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.