TMZ's "The Fifth Plane" Documentary on Fox

[Brainster]

Good point about the boxcutters and if the argument is that somebody put them on board (the wrong plane) for the benefit of the hijackers, suddenly we have an expanding group of co-conspirators.

 

[smartcooky]

Good point about the boxcutters and if the argument is that somebody put them on board (the wrong plane) for the benefit of the hijackers, suddenly we have an expanding group of co-conspirators.

Well, it has long been considered likely by security agencies that the hijackers had help from insiders at the airports. The fact that before 9/11, airport security was outsourced to private contractors and was much less stringent than TSA’s current standards, tends to support that view, as just about anyone could work for an airport authority with little if any background checking.

 

[MBDK]

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

I cannot recall the exact timeline, but I do remember sometime within a year or two of the attacks, hearing that there were box cutters found on at least one other flight that day (of the attacks), raising suspicions of plans for additional hijackings. Like everyone else who has similarly commented, I never heard of any follow-up.

 

[Brainster]

Well, it has long been considered likely by security agencies that the hijackers had help from insiders at the airports. The fact that before 9/11, airport security was outsourced to private contractors and was much less stringent than TSA’s current standards, tends to support that view, as just about anyone could work for an airport authority with little if any background checking.

So tell us why you think the FBI never followed up on this. To save time, I will state what I think happened. I think the FBI investigated Flight 23 very carefully and found that the "Arabs" were actually not Arabs and/or did not match the profile of the hijackers, even vaguely. The woman with the large, hairy hands turned out to be transgender, or just a woman with large, hairy hands. And they didn't "clear" the people on that flight in the sense that they didn't bother announcing that it turned out to be a nothing-burger, because announcing the clearing of people is not the focus of the FBI, but I'd be willing to bet that agents did clear them to the extent of crossing them off a list, they just never announced it. Did they ever "clear" the story about a DC police helicopter being hijacked that day? There were a bazillion false leads about 9-11.

BTW, you may not realize it, but the source on this is TMZ, which is a website/TV show that primarily covers celebrity misbehavior. This is definitely far afield for them.

 

[bknight]

Well, it has long been considered likely by security agencies that the hijackers had help from insiders at the airports. The fact that before 9/11, airport security was outsourced to private contractors and was much less stringent than TSA’s current standards, tends to support that view, as just about anyone could work for an airport authority with little if any background checking.

OK, if there was outside help putting boxcutters in the seat pockets of those airplanes to be hijacked by ground crew that had been bribed(possibly), then why didn't the FBI investigate the occurrence and arrest those perps during the investigation? Why didn't the FBI in the ensuing years indicate that they investigated but found no substance in this manner, or could not identify those perps?
In the back of my mind, which has issues remembering the past, I thought that the boxcutters were scanned at security and released as "work tools". I realize that may be incorrect so don't jump on me too hard.

 

[MBDK]

For what it's worth, I found this article from 2011 that has different details. From -
https://whyy.org/articles/the-5th-plane-to-be-seized-on-911-and-the-terrorists-who-got-away/

Yesterday’s Wilmington (Delaware) News-Journal featured a front-page article on the Delaware Air National Guard’s first female general, Carol Timmons, who was promoted to that rank at a ceremony on Saturday. General Timmons has had a long career as a pilot, including time as a commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines.

The profile of General Timmons recounts that on the morning of September 11, 2001, she was the first officer on United Airlines flight 23 preparing to take-off from New York’s JFK Airport bound for Los Angeles. The plane had already pulled away from the gate and was taxiing down the runway when the airport was shut down and the crew was ordered to secure the cockpit.

Timmons confirmed that as the pilot grabbed the crash ax, she jumped from her seat and started barricading the cockpit door. From the other side of the barricade the cabin crew relayed their concern about four young Arab men in first-class who became agitated when the take-off was cancelled, and fled from the plane when it returned to the terminal. Box cutters and Al Qaeda documents were later found in their luggage.

This is collaborated somewhat here -
https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/...-guard-members-tell-personal-accounts-of-911/

Shortly after arriving at the gate, Timmons said one of flight attendants called up to the cabin with some disconcerting news.

"She said, ‘We've got some guys back here that are very agitated that we're going back and that we're not taking off and they look Middle Eastern,' and the captain said there was really nothing that he could do but to let operations know about them," Timmons said.

As soon as we got to the gate and got the door open, those guys were off, she said. "It was total chaos at the airport and they just disappeared into the crowd and there was nothing we could do."

Some believe that Timmons' plane was intended to be the fifth to be hijacked that day. After searching the plane, investigators found evidence of ties to al Qaida in the bags of the men who disappeared.

In my opinion, this also bolsters TMZ's suspicions.

 

[smartcooky]

OK, if there was outside help putting boxcutters in the seat pockets of those airplanes to be hijacked by ground crew that had been bribed(possibly), then why didn't the FBI investigate the occurrence and arrest those perps during the investigation? Why didn't the FBI in the ensuing years indicate that they investigated but found no substance in this manner, or could not identify those perps?

So tell us why you think the FBI never followed up on this?

How do you know they didn't? Do you not realize that this is what the flight crew are wondering?

The FBI did investigate. They took statements from the flight crew and questioned them for a few hours. They discovered the aircraft had been entered without authorization when they found both the outside and the inside forward E&E Bay hatches open, and yet they never got back to the crew, or to the airline about this matter - to let them know the people they suspected had been cleared of any suspicion, or to explain to the airline why their airliner was broken into after it had been secured at their request.

 

[bknight]

How do you know they didn't? Do you not realize that this is what the flight crew are wondering?

The FBI did investigate. They took statements from the flight crew and questioned them for a few hours. They discovered the aircraft had been entered without authorization when they found both the outside and the inside forward E&E Bay hatches open, and yet they never got back to the crew, or to the airline about this matter - to let them know the people they suspected had been cleared of any suspicion, or to explain to the airline why their airliner was broken into after it had been secured at their request.

I don't know what the crew was wondering. Since they question the crew and then found the plane had been entered, either they were too busy with other aspects, they didn't deem it worthy of further investigation or the screwed up.

After the attacks it was generally assumed that the 19 boarded aircraft carrying their own weapons. The rules allowed small knives to be carried on.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/10/1035131619/911-travel-timeline-tsa

Why would this one plane be different? Now I'm not saying that 23 was/wasn't part of the plan, but it seems somewhat different than the other four in character.

ETA: Were any groundcrew indicted for conspiracy? When all the information D/Ld from OBM PCs was there any information on a part of the plan that wasn't executed?

 

[Brainster]

How do you know they didn't? Do you not realize that this is what the flight crew are wondering?

The FBI did investigate. They took statements from the flight crew and questioned them for a few hours. They discovered the aircraft had been entered without authorization when they found both the outside and the inside forward E&E Bay hatches open, and yet they never got back to the crew, or to the airline about this matter - to let them know the people they suspected had been cleared of any suspicion, or to explain to the airline why their airliner was broken into after it had been secured at their request.

How rude of them! You'd almost think they had better things to do than to let everybody know the status of the dry leads that were provided to them. As an aside, I was interviewed by the FBI about 30 years ago. A client of mine had falsified tax returns as part of a construction loan request. And you know what? They never got back to me as to the status of the case.

 

[smartcooky]

How rude of them! You'd almost think they had better things to do than to let everybody know the status of the dry leads that were provided to them. As an aside, I was interviewed by the FBI about 30 years ago. A client of mine had falsified tax returns as part of a construction loan request. And you know what? They never got back to me as to the status of the case.

OK. The FBI didn't get back to you 30 years ago, so that means they never get back to anyone. Got it!

In fact, most investigating agencies in the world, and that includes your FBI, will more often than not come back to complainant and report if their fears were unfounded or if the investigation came to nothing. On the other hand, when an investigation is ongoing, or goes cold... THAT is when they don't get back to you unless they need more information.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't know what the crew was wondering. Since they question the crew and then found the plane had been entered, either they were too busy with other aspects, they didn't deem it worthy of further investigation or the screwed up.

After the attacks it was generally assumed that the 19 boarded aircraft carrying their own weapons. The rules allowed small knives to be carried on.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/10/1035131619/911-travel-timeline-tsa

Why would this one plane be different? Now I'm not saying that 23 was/wasn't part of the plan, but it seems somewhat different than the other four in character.

Assumed is the active word here. It is not known for sure how the hijackers got their weapons on board, it is only speculation. Even the 9/11 Commission Report is not clear on how the hijackers got their weapons on board... suspicions but no confirmations

ETA: Were any groundcrew indicted for conspiracy?

It took 12 years before the first terrorist involved in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 was brought to justice.

It took 32 years to charge another of the bomb-makers in 2020

Maybe the investigation of Flight 23 is still ongoing

@Brainster: Clearly the investigation here was ongoing and the FBI said... ahem, nothing for 32 years!

When all the information D/Ld from OBM PCs was there any information on a part of the plan that wasn't executed?

I don't know, was there? Hoe would we know? Has ANY of the information gleaned from OBL's Laptops and Hard Drives ever been released?

 

[Jim_MDP]

OK. The FBI didn't get back to you 30 years ago, so that means they never get back to anyone. Got it!



In fact, most investigating agencies in the world, and that includes your FBI, will more often than not come back to complainant and report if their fears were unfounded or if the investigation came to nothing. On the other hand, when an investigation is ongoing, or goes cold... THAT is when they don't get back to you unless they need more information.

I'm fairly agnostic on the truth of this narrative, and still uncomfortable looking up any "Special Report" Fox deems important enough to back or broadcast. They mostly make me nauseous.
But I will say, it occurred to me that Law Enforcement usually is careful not to name persons of interest that haven't already been publicly outed. It puts a target on anyone similarly named. Hell, here in 'murica you wouldn't even need the similarly. [emoji35]

As an anecdotal aside on LEO follow-ups...
20 odd years ago I had a call from San Diego Sheriff's Dep't that a pistol registered in my name (which I had sold a year prior to a local SF Bay Area gun shop) was used in an armed robbery down there. That's damn serious. I told them what shop I sold it to (who apparently never changed reg when passing it on) and... never heard another peep about the matter. [emoji15]
I'd think I was due at least a courtesy call, yeah?

.
ETA: Christ, I wonder if that's why I'm legally barred from entering Canada. I never really give the incident any thought and always assumed it was my two DUIs from decades past (they refused to explain at the border and it's a hefty fee to apply for a reversal with details/reasoning, so I never have).

 

[bknight]

Assumed is the active word here. It is not known for sure how the hijackers got their weapons on board, it is only speculation. Even the 9/11 Commission Report is not clear on how the hijackers got their weapons on board... suspicions but no confirmations



It took 12 years before the first terrorist involved in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 was brought to justice.

It took 32 years to charge another of the bomb-makers in 2020

Maybe the investigation of Flight 23 is still ongoing

@Brainster: Clearly the investigation here was ongoing and the FBI said... ahem, nothing for 32 years!



I don't know, was there? Hoe would we know? Has ANY of the information gleaned from OBL's Laptops and Hard Drives ever been released?

I can't argue with assumptions I was just reporting that the regulations at the time allowed small knives on airplanes and if they were carried onto the plane, it was no big deal nor would they have been confiscated. As far as OBL's hard drives, I have no idea, but asked because you seem to be well informed on this matter. If you know nothing about information so be it.
As I stated before I don't have an opinion whether 23 was to be involved or not. I'm just pointing out what seems to be "holes" in the story.

 

[smartcooky]

I can't argue with assumptions I was just reporting that the regulations at the time allowed small knives on airplanes and if they were carried onto the plane, it was no big deal nor would they have been confiscated. As far as OBL's hard drives, I have no idea, but asked because you seem to be well informed on this matter. If you know nothing about information so be it.
As I stated before I don't have an opinion whether 23 was to be involved or not. I'm just pointing out what seems to be "holes" in the story.

I am well informed on the aviation side of things, especially the maintenance side. For me two things are very concerning...

1. The flight crew observed uniformed people inside their aircraft AFTER it was evacuated, instructions given to lock it down, and for the jetway to be pulled. If their observations were correct, and several of them observed this so I have no reason at all to disbelieve them, then that is a huge red flag. There is simply no way those people would have been authorized to be there unless it was requested by aviation security or the airline itself.

2. Some time later, the FBI found the outer and inter access hatches of the Forward Electronics and Equipment Bay open. This is an even bigger red flag. Again, there is simply no-way that anyone is allowed to access the outer hatch to gain access to an aircraft unless they have specific authorization to do so. And in this case the only people allowed to do so are maintenance engineers who have business in that Bay.

I keep repeating the above two issues because they are very, very significant, and some here are not attaching sufficient importance to them. I have seen people post the the effect that "oh, probably just some maintenance guy doing his job"... NO! The aircraft hadn't flown anywhere, so there would be no maintenance actions to perform. Even if there were, EVERY maintenance action MUST be written and signed off in the aircraft maintenance log. Every time an access hatch or maintenance door of any kind is opened and some action performed, someone has to sign their name to it so there are records, e.g. if an electronics box is swapped out, the serial numbers must be recorded, a repair docket raised for the one that was pulled out. If there were records that explained the access, the crew would have been told... they weren't, so the access was unauthorized. The aircraft was debarked and closed - who the hell is even going to raise a maintenance issue for an aircraft that hadn't been anywhere, in the midst of a terrorist attack with the airport having been ordered evacuated?

Even under the pre-9/11 security protocols, there is no way that anyone was allowed to wander willy-nilly onto an aircraft on the tarmac, least of all through the bottom ******* access hatch!!!

 

[Allen773]

From November 1999:

The pilot of America West Flight 90, bound here from Phoenix with a stop in Columbus, requested emergency procedures because the two men were asking suspicious questions and one had jiggled the cockpit door, according to officials of Port Columbus International Airport, who got the pilot's call about 15 minutes before the landing. About 90 passengers were taken off at the end of a runway and loaded onto buses to the terminal.

Muhammad Al-Qudhaieen, 34, and Hamdan Alshalawi, 37, both graduate students at Arizona universities, said at yesterday's news conference that they were humiliated based solely on their complexion and language, having engaged in nothing other than normal behavior: asking questions of the flight attendant, speaking in Arabic and making hand gestures to each other. They were headed for a meeting hosted by the university that sponsors their U.S. studies and, according to a CAIR lawyer, a dinner at the Saudi Embassy here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...eleased/87758014-a934-422a-963e-ad2259014c99/

The FBI cleared these two men at the time.

After 9/11 this incident was seen by federal investigators in a more suspicious light. They were associates of a bunch of those mentioned in FBI Agent Ken Williams’s pre-9/11 memo regarding the fact that several Arab men in Arizona with extremist associations were taking flying lessons. Another associate of this group was Hani Hanjour, although he was unknown to Williams prior to 9/11.

This is related to the (credible IMO) accusations of a broader financial and logistical network for the 9/11 hijackers that was organized by Al-Qaeda sympathizers within the Saudi government. There are tens of thousands of classified FBI files on this subject regarding Florida alone.

I wonder if any of these United 23 guys were Saudi nationals or supported by the aforementioned network of sympathetic Saudi officials. If so, it’s just another example of the FBI—and the US government in general—covering up “embarrassing” things regarding our ally the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

 

[MBDK]

Hmmm... Surprised no one has picked up the mention that the suspicious men from flight 23 abandoned their luggage/bags, which both of my post #46 sources claimed contained items that linked them to Al Qaida. I would think that since my second link from that post is an official website of the United States government for the national guard, and contains quotes and details from 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, there would be more interest in her story. Oh well...

 

[Shrinker]

Hmmm... Surprised no one has picked up the mention that the suspicious men from flight 23 abandoned their luggage/bags, which both of my post #46 sources claimed contained items that linked them to Al Qaida. I would think that since my second link from that post is an official website of the United States government for the national guard, and contains quotes and details from 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, there would be more interest in her story. Oh well...

It not all that compelling. The National Guard piece is a bit of human interest journalism, not an official statement. The story about the evidence found in the baggage seems to shift. Sometimes it’s boxcutters, sometimes it’s ties to Al Qaeda. How reliable is it? What’s the primary source? It’s quite possible the primary source only said box cutters were found nearby and, after a couple of rounds of the telephone game that became boxcutters in the Arabs’ luggage.

But even if true, it’s not making sense. If they had boxcutters in their (presumably carry-on) luggage why was a B team needed to sneak boxcutters onto the plane? Also how did the hand luggage get left behind? If they were agitated and intent on making a getaway why didn’t they make a best effort to take their incriminating baggage? Why did the B team have to sneak into the plane again during a security lockdown? Why did the B team try to sneak into a different plane to the one they first snuck into? Did they forget where they left the boxcutters, or does this require a C team, because the B team’s shift ended?

It’s all very truthy to me, sounding the classic notes of an overcomplicated plot, with a blossoming cast of conspirators and blunders required to link minor anomalies together. It has a sort of Shrodinger’s Plot effect, where you have to simultaneously believe in multiple incompatible plots if you want to make use of all the anomalies.

The article you linked to says the cabin crew raised concerns about the Arabs after the passengers knew the towers had been attacked by terrorists. How many other groups of Arab passengers were getting sideways glances in those moments? It makes a huge difference that the Arab’s behaviour was viewed as suspicious only after the terrorist attacks were known by both crew and Arabs, and not before as some tellings would imply.

If you take away the weak stuff, we only have the hatches, and reports of uniformed persons on the plane, which is curious, but amid the nationwide panic, is it really that significant? America still had its usual business going on that morning. Maybe the lock-down interrupted some kind of sting operation by one LE branch didn’t tell another LE branch about. Maybe the ‘woman’ was a fugitive. Maybe there was just confusion and panic. Had this happened to any other plane in the US, would a whole constellation of uninteresting anomalies come to light around that plane instead? Probably, which reduces its significance by a factor of about 5,000.

And why on earth would one hijacker have to be disguised as a woman?! Why not chose the guy with the fairest hands?

 

[MBDK]

It not all that compelling. The National Guard piece is a bit of human interest journalism, not an official statement. The story about the evidence found in the baggage seems to shift. Sometimes it’s boxcutters, sometimes it’s ties to Al Qaeda. How reliable is it? What’s the primary source? It’s quite possible the primary source only said box cutters were found nearby and, after a couple of rounds of the telephone game that became boxcutters in the Arabs’ luggage.

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.

But even if true, it’s not making sense. If they had boxcutters in their (presumably carry-on) luggage why was a B team needed to sneak boxcutters onto the plane? Also how did the hand luggage get left behind? If they were agitated and intent on making a getaway why didn’t they make a best effort to take their incriminating baggage? Why did the B team have to sneak into the plane again during a security lockdown? Why did the B team try to sneak into a different plane to the one they first snuck into? Did they forget where they left the boxcutters, or does this require a C team, because the B team’s shift ended?

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..

It’s all very truthy to me, sounding the classic notes of an overcomplicated plot, with a blossoming cast of conspirators and blunders required to link minor anomalies together. It has a sort of Shrodinger’s Plot effect, where you have to simultaneously believe in multiple incompatible plots if you want to make use of all the anomalies.

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.

The article you linked to says the cabin crew raised concerns about the Arabs after the passengers knew the towers had been attacked by terrorists. How many other groups of Arab passengers were getting sideways glances in those moments? It makes a huge difference that the Arab’s behaviour was viewed as suspicious only after the terrorist attacks were known by both crew and Arabs, and not before as some tellings would imply.

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.

If you take away the weak stuff, we only have the hatches, and reports of uniformed persons on the plane, which is curious, but amid the nationwide panic, is it really that significant? America still had its usual business going on that morning. Maybe the lock-down interrupted some kind of sting operation by one LE branch didn’t tell another LE branch about. Maybe the ‘woman’ was a fugitive. Maybe there was just confusion and panic. Had this happened to any other plane in the US, would a whole constellation of uninteresting anomalies come to light around that plane instead? Probably, which reduces its significance by a factor of about 5,000.

And why on earth would one hijacker have to be disguised as a woman?! Why not chose the guy with the fairest hands?

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?

 

[Axxman300]

Here is a link to the documentary (also available on Hulu):

https://www.fox.com/watch/b381947e3ee3d611f8e981ecd1f4baac/

This version has commercials.

The interesting thing about this story is the witnesses are credible, in that I believe the saw what the saw. The questions are: where these five people terrorists? And did they have help on the ground at this airport?

The FBI declassified a lot of their reports, but only after the Biden Administration put the screws to them. The problem is that much of the FBI's work in those first six months after 9/11 remains out of public view. 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.

On a side note, I finding amusing that the flight was briefly delayed because United wanted to give great service by getting the meals right. Must be nice to fly first class. And to play devil's advocate in this part of the story, I can tell you the reason the Purser wanted to get those fruit trays is that in most cases the passengers who claim they're not going to be hungry, and it's no problem are almost always the same passengers who are on the phone, first thing, complaining to the airline that their flight had no vegetarian meals, and they demand compensation.

 

[smartcooky]

Here is a link to the documentary (also available on Hulu):

https://www.fox.com/watch/b381947e3ee3d611f8e981ecd1f4baac/

This version has commercials.

The interesting thing about this story is the witnesses are credible, in that I believe the saw what the saw. The questions are: where these five people terrorists? And did they have help on the ground at this airport?

The FBI declassified a lot of their reports, but only after the Biden Administration put the screws to them. The problem is that much of the FBI's work in those first six months after 9/11 remains out of public view. 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. On a side note, I finding amusing that the flight was briefly delayed because United wanted to give great service by getting the meals right. Must be nice to fly first class. And to play devil's advocate in this part of the story, I can tell you the reason the Purser wanted to get those fruit trays is that in most cases the passengers who claim they're not going to be hungry, and it's no problem are almost always the same passengers who are on the phone, first thing, complaining to the airline that their flight had no vegetarian meals, and they demand compensation.

The FBI and other alphabet soup agencies are often reluctant to release information on suspects because of the risk of compromising sources and methods. If they released names, for example, other terrorists in the organization may well be able to work out how the FBI got that information, or even worse, who gave it to them.

 

[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.