possibility of them being sister aircraft is not insignificant. Also, why is the tail-number significant in this? It is the flight-number that is important to the story - that determines where the plane is routed on this flight.

I think you are missing the important point here. You understand that an important element of this the suggestion that the potential hijackers had help. It is not known whether the 19 hijackers had inside help on the ground staff, but it is something that has always been suspected. Also, the tail number IS important because it is written ON the plane (the Flight number is not) and ground staff could easily find out which tail number was associated with which flight number. The inference here is that the inside help mistakenly put the weapons on the wrong plane.

An irrelevant string of coincidences.

I disagree.

If you think that several Arabs, one of them a man dressed as a woman wearing a hijab, acting suspiciously on a plane on the morning of 9/11/2001 and becoming agitated when it became clear the plane wasn't going to take off is "irrelevant" then I really don't know what to tell you.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I have no problem in accepting there is suspicion about the "Arabs who just wanted to take off" and even inside help. But the sequence of events as described does not really logically flow as a support narrative.

The story is that the open hatches on a locked and empty plane indicate someone with knowledge broke INTO the plane after it was locked, then exited later. The story of people observed on board after it was locked would seem to confirm this. Assuming true, what were they doing?

Planting weapons in First Class? Why? The plane is going nowhere and JFK is locked down. The "Arabs" have long since left the plane and will likely not be flying anywhere today. So why even bother to go to all that trouble of breaking in at all? Why create or deepen suspicion when that would be entirely counter-productive?

Maybe they went there to retrieve what they planted previously, to remove evidence? Clearly they failed - the FBI found the knives later. Or being really dumb, they simply forgot where they planted them? Perhaps they wanted to allay suspicion of the "Arabs" by moving the knives to different seats. Why not just take them off the plane entirely and remove all the evidence?

That's my problem: None of the story makes sense.

 

[MBDK]

I have no problem in accepting there is suspicion about the "Arabs who just wanted to take off" and even inside help. But the sequence of events as described does not really logically flow as a support narrative.

Allow me to offer my take.

The story is that the open hatches on a locked and empty plane indicate someone with knowledge broke INTO the plane after it was locked, then exited later. The story of people observed on board after it was locked would seem to confirm this. Assuming true, what were they doing?

<snipped your irrelevant (to MY explanation) conjecture>

Maybe they went there to retrieve what they planted previously, to remove evidence?

That is EXACTLY what they meant to do. However, as previously noted, the two planes with nearly identical identification numbers were mixed up by the co-conspirators earlier in the day, and the knives were planted on the wrong plane. After the target plane was locked down, it was entered via the service hatches in an attempt to remove the previously placed knives. Those who entered could have done so not knowing the knives were originally placed on the wrong plane. I believe there are two possible reasons for this:

1. (Least likely, IMHO) Those who planted knives on the wrong plane were now off-shift, and replaced by another crew unaware of the earlier blunder.

2. The knife planters, in their haste to remove evidence, either were unable to surmise their earlier mistake (or, as time was short, in the heat of the moment, were unable to reconcile whether they DID make that mistake, and searched for them anyway), and boarded the plane in a vain attempt to remove what wasn't there.

That's my problem: None of the story makes sense.

Due to this hectic conflation of events that morning, I propose my interpretation is quite plausible, if not very likely. Also, just to add a little extra note, the target plane, while being in lockdown, would have been nearly impossible to misidentify for that duration, and also been of primary focus for conspirators.

 

[smartcooky]

I have no problem in accepting there is suspicion about the "Arabs who just wanted to take off" and even inside help. But the sequence of events as described does not really logically flow as a support narrative.

Fair enough

The story is that the open hatches on a locked and empty plane indicate someone with knowledge broke INTO the plane after it was locked, then exited later. The story of people observed on board after it was locked would seem to confirm this. Assuming true, what were they doing?
Planting weapons in First Class? Why? The plane is going nowhere and JFK is locked down. The "Arabs" have long since left the plane and will likely not be flying anywhere today. So why even bother to go to all that trouble of breaking in at all? Why create or deepen suspicion when that would be entirely counter-productive?

Looking for the box cutters they planted in order to remove evidence of their own involvement, not recognizing the fact that they had mistakenly planted them on a different aircraft.

Maybe they went there to retrieve what they planted previously, to remove evidence? Clearly they failed - the FBI found the knives later.

On a different aircraft

Or being really dumb, they simply forgot where they planted them? Perhaps they wanted to allay suspicion of the "Arabs" by moving the knives to different seats. Why not just take them off the plane entirely and remove all the evidence?

Again, I think you are missing some important points

- The uniformed peoples were seen on aircraft "A" (Flight 23) after it taxied back, was evacuated and locked.

- The box cutters were found on aircraft "B", an aircraft that was originally parked right next to aircraft "A" and which had a tail number that was only one digit different

- Aircraft "A" (Flight 23) did not necessarily come back to the exact same gate that it left from when it taxied out to take off and was subsequently instructed to return.

That's my problem: None of the story makes sense.

It seems clear to me that the proposed narrative goes something like this

1. At some time early on the morning of 9/11/2001 (or perhaps the previous evening), persons unknown intended to plant box-cutters for the hijackers of Flight 23 in the seat pouches in first class, but they planted them in the wrong aircraft (an identical aircraft parked next to the Flight 23 aircraft), because they misread the tail number.

2. The crew and passengers boarded, there were five Arab passengers who were acting suspiciously enough that the cabin crew were concerned and reported this to the captain. One of the Arab passengers was clearly a man dressed as a woman wearing a hijab. They became very agitated when it became apparent that there were delays.

3. Flight 23 pushed back and started to taxi towards the departure runway where it ran into a queue of several other aircraft awaiting clearance.

4. The 9/11 attacks happened. All aircraft were instructed to taxi back to the gateway. Upon arrival at the gateway, the passengers and crew were instructed to disembark, and the aircraft was locked. One of the Arab passengers asked one of the cabin crew "did they get the White House?".

5. Several minutes later, the cabin crew saw uniformed people running up and their aisles of the aircraft they had just disembarked from. They observed this from the gateway, seeing through the cabin windows

6. JFK was evacuated of all aircrews, maintenance and ancillary staff and passengers

7. Some time later in the day the FBI arrived. They discovered both the exterior and interior hatches of the Forward E&E Bay open.

This is a reasonable and workable narrative, derived from the statements made by the cabin crew and aircrew from what they say they observed, in a setting of the circumstances surrounding 9/11. There is nothing here that is impossible, or that contradicts any other evidence. While I am not 100% convinced, neither am I dismissive. I find the evidence compelling enough to remain open minded about it. The cabin crew and aircrew were first-hand witnesses to what they experienced - and they are now convinced that they were going to be hijacked and crashed into a building just like the other four aircraft.

 

[Jim_MDP]

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]

 

[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