The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Swing Dangler]

Before 9/11, how many hijackings resulted in wholesale death?
Before 9/11, how many hijackings had EVERYONE on the flights die?

As I understand it, there was one; TWA 800, as they believe it was blown up. There was a plane hijacked in France where they managed to capture the hijackers and found multiple explosives on board, leading them to believe the hijackers intended to blow the plane up over Paris and "rain down death and destruction" over a major metro area.

One thing I forgot to mention about the gentleman I spoke with yesterday; he said that the majority of analysts prior to 9/11, when they thought of planes being associated with destruction, thought that the planes would be used in that manner; i.e. blowing them up over major cities to cause as much havoc as possible. Virtually none of them thought it was possible the planes themselves would be turned into weapons, at least of the ones he spoke to. I think that's fairly telling.

Here are a couple more planes and hijack incidents where pilots and some times all passengers were killed:

1977: German commandos storm a Lufthansa airliner in Mogadishu, Somalia, after a five-day stand-off during which Palestinian guerrillas have killed the plane's pilot; three hijackers die in the raid, while 86 hostages are freed

Japanese hijacker held after killing pilot
November 10, 2000
CBC News
A computer-game fan who wanted to try the real thing hijacked a Japanese jumbo jet Friday, stabbed the pilot to death in mid-air and seized control of the airliner before being overpowered by crew members, police and media said.
9/1/83Flight 007 (Boeing 747-230B)

I hate using Wiki, but you can read about more pilot deaths at the hands of hijackers here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Kor...s_and_accidents

There is no way the American public would have stood for it. People complain now about the security measures. What makes you thing the public would have accepted it before 9/11?

Before 9/11 there wasn't the tool of fear and terrorism over and over again repeated by the media and confirmed by the meaningless colorful threat level alert. No way the public would stand for it? Yeah, like the American public stands for anything anymore. People would have to live with it and deal with it like we do now. At least then it would have been proactive instead of reactive. I can respect leaders more if they choose to proactive instead of reactive.

Instead of going on a witch hunt and/of finding some sacrificial lambs,
A witch hunt and lambs? This is about people who failed miserably at their jobs resulting in 3000+ more deaths. So please stop apologizing and blaming no one for failure. That is the most ridiculous excuse I've ever heard.

I have seen transcripts from tenet where it does not ever mention targets inside the US when relating to this threat. Quoting from sources such as those does you no favours.

“Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off.” They leave the meeting frustrated, seeing little prospect for immediate action. Tenet and Black will both later recall the meeting as the starkest warning they gave the White House on al-Qaeda before 9/11 and one that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks if Rice had acted on it (see July 10, 2001) and conveyed their urgency to President Bush (Tenet was briefing Bush on a daily basis at this time, but he will later claim that Rice had a much better rapport with Bush)

Dodge noted. Lets see,

potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks

. Is that not specific enough?

Lapman

SD, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It sure is. Being proactive to ever increasing threat levels is an even better thing wouldn't you agree?

As far as the public warnings, how long do you thing it would have taking before people started ignoring them?

Tell me, what happens to someone who ignores the security checkpoints at airports and tries to the board the plane? I've never seen it happen, have you? It can't be a positive experience considering the security measures they take now.

What makes you think that they would have had time to reach their guns? .

The training I suggested, does that ring a bell? That of course depends on where the guns are located. However, your slipping into hypothetical details to maintain the "nobody to blame" game.
You have tried to counter preventative measures.Stop thinking like an apologist and think like a security expert.
Acceptance of heightened security comes from the government responding and being proactive to the hijack warnings and the increasing threat levels. Come on be more realistic. Why are you attempting to show how all of the preventive measures might have been defeated or worse useless? Sure they all could have been defeated by the terrorists, but at least if they were it was truly the hijacker's defeating the measures instead of the hijackers succeeding due to lack of appropriate measures.

Since the hijackers claimed that they had a bomb on board, the marshals would have been useless.

LOL. Ok. And the move to put marshalls on planes now is useless as well?
Hmm a gunshot wound to the head is useless against a 'claim' eh?
BTW, do you have a source for that claim and if they did have a bomb how the hell did that get through security?

As far as the public warnings, how long do you thing it would have taking before people started ignoring them? Why would anybody take a warning that was given 2 years ago any thought today? You're not being realistic.

Your using the American attitude today to determine how they would have reacted 6 or 7 years ago, correct? The attitude today is the way it is because of the numerous "misstatements" and "falsehoods" provided by the administration. Subtract all of the scandals, lies, and misstatements, of this administration and IMHO the American public would have the opposite response of your suggestion. Proactive versus reactive generally has a greater acceptance imho.

If they had, you would be on here claiming that the government was being too controlling and taking away rights.

Ahh the Nostradamus factor. If they did, and 9/11 would have been prevented, I wouldn't be on here.
And would it have been worth it if 9/11 was prevented? Never mind, I know the answer.

Before 9/11, how may hijackings ended with the airplane being run into a building?

It doesn't matter the number considering the training the IC was going through to respond to a plane hitting their respective building.

Sabrina
Virtually none of them thought it was possible the planes themselves would be turned into weapons, at least of the ones he spoke to. I think that's fairly telling.

I understand your qualifying your statement based upon the "ones he spoke to" but that doesn't match up with the training and drills for planes crashing into their respective IC buildings and the warnings provided by the counter-intel czar.

 

[Sabrina]

As I told SD a page or so ago, I work for a private contractor that has numerous contracts with the main intel agencies, so I'm around individuals on a daily basis that have both a lot of experience in intel and little experience in intel (the noobs versus the oldtimers, essentially). I don't personally handle the intel myself (although I'm working toward that eventually; I want to be a counterterrorism analyst), but the majority of the people around me do, and don't mind it when I ask questions. I am also a 1LT in the Army Reserves, MOS 35D (mind out of the gutter, Belz!), which is All Source Intelligence, and I am the tactical intelligence officer for my unit. I'll have six years in the Army on February 3rd, 2008, four years of which was active duty (I'm on an eight year contract).

 

[Sabrina]

One agency that I know of planned an exercise for a plane being deliberately crashed into their building, the NRO. I'm not sure of their motivation for that exercise, but one exercise does not a credible example make. Yes, the Pentagon had that MASCAL exercise, but bearing in mind that the main runway for Reagan International Airport IS on a line with the Pentagon, I think they were smart to plan for an accidental crash of an airliner, and it helped with 9/11 later. The MASCAL exercise was for an ACCIDENTAL crash, not a deliberate one, and since, as I've said, Reagan International's runway was more or less on a line with them, it was simply prudent planning.

 

[Swing Dangler]

One agency that I know of planned an exercise for a plane being deliberately crashed into their building, the NRO. I'm not sure of their motivation for that exercise, but one exercise does not a credible example make. Yes, the Pentagon had that MASCAL exercise, but bearing in mind that the main runway for Reagan International Airport IS on a line with the Pentagon, I think they were smart to plan for an accidental crash of an airliner, and it helped with 9/11 later. The MASCAL exercise was for an ACCIDENTAL crash, not a deliberate one, and since, as I've said, Reagan International's runway was more or less on a line with them, it was simply prudent planning.

So the motivation of the pilot determines preparedness? We planned for an accident not on purpose crash? I don't follow the logic.

If I'm not mistaken the NRO was a joint creation between the CIA and Air Force correct? The NRO also draws personnels from both agencies if I'm not mistaken. Would it be safe to assume they in whatever manner would be aware of the exercise?
The NRO's motivation for practicing a plane crashing into their HQ? Perhaps all of those warnings warning from the IC is a sufficient answer. However, they state it has nothing to do with terrorism.
Luckily for the terrorists it happened to be on 9/11 where personnel in charge of this aspect of the IC would be concerned with a drill until they canceled the exercise.

 

[lapman]

Here are a couple more planes and hijack incidents where pilots and some times all passengers were killed:

1977: German commandos storm a Lufthansa airliner in Mogadishu, Somalia, after a five-day stand-off during which Palestinian guerrillas have killed the plane's pilot; three hijackers die in the raid, while 86 hostages are freed

Japanese hijacker held after killing pilot
November 10, 2000
CBC News
A computer-game fan who wanted to try the real thing hijacked a Japanese jumbo jet Friday, stabbed the pilot to death in mid-air and seized control of the airliner before being overpowered by crew members, police and media said.
9/1/83Flight 007 (Boeing 747-230B)

I hate using Wiki, but you can read about more pilot deaths at the hands of hijackers here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Kor...s_and_accidents

Not a single one of them were flown into buildings. According to wiki, there were only 4 US aircraft hijacked. Only one was by a foreign national. One was going to be uses to run into a building by a disgruntled employee.

Before 9/11 there wasn't the tool of fear and terrorism over and over again repeated by the media and confirmed by the meaningless colorful threat level alert. No way the public would stand for it? Yeah, like the American public stands for anything anymore. People would have to live with it and deal with it like we do now.

You couldn't be more wrong. The American public tolerates it now because there is a reason for it. A few threats would not be viewed as a reason since hijacking was not looked on as a credible threat.

At least then it would have been proactive instead of reactive. I can respect leaders more if they choose to proactive instead of reactive.

Though true, most people would not look at it that way. Especially over time.

Instead of going on a witch hunt and/of finding some sacrificial lambs,
A witch hunt and lambs? This is about people who failed miserably at their jobs resulting in 3000+ more deaths. So please stop apologizing and blaming no one for failure. That is the most ridiculous excuse I've ever heard.

Wrong. This is about a system that failed miserably. It's about letting arrogance and interdepartmental mistrust get in the way of following procedure.

Lapman It sure is. Being proactive to ever increasing threat levels is an even better thing wouldn't you agree?

Yes I would agree. However most people don't see it that way when it causes inconvenience or costs them money.

Tell me, what happens to someone who ignores the security checkpoints at airports and tries to the board the plane? I've never seen it happen, have you? It can't be a positive experience considering the security measures they take now.

Security checkpoints are not published threats. Try an apples to apples comparison. How much to you pay attention to the security threat level now compared to 5 years ago.

The training I suggested, does that ring a bell? That of course depends on where the guns are located. However, your slipping into hypothetical details to maintain the "nobody to blame" game.

Wrong again. Like I said before, they couldn't even get a mayday out. What makes you thing they could have reached their guns, aimed and shot the hijackers in that cramped space. Have you ever been in a cockpit? Space is not a luxury. And any training the pilots had would have been dealt with by the training the hijackers went through.

You have tried to counter preventative measures.Stop thinking like an apologist and think like a security expert.

Yet people still get on board airliners without even going through the checkpoints.

Acceptance of heightened security comes from the government responding and being proactive to the hijack warnings and the increasing threat levels. Come on be more realistic. Why are you attempting to show how all of the preventive measures might have been defeated or worse useless? Sure they all could have been defeated by the terrorists, but at least if they were it was truly the hijacker's defeating the measures instead of the hijackers succeeding due to lack of appropriate measures.

Though true, the key phrase is that the hijackers would have succeeded. The only possible difference would be flight 93 if the sky marshal was also trained in removing people from the cockpit.

LOL. Ok. And the move to put marshalls on planes now is useless as well?
Hmm a gunshot wound to the head is useless against a 'claim' eh?
BTW, do you have a source for that claim and if they did have a bomb how the hell did that get through security?

I never said that they had a bomb, only that they claimed to have a bomb. How would the marshal know if they were bluffing? Would the sky marshal risk the lives of everyone? Remember, the hijackers didn't announce that they were going to fly the planes into buildings.

Your using the American attitude today to determine how they would have reacted 6 or 7 years ago, correct? The attitude today is the way it is because of the numerous "misstatements" and "falsehoods" provided by the administration. Subtract all of the scandals, lies, and misstatements, of this administration and IMHO the American public would have the opposite response of your suggestion. Proactive versus reactive generally has a greater acceptance imho.

It may be your opinion, but it not based on any facts. The fact is that people then as now do not want to be inconvenienced for what they would perceive as a bogus reason. Remember, there hadn't been a hijacking of an American airliner by a foreigner in over 25 years.

Ahh the Nostradamus factor. If they did, and 9/11 would have been prevented, I wouldn't be on here.
And would it have been worth it if 9/11 was prevented? Never mind, I know the answer.

Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing. If 9/11 was prevented, we wouldn't know about it except for maybe a single evening's news broadcast which would have been forgotten within a week.

It doesn't matter the number considering the training the IC was going through to respond to a plane hitting their respective building.

Nice duck. Try actually answering the question.

I understand your qualifying your statement based upon the "ones he spoke to" but that doesn't match up with the training and drills for planes crashing into their respective IC buildings and the warnings provided by the counter-intel czar.

Provide proof of this training including how often it was done. What was the basis of the airplanes crashing into the buildings?

 

[mjd1982]

Source for that last statement?

In all honesty, SD, I find the idea of "placing blame" for such a tremendous incident extremely odd. Unless human nature has changed drastically since I last looked, we don't usually place criminal blame on people if they make mistakes. Especially if the individual in question realizes the mistake and takes actions to correct it so it hopefully won't occur again. That's the major difference between a mistake and a calculated action, as I understand it; one is done deliberately, and one is done by accident. However, if I were forced to place blame, I would place the majority (i.e. about 75%) on Al-Qa'ida, followed by equal parts of the remaining blame on the administration, the airlines, the intelligence agencies, and the American people in general (normally I just blame Al Qa'ida, but I do recognize that it is at least partially due to the actions of the United States as a whole that they were able to carry it out at all). As an explanation for why I would put part of the blame on the American people, at least part of the reason why the airliners would likely not have implemented tougher security measures is because the American people at the time would likely have protested the need, citing the major inconvenience it would have caused them, and also pointing out that nothing had happened yet, so why did tougher measures need to be implemented? The vague warnings we had received would most likely not have been enough to convince the American people that the aggravation we're currently experiencing at the airports these days would have been worth it then. Now, we've had the problem happen, and most people, while they are aggravated by the procedures at the airport, at least recognize the necessity, BECAUSE 9/11 HAPPENED.

The gentleman I was speaking with yesterday gave a great example of that; during a previous war (I'm afraid I've forgotten the war he mentioned, but it might have been WWII), after two submarines sank due to, in retrospect, obvious weaknesses in the structure, measures were taken to reinforce the remaining submarines so as to prevent such an occurrence from happening again. No one said BEFORE those two submarines sank, "hey, there might be this problem with the submarines; maybe we should implement measures to prevent them sinking"; it had to happen first. It's a sad but true fact that historically we have had to have things HAPPEN first before we take actions to prevent them.

Placing blame for screw ups is precisely what should be done, and what is done. If people mess up to the extent that others lose money, get endangered, die, or whatever, in any circumstance, blame gets apportioned, and measures get taken. This is very, very simple.

 

[mjd1982]

Seductive fashion would be my guess.

Sorry, wasnt it CTers who are typed as geeky kids who dont get out much and have never tucked in with a woman?

 

[HyJinX]

That's right. I'm married and my wife is a sex therapist. Lucky me.

How's that JUGGS magazine subscription coming along? And the value of your stock in Kleenex?

 

[Sabrina]

Placing blame for screw ups is precisely what should be done, and what is done. If people mess up to the extent that others lose money, get endangered, die, or whatever, in any circumstance, blame gets apportioned, and measures get taken. This is very, very simple.

And?

Measures HAVE been taken. Security has been implemented. Reports have shown where mistakes were made in the IC. Recommendations by the 9/11 Commission report are currently being implemented throughout the IC. The IC has accepted blame. So have the airlines. So have the people in charge of security. We have since prevented several terrorist plots. Obviously what we're doing is working, at least to some extent. Why are you STILL trying to assign blame when it's already been assigned and measures are being taken to prevent future occurrences?

 

[mjd1982]

There is a pretty clear issue here- since all terrorist attacks, and indeed most crimes, have an element of novelty about them, to use the argument that since no one had ever committed this sort of crime before, thus no one could ever stop it, is to suggest that no one will ever be able to stop any sort of crime, since they all have elements of novelty to them. This is clearly loopy, and reflectiveof the worst kind of denial/delusion.

 

[beachnut]

So the motivation of the pilot determines preparedness? We planned for an accident not on purpose crash? I don't follow the logic.

If I'm not mistaken the NRO was a joint creation between the CIA and Air Force correct? The NRO also draws personnels from both agencies if I'm not mistaken. Would it be safe to assume they in whatever manner would be aware of the exercise?
The NRO's motivation for practicing a plane crashing into their HQ? Perhaps all of those warnings warning from the IC is a sufficient answer. However, they state it has nothing to do with terrorism.
Luckily for the terrorists it happened to be on 9/11 where personnel in charge of this aspect of the IC would be concerned with a drill until they canceled the exercise.

Random talk. And your point? You have no point and not a thing that relates to 9/11. You do not even research your own junk. You keep asking stupid questions. You need to do the research if you want to make a point. You need to come up with the stuff, not make up idiot questions and keep dishing out endless piles of bs.

The Pentagon is next to an airport, one of the biggest problems could be a lost plane landing hits the pentagon at 180 mph. Why are you unable to figure out the simple stuff. You have no point, or any thing to support 9/11 truth. You are now showing how poorly you researched the event and how little knowledge you bring to every post.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

my wife is a sex therapist.

You lucky motherf....

 

[beachnut]

There is a pretty clear issue here- since all terrorist attacks, and indeed most crimes, have an element of novelty about them, to use the argument that since no one had ever committed this sort of crime before, thus no one could ever stop it, is to suggest that no one will ever be able to stop any sort of crime, since they all have elements of novelty to them. This is clearly loopy, and reflectiveof the worst kind of denial/delusion.

We did stop 25 percent. Darn, your idea is already in the bit bucket. Your record is still perfect.

Wow, you have never been surprised when someone cut you throat. The terrorist found a weakness, and they used it. They have now used up that method for killing people. Now the pilots will land if you start killing people and you will die.

Where were you telling us all the terrorist were going to kill pilots and take planes into buildings. Is this all you fault?

 

[HyJinX]

You lucky motherf....

Yeah....I'm the only guy I know that loves it when his wife decides to bring her work home with her.

BA DA BUM.

Don't laugh...it's an industry joke that's said probably 100 times a day. I'm a little ashamed I said it here.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

There is a pretty clear issue here- since all terrorist attacks, and indeed most crimes, have an element of novelty about them, to use the argument that since no one had ever committed this sort of crime before, thus no one could ever stop it, is to suggest that no one will ever be able to stop any sort of crime, since they all have elements of novelty to them. This is clearly loopy, and reflectiveof the worst kind of denial/delusion.

Consider yourself Stundie-nominated.

What absolute drivel.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Yeah....I'm the only guy I know that loves it when his wife decides to bring her work home with her.

BA DA BUM.

Don't laugh...it's an industry joke that's said probably 100 times a day. I'm a little ashamed I said it here.

I'd be mortified that she'd be using you in a case study without your consent. That'd scare the bejesus out of me, at least

 

[Swing Dangler]

Not a single one of them were flown into buildings. According to wiki, there were only 4 US aircraft hijacked. Only one was by a foreign national. One was going to be uses to run into a building by a disgruntled employee.

Here were the questions:
"Before 9/11, how many hijackings resulted in wholesale death?
Before 9/11, how many hijackings had EVERYONE on the flights die?"
Therefore impact with buildings to these two questions are irrelevant.

You couldn't be more wrong. The American public tolerates it now because there is a reason for it. A few threats would not be viewed as a reason since hijacking was not looked on as a credible threat.

See the historical record as hijackings as a credible threat. Your using hindsight to justify your statement when it is sheer speculation that I noted as opinion. However, the warnings to the Administration were extremely credible.

Though true, most people would not look at it that way. Especially over time.
Wrong. This is about a system that failed miserably. It's about letting arrogance and interdepartmental mistrust get in the way of following procedure.

Oh so people aren't involved in the system. Are you trying to blame inanimate objects for the failure? Go back and study the historical record leading up to 9/11 and the response of the Bush Administration's to the numerous IC warnings. I posted the response by Tenet below. Have you read that?

As far as the public warnings, how long do you thing it would have taking before people started ignoring them?

Good question. Compare public warnings to preventive measures at airports and on airlines. People can and do ignore warnings, but they can't ignore proactive measures put into place by respective agencies.

Wrong again. Like I said before, they couldn't even get a mayday out. What makes you thing they could have reached their guns, aimed and shot the hijackers in that cramped space. Have you ever been in a cockpit? Space is not a luxury. And any training the pilots had would have been dealt with by the training the hijackers went through.

Yes, I've been in the cockpit of many types of planes. So a box cutter beats a gun in a fight now? The cockpit had how many pilots and co pilots? The walkway into the cockpit to my recollection is large enough to accommodate 1 person of average size. It would appear to me that multiple pilots with access to firearms beats one terrorist with a box cutter.

Yet people still get on board airliners without even going through the checkpoints.

Source?
I've flown numerous time since 9/11 and all passengers had to go through the checkpoints in my experience.

Though true, the key phrase is that the hijackers would have succeeded. The only possible difference would be flight 93 if the sky marshal was also trained in removing people from the cockpit.

I never said that they had a bomb, only that they claimed to have a bomb. How would the marshal know if they were bluffing? Would the sky marshal risk the lives of everyone?

.
Perhaps a study of Sky Marshal training would be the best source to the answer. They do carry guns correct? The intent of course is to use force. I don't see the problem.

The fact is that people then as now do not want to be inconvenienced for what they would perceive as a bogus reason.

A
Remember, there hadn't been a hijacking of an American airliner by a foreigner in over 25 years.

Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Yes and not taking action based upon numerous warnings is a terrible thing.

If 9/11 was prevented, we wouldn't know about it except for maybe a single evening's news broadcast which would have been forgotten within a week.

How I would have loved to hear about it that way.

Provide proof of this training including how often it was done.

I did in an earlier post. NORAD practiced hijacking drills on a yearly bases as part of their training.
Sabrina mentioned training of planes crashing into buildings as well. What does the training on the ground by the IC with their respective structures have to do with proactive measures taken by the administration for the benefit of the American public specifically with airport security?

Remember, there hadn't been a hijacking of an American airliner by a foreigner in over 25 years.

But the system was blinking red in the run up to 9/11, the warnings were there, however,....Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off.” They leave the meeting frustrated, seeing little prospect for immediate action. Tenet and Black will both later recall the meeting as the starkest warning they gave the White House on al-Qaeda before 9/11 and one that could have potentially stopped the 9/11 attacks if Rice had acted on it (see July 10, 2001) and conveyed their urgency to President Bush (Tenet was briefing Bush on a daily basis at this time, but he will later claim that Rice had a much better rapport with Bush).

What was done by the Bush Administration? Nothing.

I guess we will agree to disagree however the historical record favors my position of accountability for those responsible for running the "system" that failed. And it appears based upon the assessment of the DIC that 9/11 could have been prevented if the Administration would have been proactive with their policy instead of "brushing" off those sounding the alarm.

 

[HyJinX]

I'd be mortified that she'd be using you in a case study without your consent. That'd scare the bejesus out of me, at least

Just as long as the word "giggle" isn't strewn throughout.

 

[WildCat]

And sensible people understand that because the knew in advance that hijacked airplanes would be flown into the WTC towers, were able to figure out exactly how the towers would collapse and exactly where the damage and fires would be in WTC 7. WTC 7 was important because that is where the kept their sooper-sekrit plans they needed to destroy, and the best way to destroy sooper-sekrit documents and hard drives is to incinerate them or smash them with a sledge hammer demolish the building. So since knew where the damage and fires would be, planted the bombs necessary to demolish the building ahead of time. also informed the FDNY of their sooper-sekrit plan so they could warn people away from WTC 7 before the bombs asploded.

mjd1982, is the above an acurate depiction of your beliefs regarding WTC 7?

 

[Lyte Trip]

One agency that I know of planned an exercise for a plane being deliberately crashed into their building, the NRO. I'm not sure of their motivation for that exercise, but one exercise does not a credible example make. Yes, the Pentagon had that MASCAL exercise, but bearing in mind that the main runway for Reagan International Airport IS on a line with the Pentagon, I think they were smart to plan for an accidental crash of an airliner, and it helped with 9/11 later. The MASCAL exercise was for an ACCIDENTAL crash, not a deliberate one, and since, as I've said, Reagan International's runway was more or less on a line with them, it was simply prudent planning.

Um, are you sure about that? Apparently there was a drill proposed where a plane hijacked by terrorists would be crashed into the Pentagon.

Pentagon crash 'too unrealistic'

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | April 14, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Five months before Sept. 11, 2001, the officers responsible for defending American airspace wanted to test their ability to prevent a hijacked airliner from being crashed into the Pentagon, but the scenario was rejected by the Joint Chiefs of Staff as impractical, a Joint Chiefs spokesman confirmed yesterday.




The disclosure was made after a government watchdog group released a leaked e-mail from a former official at the North American Air Defense Command. In the message, the official told colleagues a week after the attacks that in April 2001 NORAD requested that war games run by the Joint Chiefs include an ''event having a terrorist group hijack a commercial airline . . . and fly it into the Pentagon."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/14/pentagon_crash_too_unrealistic/