Notes on the four flight's timeline

[demodewd]

A few notes on the timeline of the four different flights.

1. Flight 175 lifted off at 8:14,Flight 11 reportedly was hijacked between 8:14 and 8:20.Were these two flights coordinated? Was it to be that when the second plane was finally successfully in flight that the first plane would go into the "hijacking" phase of the operation? I'm supposing that both planes were brought down and substituted shortly after the "hijacking" phase had been completed or did that happen earlier?

2. Is it just coincidental that the time lapses of alleged Flights 77 and 93 are nearly the same? Alleged Flight 77 lasted 80 minutes,Flight 93 84 minutes. I'm supposing that these Flights were planned to crash at times that were very close to each other.Except that Flight 77 had a ten minute delay,whereas Flight 93 had that spooky 41 minute delay.

3. And then we might ask the question as to why the number of minutes to the alleged hijackings is so short for 11 and 175 compared to the other two flights. Why this obvious delay for 77 and 93? What procedure was in effect for 77 and 93 that wasn't in effect for 11 and 175? And here are some spooky parts.Did 77 drop down and was covered by a decoy drone that flew out to Kentucky and back? Could the passengers,probably dead,be then transferred to another 757 AA proxy rigged with explosives and a guidance system and that was the plane that ultimately crashed into the Pentagon with crew and passengers aboard? And it lifted off and replaced the decoy somewhere a bit west of DC?

4. And then there is the mysterious 93.It sat in Newark's runway for 41 minutes! Wouldn't there be a contigency plan to abort this operation? Consider how long 93 dragged out the whole affair. Alleged Flight 77 parked itself in the Pentagon at 9:40 or so. Then we have this 26 minute interval before Shanksville. That extra 26 minutes is a long time at the end of the plan when people would be asking...why wasn't the plane brought down sooner?
5. And this leaves me
to the conclusion that 93 was absolutely necessary for the whole operation to be completed and successful.First because
this was the hero legend plane where all the fake cell phone calls and the "let's roll" scenario would be imbeded in American's minds. A belief that this actually happened and that it would be very hard to shake that idea from most people's minds no matter how progressive they may be in their political ideas.

And then there is that long flight out to Cleveland,something like 52 minutes before the plane turns around. You would think that the planners would have cut that end short to recover some time. But they didn't. What happened in that 52 minutes that was so important that it had to be played out? I'm supposing that 93 like all the others was brought down shortly after gaining cruising altitudes and substituted by a drone like all the others except that the real 93(the one brought down) was retrofitted with a bomb that self destructed over at Shanksville with a load of passengers from 11,175 and 93.
Feedback please.Dispell my craziness. :)

[philb]

1. Operation Pearl - Airliner Flight takedowns, exchange, and replacement

Operation Pearl A.K. Dewdney- (Airliner Flight Takedowns/Exchange and Replacement) http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2

[demodewd]

2. Whadaya think?

I've read Dewdney..I just embellished it a bit. Whadaya think?

[philb]

3. There was another thread with evidence supporting your scenario

in some form
Flight X in Cleveland(Fl 93)
FAA report that Fl 77 crashed or landed(went down) in Kentucky

Symposium of military and commercial pilots unanamously concluded that 9/11 was carried out by remote control- that no hijackers were flying the planes.


72 hour symposium of military and commercial pilots organized by Col. Donn de Grand-Pre unanimously conclude 9/11 by carried out by remote control technology

Colonel Donn de Grand Pre (ret), was the top US arms negotiator and dealer to the Middle East under the Ford and Carter administrations.
His book, concludes that the 911 terror attacks were done by government insiders and used remote control technology.

Col. Donn de Grand-Pre organized a symposium in Portugal for a 72-hour non-stop meeting of pilots to try to assess what happened on 9/11. the group of pilots were a wonderful mix of commercial, military and civilian pilots. At any rate, after three days, the decisions were unanimous. And I wrote my 24-page report up and submitted it to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. After deliberating non-stop for 72-hours the group has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners involved in the September 11th tragedy had no control over the aircraft. The planes were taken control of by remote control. And they get into how the military industrial complex clearly, that is elements of it, were in control of this . This is all explained in my books.

Book 2 is "The Viper's Venom," Book 3 which just came out is "The Rattler's Revenge

Portugal News Online- Portugal's National Weekend Newspaper in English 3-08-2002
(discussion of the symposium and of his books can be found on dozens of web sites)

[spooked911]

7. Pretty good, it makes sense. But we have no way to confirm it.

[stickdog]

4. My feeling has always been that the planners kept this thing low tech.

1) The "hijackers" were told this was part of an exercise, if anything.

2) Waypoints were entered into the four planes' Flight Control Computers to guarantee a certain the flight path. No remote control was necessary. Perhaps the cabin was depressurized, the passengers and crew were gassed or the manual controls were simply taken off line while the communications systems were jammed.

3) Flight 93's delay at the gate was a just a typical bullshit airport delay. It threw off the entire plan. This would account for Bush & Rumsfeld getting caught with their pants completely down -- basically stalling until Flight 93 was able to complete its part of the plot.

The cell phone calls from Flight 93 have NEVER added up for me. Maybe 2 or 3 of the "passengers" were forced to make these calls while the others just climbed aboard the hero gravy train after the fact? The Verizon operator "prayer call" was 100% bullshit, IMHO.

[spooked911]

8. So you really think Bush and Rumsfeld knew all about the plan?

It's possible but I am more of the opinion that they were kept out of the loop.

[demodewd]

9. loop de doo

Rumsfeld,as head of the DOD, was given the authority to scramble planes and do what would be necessary in a domestic hijacking with the transfer of this authority on June 2001(I think it was June,maybe July). Michael Dietrick talks about this. So...I believe Rumsfeld was definitely in the loop. Bush? He's too loopy to be in the loop.

[spooked911]

10. I agree-- Rummy was probably much more in the know than Georgie

although Stanley Hilton claims Bush signed papers ordering 9/11.

Right.:crazy:

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Why do you think nobody at the top levels of command

especially Rummie and the DOD reacted to the attack, until it was over? If all of the planes had left on time, no one would have had to stall for over 30 minutes waiting for attack to finish. Not until the Pentagon was hit did any of them begin to respond appropriately to the attack.

Bush got screwed because he was out in public. He ended up looking like a total idiot sitting around with a bunch of 2nd graders. He dragged his feet as long as he could and finally spoke about 5 minutes before the Pentagon was hit.

Myers managed to hide out in Max Cleland's office until after the Pentagon got hit.

Tenet decided to tie himself up in DC traffic and drove all the way out to Langly before he went to his station.

Cheney sat around watching CNN in the WH and did nothing until the SS came to cart him off right before the Pentagon got hit.

However, the worst and most inexplicable reactions were from the people in the Pentagon.

The following excerpts prove that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others at the Pentagon that morning deliberately ignored the ongoing terrorist attack in order to let the attack finish.




Donald Rumsfeld

In his Pentagon office, Rumsfeld felt the huge building shudder. He looked out his window, then rushed out toward the smoke, running down the steps and outside where he could see pieces of metal strewn on the ground. Rumsfeld began helping with the rescue efforts until a security agent urged him to get out of the area. "I'm going inside," he said, and took up his post in the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon war room.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42754-2002Jan26

Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, was in his office on the eastern side of the building, in a meeting with Christopher Cox, the defence policy committee chairman of the House of Representatives. Mr Rumsfeld, recalls Mr Cox, watched the TV coverage from New York and said: "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us."

Moments later, the plane hit. Mr Rumsfeld ran to the point of impact and helped load the wounded on to stretchers before retreating to the secure National Military Command Centre, beneath the building. There, he refused entreaties to evacuate even as the Centre filled with smoke.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F12%2F16%2Fwbush16.xml

04:08:25 CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS

(VO) The Secretary of Defense is outside the burning building, while inside the Pentagon, . . .

04:08:31 BRIGADIER GENERAL W MONTAGUE WINFIELD, US ARMY

For 30 minutes we couldn't find him. And just as we began to worry, he walked into the door of the National Military Command Center.

04:08:39 GEN RICHARD MYERS, CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

Very, very quickly he's in there in his shirt sleeves as I recall.

04:08:42 CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS

(VO) On 9/11 General Richard Myers steps in as acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

04:08:48 GENERAL RICHARD MYERS, ACTING CHAIRMAN

It was a, from my viewpoint, a very professional scene. There was no, no panic, no undue alarm.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/abcnews091102.html


Paul Wolfowitz

Q: One is, where were you on September 11th? Were you at the Pentagon when --

Wolfowitz: I was in my office. We'd just had a breakfast with some congressmen in which one of the subjects had been missile defense. And we commented to them that based on what Rumsfeld and I had both seen and worked on the Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, that we were probably in for some nasty surprises over the next ten years.

Q: Oh, my gosh.

Wolfowitz: I can't remember, then there was the sort of question of what kind of nasty surprises? I don't remember exactly which ones we came up with. The point was more just that it's in the nature of surprise that you can't predict what it's going to be.

Q: Do you remember then the impact of the plane into the Pentagon? Or had you first heard stories about New York? What was --

Wolfowitz: We were having a meeting in my office. Someone said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Then we turned on the television and we started seeing the shots of the second plane hitting, and this is the way I remember it. It's a little fuzzy.

Q: Right.

Wolfowitz: There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was. Then the whole building shook. I have to confess my first reaction was an earthquake. I didn't put the two things together in my mind. Rumsfeld did instantly.
Q: Did he really?

Wolfowitz: Yeah. He went charging out and down to the site where the plane had hit, which is what I would have done if I'd had my wits about me, which may or may not have been a smart thing to do. But it was, instead the next thing we heard was that there'd been a bomb and the building had to be evacuated. Everyone started streaming out of the building in a quite orderly way. Congregated on the parade ground basically right in front of the Pentagon which would have been about the worst place to have a crowd of a couple of thousand people in that moment if we'd again had our wits about us. But we were out of the building anyway.

Q: Let me ask you then about the next couple of days. There is --

Wolfowitz: Just to complete it. We went back into the building and that was an experience I won't ever forget. There was a huge fire, there was smoke gradually filling -- not all, just the small number of us who were basically in the command group. Rumsfeld was there and General Myers who was still the Vice Chairman at that point. The Chairman was on his way back from overseas and I was there. We were in the National Military Command Center and there was this acrid smoke gradually seeping into the place. Rumsfeld simply refused to leave. He finally made me leave, which I was not happy about. I went up to this bizarre location that was prepared to survive nuclear war.

Q: Really?

Wolfowitz: Yes.

Q: In the Pentagon.

Wolfowitz: No, no. Way out of town.

Kellems: That's why he left, was to separate them.

Q: I see.Kellems: To provide continuity.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html

[demodewd]

12. re: it could be us

Mr Rumsfeld, recalls Mr Cox, watched the TV coverage from New York and said: "Believe me, this isn't over yet. There's going to be another attack, and it could be us."

And yet there is no evacuation?

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Funny thing about Rep Cox

didn't he just get nominated to head the SEC? His only apparent qualification for the job is being a loyal soldier on 9-11 it seems?

[spooked911]

16. good point.

[ROH]

28. Excellent point!

Why didn't Rumsfeld immediately arrange a Pentagon evacuation at that time?

[demodewd]

55. answer?

Why didn't Rumsfeld immediately arrange a Pentagon evacuation at that time?

It would have possibly implied that Rumsfeld knew a plane was headed their way?

[philb]

22. You are wrong about Cheney. He was in W H bunker monitoring Fl 77

for over 30 minutes according to testimony of people there. And giving instructions about what to do about it.

See testimony of Trans. Sec. Mineta, Richard Clarke, W H photographer, journalist who were there.

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers time line:

http://www.flcv.com/offcompl.html

and he was also monitoring UA93 and giving instructions about what to do about it. Namely to shoot it down.

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. Cheney went to the bunker after the first tower was hit

but he claims he sat in his office watching the attack on CNN until the Secret Service decided to evacuate him. Then he went to the bunker with his wife in tow. How and when she showed up is unclear. Since she is not a government official it was totally inappropriate to be in the command bunker. Yet, she supposedly ranted and raved the whole time and was a major distraction. So even if Cheney was in the bunker by 9:00 AM or 9:15 AM, he was able to fumble around enough that nothing constructive happened until after 9:40 at the earliest.

From the following report it seems that Cheney went to the bunker much later then he claimed later on. Plus he had time to stop and watch TV in a hallway on the way down? Give me a break.

Secret Service agents burst into Cheney's West Wing office. "Sir," one said, "we have to leave immediately." Radar showed an airplane barreling toward the White House.

Before Cheney could respond, the agents grabbed the vice president under his arms-nearly lifting him off the ground-and propelled him down the steps into the White House basement and through a long tunnel that led to the underground bunker.

Meanwhile, American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that had taken off from Dulles International Airport, turned away from the White House and flew back across the Potomac River, slamming into the Pentagon at 9:39 a.m.

In the tunnel below the White House, Cheney stopped to watch a television showing the smoke billowing out of the World Trade Center towers, heard the report about the plane hitting the Pentagon and called Bush again. Other Secret Service agents hustled Rice and several other senior White House officials included in an emergency contingency plan into the bunker with the vice president.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42754-2002Jan26

[philb]

25. You apparently didn't read my time line

which was supported by testimony and statements of people who were there.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. Mineta got to the bunker first

it seems that Cheney got there about 9:20. At least 15 minutes after the 2nd tower was hit and the only reason he got there that early was because the SS forced him to get off his ass. That seems to be plenty of proof that Cheney arrived at the party as late as he possibly could. If it wasn't for those pesky SS agents he probably would have sat in his office until the Pentagon got hit.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demodewd]

56. Max baby.

Myers hanging out at Max Cleland's office. That's interesting.

[stickdog]

20. Well, they knew at least that they had to stall to let it happen.

Otherwise, how do you explain their complete inaction between 9:05 and 9:45?

[Kevin Fenton]

5. Timeline explanation

Why Were the Hijackings Timed As They Were?
The table shows the scheduled and actual departure times for the planes, as well as how delayed they were and the hijack and crash times.

Plane........Scheduled.Actual......Late.......Hijacked.Crashed
American 11.....7:45....7:59....14 minutes......8:14....8:46
United 175......7:58....8:14....16 minutes......8:42....9:03
American 77.....8:10....8:20....10 minutes......8:53....9:38
United 93.......8:01....8:42....41 minutes......9:25....10:06

The times appear puzzling, with the hijacks taking place over an interval of one hour and eleven minutes; even when the late departure of United 93 is taken into an account this interval seems too long. The immediate assumption is that the planes should be seized at the same time in an attempt to “overwhelm” the air defence system – surprise, after all, is the hijackers’ greatest weapon. Even allowing for the difficulty of co-ordinating the attacks whilst the various teams are unable to communicate with each other, the interval between the seizure of American 11 and American 77 – a full 39 minutes – seems incomprehensible, especially given that during this time American 77, which had departed from Washington, was flying away from its target, thus making the hijackers’ mission more difficult. However, upon closer examination there is a clear method to the hijackers’ madness.

(b) Rate The Hijackers
Before the attack, I would have rated the potential outcomes as follows in terms of their impact on the global consciousness:
Hijackers attack 4 planes, and crash all 4 into target buildings: this would have been an absolutely breathtaking attack.
Hijackers attack 4 planes, but only crash 3 into target buildings: this is what happened and we know the consequences – it changed the course of world history.
Hijackers attack 4 planes, but only crash 2 into target buildings: 2 failures, but hitting two targets in the US would really have made the world sit up and take notice.
Hijackers attack 4 planes, but only crash 1 into target building: despite the 75% failure rate, it would still have been the most spectacular terrorist attack in history.
Hijackers attack 4 planes, but don’t crash any into target buildings: nice try, but, at the end of the day, failure is failure. The conclusion would have been AQ had bitten off more than it could chew.

Fear of Failure
The hijackers must have been aware that the attack was fraught with uncontrollable variables (planes may be delayed, etc.) and that the chances of 4/4 success were slim. Therefore, the strategy should have been tailored to guarantee partial success (at least one target hit) as far as possible, even if this meant some planes would have less chance of achieving their aim.
If all the planes had been hijacked simultaneously, the hijackers would not have been utilising the advantage of surprise, but throwing it away. While only the first hijacking was in progress, there was no reason to suspect it was anything other than a “normal” hijacking and that the plane would eventually land in Cuba or somewhere and the passengers would be let out. There would therefore be absolutely no reason to shoot it down. American 11 was the “banker” – the plane they were counting on to hit its target, no matter what happened to the others – which is why the lead hijacker was on it. Once it crashed, it would have been clear to the military that the rules of the game had changed and that they had to react accordingly, but by that time AQ was 1-0 up and what happened to the other planes didn’t matter so much.
If the times of the other hijackings are compared to the impact time of American 11, both United 93 (hijacked 4 minutes before the North Tower was hit) and American 77 (hijacked approximately 7 minutes after the North Tower was hit) are remarkably close, especially when you consider the hijackers were unable to communicate. We can speculate that if United 93 were not delayed so long, it would have been hijacked earlier and would have had a commensurably greater chance of success.
I think that the timing of the attacks indicates that the hijackers are straight up. If the US had hijacked the planes as part of a false flag operation, they would have gone at the same time, as it’s the obvious thing to do and there’s no need to worry about first ensuring partial success – because the air force has been stood down anyway and total success is assured. The shorter the total time of the hijacks, the more believable it would be that the air force had been taken by surprise and failed to react appropriately.

[spooked911]

6. I was with you until the end.

First, how did they know that flight 11 wouldn't be terribly delayed?

Second, if the hijackers were "straight up", why didn't they hijack right away and minimize the chance for the air force/NORAD to respond?

Third, you don't really know that the delay in flight 93 wasn't part of the plan. In fact, as Demodewd points out-- it almost has to be because it doesn't make sense for the hijackers to wait so long to start the hijack if they were alreayd running late.

Fourth, the part that gets me is that according to the official story, not one of the four flights was able to alert air traffic control that there was a hijacking. Please tell me how knife- and boxcutter-armed hijackers could pull off this amazing feat. To me, this fact alone says the whole operaiton was bogus.

[demodewd]

13. some speculation

This is just speculative but if Flight 11 or 175 would have had to be aborted there were back up flights to take their place.

[Kevin Fenton]

15. 4 answers

(1) "First, how did they know that flight 11 wouldn't be terribly delayed?"
A: They didn't. There's no way to get round this risk, you just have to accept it. Besides, Atta is supposed to have called the other plane from Boston on the runway to say everything was OK.

(2) "Second, if the hijackers were "straight up", why didn't they hijack right away and minimize the chance for the air force/NORAD to respond?"
A: I assume you mean taking all four planes at the same time. The reason that American 11 goes first is because nobody realises its going to crash into a building until it does, so there's no reason to shoot it down, even if an interceptor reaches it. The the other three planes are supposed to be hijacked at the same time as American 11 crashes. The response involves a ground stop order (grounding 4,500 planes in the air), scrambling jets from all over and getting all the relevant decision-makers together in Washington. There was a bit in Clarke's book where he said it took 4 hours to find Mineta after the Oklahoma bombing. The reaction is a logistical nightmare and if the hijackers get it right, the other three planes are up and down in 25 minutes. Even if one or two fighters are airbourne and armed tailing American 11, they have to shoot down 3 planes in the next 25 minutes. That means finding which planes have been hijacked (there's no way they can know there are only four planes; remember there were false positives on 9/11 - for example the Korean Air flight over Alaska), getting the interceptor to the hijacked plane and shooting it down. The hijackers could even try a ruse like pretending to land at an airport and diverting into a building in the last minute.

(3) "Third, you don't really know that the delay in flight 93 wasn't part of the plan. In fact, as Demodewd points out-- it almost has to be because it doesn't make sense for the hijackers to wait so long to start the hijack if they were alreayd running late."
A: There's a quote from some anti-terrorism expert about the East Africa bombings along the lines of, "Two simultaneous attacks aren't twice as hard as one, they're 100 times harder." So I guess that makes four attacks 1,000,000 times harder than one. One of the four went wrong - Al Qaeda is good, but not that good. Think of all the other attacks that went (partially) wrong: the Sullivans (boat overloaded with explosives and sank), one of the East Africa bombings (suicide bomber shat out at last minute, bomb didn't damage embassy much), or the millennium plot against LAX (explosives courier hopeless and taken at border). United 93 looks like the worst hijacked flight for various reasons: (1) It failed, (2) the pilot can't even keep the plane level, never mind straight, (3) if only one of them can fly, they're short-handed and the passengers are getting restive in back, then what's the second guy doing in the cockpit - he should be out there looking menacing - there was supposed to be an axe in the cockpit, (4) they got the timing wrong, (5) they forgot about the transponder initially. There's obviously one hijacker missing and my assumption is that it's the smart guy who isn't there. The others panic because the plane's delayed and make a pig's ear out of it. They've had it drummed into them that they mustn't go before American 11 crashes so they err on the side of caution. Take the 41 minute delay away from the hijacking time and you're a minute before American 11 crashes, 3 minutes after United 175 is hijacked and 8 minutes before American 77 is hijacked.

(4) "Fourth, the part that gets me is that according to the official story, not one of the four flights was able to alert air traffic control that there was a hijacking. Please tell me how knife- and boxcutter-armed hijackers could pull off this amazing feat. To me, this fact alone says the whole operaiton was bogus."
A: If somebody puts a knife to your throat and says, "Don't even think about touching that button." then you don't touch the button. ATC is going to find out the flight has been hijacked in a couple of minutes anyway, why be a hero? The extra 1-6 (say) minutes before ATC finds out could be crucial in terms of scrambling jets and intercepting the planes, but the pilots just figure they're off to Havana on a normal hijack.

[spooked911]

17. Responses

1) your assumption that flight 11 HAD to go first, is simply that, an assumption.

2) you are not explaining why the flight 93 hijackers waited so long to hijack. They can't be that incompetent-- they got control of the plane and flew it, didn't they? Why did they wait so long to start?

3) large Vietnam vets are going to be intimidated by a skinny 5foot eight Arab guy holding a four-inch knife? Not to mention there are TWO PILOTS, and I can't see two hijackers getting knives to the throats of both pilots before they could react. Moreover, there is really no way the pilots should not have been warned by a flight attendant that hijackers were coming to the cockpit in the first place. One flight attendant out of five should have been able to call the cockpit and warn them of the hijacking. So the hijackings are bogus.

4) there were live-fly hijacking exercises happening on the morning of 9/11. I bet you dollars to donuts that the four 9/11 hijacks relate to this hijacking exercise.

[Kevin Fenton]

18. Good assumption

1) "your assumption that flight 11 HAD to go first, is simply that, an assumption."
A: It's a good assumption based on common sense. Plus, it's what they actually did. Can you think of a better way to ensure at least one plane succeeds?

2) "you are not explaining why the flight 93 hijackers waited so long to hijack. They can't be that incompetent-- they got control of the plane and flew it, didn't they? Why did they wait so long to start?"
A: They were that incompetent. There was one hijacker missing. United 93 was the worst flown plane. It was hijacked late. Four simultaneous hijacks with no communication between the teams makes for an incredibly difficult operation. I'm amazed they got three out of four. They waited because the original plan was to wait a certain period of time after taking off - say 45 minutes - and then hijack the flight. When they were delayed I guess they figured maybe the other flights were delayed as well (they were, but not by as much) and waited the original length of time they were supposed to wait - they couldn't communicate with the other three groups.
In any group of soldiers or terrorists there are some smart guys and some dumb ones - the WTC bombing in '93 is a great example of this; Yousef was real smart, but the guy who was nicked taking the van keys back was real dumb. The smart guy (one of the smart guys) didn't get on the plane (no idea why) and the others were kind of lost without him. Paul Thompson has his doubts about Jarrah being on the plane and I guess he was the one who would have done the reconnaisance stuff and known what to do if there was a hitch (Jarrah, I mean, not PT), so maybe it was him that was missing.

3) "large Vietnam vets are going to be intimidated by a skinny 5foot eight Arab guy holding a four-inch knife? Not to mention there are TWO PILOTS, and I can't see two hijackers getting knives to the throats of both pilots before they could react. Moreover, there is really no way the pilots should not have been warned by a flight attendant that hijackers were coming to the cockpit in the first place. One flight attendant out of five should have been able to call the cockpit and warn them of the hijacking. So the hijackings are bogus."
A: Has anybody ever pulled a knife on you? Somebody tried to shoot me once and I was pretty intimated. My sister was pretty intimated by a smallish woman who mugged her with a knife. Knives can be real bad, especially as there are no hospitals at 40,000 feet. Plus, if there's a struggle and the pilots get knifed, who's going to fly the plane? The pilots are responsible for the passengers' safety; given that the risk appears pointless (I'm told Havana is quite nice in September), why take chances? You don't need to get a knife to both pilots' throats, one will do. The hijackers were in first class near the cockpit, not at the back with the plebs.

4) "there were live-fly hijacking exercises happening on the morning of 9/11. I bet you dollars to donuts that the four 9/11 hijacks relate to this hijacking exercise."
A: There were certainly some war games going on which may have had something to do with hijacking simulations. I haven't heard this "live-fly" thing before, where did you get it from? It certainly seems odd that the hijackings took place when half the US airforce was (allegedly) over Alaska.

[spooked911]

19. Mike Ruppert has reported that on 9/11 there was a live-fly hijacking

exercise. He got this info from a NORAD officer. It is described in "Crossing the Rubicon". At least part of the exercise was called "Vigilant Warrior/Vigilant Guardian".

Anyway, I still don't see why one of the flight attendants didn't call the cockpit and warn them of guys with knives that might intrude the cockpit. Supposedly there were stabbings in the passenger compartment on some of the planes. Presumably these people were stabbed because they got in the way of the hijackers. Wouldn't this action give time for the flight attendants to call the cockpit? Moreover, is it plausible that flight attendants/passengers would confront the hijackers but the pilots would give in without a fight? If you were a pilot, wouldn't you do everything possible to warn ground control there was a hijacking-- at least radio them a coded message saying there was a cockpit intrusion?

[Kevin Fenton]

34. Various

My understanding is that they stood up in first and took their knives/boxcutters out together, 3 of them dealt with any initial trouble in back, while the other two stormed the cockpit. This seems like the best plan to me. I don't see why all 5 hijackers should stay in the back. Surely, they need to surprise the pilots before they can lock the door? If I was pilot I would hear some sort of trouble in back, think "probably some sort of air rage thing again" and then two guys would burst into the cockpit and hold a knife to my throat.

More important stuff:
I had a flash of inspiration this morning.
I have been asking the wrong question, which was "Was the government complicit in he attacks (by intentional negligence or plotting) before 8:14 on 9/11 or did it just cover some stuff up starting at 10:07." Why exclude the period betwen 8:14 and 10:07?
I once wrote that people aren't evil, they just do bad stuff because they're desperate or have skewed value systems, but there's a third reason - opportunity (makes a thief, or a mass murderer in this case). I don't think anyone in the government would take advantage of the vague opportunity broadly outlined in some of the warnings from foreign intelligence agencies, but this morning I imagined Dick Cheney in the PEOC watching repeats of the WTC get hit for the second time and watching both towers burn and I asked myself what he must have been thinking.

"Do the orders still stand?"
Most people think this refers to the planes - to an order to shoot one down or not shoot one down, but why can't it refer to the WTC? The explosives are in the WTC to prevent a truck bomber from toppling the towers all over Lower Manhattan - there's nowhere near the same threat from the two plane impacts. While it was reasonable to give the order to get the WTC ready for demolition, once it was clear the towers were going to stand, it should be cancelled. That's why the young man keeps asking.
What's the VP thinking at that time? My guess is he's thinking of Bush carving the turkey in the gulf, how many contracts he's going to give Haliburton and what exactly he can get away with in the Patriot Act.

I only though of this today, so it might be crap - does it make any sense?

[spooked911]

42. Interesting idea. I think understanding what those order were that

Cheney wanted to stand is a central issue of understanding 9/11.

If you are right, it obviously places Cheney in the middle of the worst part of 9/11-- the tower collapses, and makes him a mass murderer.

It's possible. It makes some sense for that time frame and I think one thing that supports it is that Cheney's office and Giuliani were in phone contact about that time. Could Giuliani have gotten warning of the towers collapsing from Cheney?

Finding out what those orders were may therefore be a huge step in unraveling 9/11.

[Kevin Fenton]

47. Bush's plans

PT's timeline says this for 8:46:
"President Bush will say in a speech later that evening, “Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans.” However, the Wall Street Journal reports that lower level officials activate CONPLAN (Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan) in response to the emerging crisis. CONPLAN... details the responsibility of seven federal agencies if a terrorist attack occurs. It gives the FBI the responsibility for activating the plan and alerting other agencies. Bush in fact later states that he doesn't give any orders responding to the attack until after 9:55 a.m."
I interpret the "plans" to be those to blow up the WTC, but that's just a guess (not even an assumption). It doesn't seem to be CONPLAN he's activated. Although it wouldn't surprise me that much if two people gave the same order.

When everybody at the Pentagon goes to the NMCC after United 175 hits, Rummy goes back into his office to make some calls. Who did he call?
He seems to have been present in the videoconference, what did he actually do there? Wasn't it his job to launch the fighters? Then he goes to tend the wounded for 20 minutes.

[philb]

23. and the group of symposium pilots agree it wasn't possible

They concluded that the only plausible explanation was remote control of the airplanes.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. You keep assuming that the hijackers had no way to communicate

with each other? I think the coordination, especially of 77 and 93 indicates that they did have some form of communication that worked. I would assume blackberries or cell phones. All they needed was text messaging.

Second, you claim that all this proves that there was no stand down order. So? Of course there is no stand down order. The top command stood down and let everyone else fend for themselves. The result was confusion and an inadequate response. That was all they needed.

[Kevin Fenton]

32. Don't know

I don't know if they had cell phones, I read somewhere Atta called 175 just before takeoff. What's a blackberry? 77 and 93 don't seem particularly well coordinated to me.

I don't think there is a stand down order, but the timeline explanation I suggested doesn't rule it out. Maybe the hijackers were straight up but somebody in the government knew they were coming and stood the planes down - I don't think so but I couldn't rule it out. The air defence response seems explicable for the first hour or so, my biggest problems with it are after 9 o'clock, but I don't really see the point of sabotaging it after that, so I figure it wasn't sabotaged.

[DoYouEverWonder]

39. If you cut off the head of an animal off

then the rest of the animal can no longer function very well. That is what Bu$hCo did on 9-11. The people in command from the Commander in Chief down, stood down. Without the key people there to set in motion a proper response the rest of the system will just flounder around doing the best it can but unfortunately that wasn't good enough.

BTW: A Blackberry is a wireless device that is very popular for sending text messages, email and even internet access. No one would even blink at someone walking around with one. They are almost as bad as cell phones.

[Kevin Fenton]

41. You might have something there

I can't believe somebody actually issued a standdown order (that would be too obvious), but there does seem to be something odd about the response after 9:00. I don't know about the "people" in command. I seem to remember the 9-11 Commission said the videoconference didn't contribute much to the immediate response efforts. I agree with the Commission on this point, but I think it should have contributed something, namely fighters. Who's decision should it have been to launch fighters? In the end Clarke asked for CAP at 9:45, but perhaps the decision should have been taken earlier by somebody else.

All the more junior officers must have been running through the procedures the way they should but what the situation lacks is a guy running around the NMCC shouting, "I want ever fighter in the whole damn country and I want them yesterday." It was a chance for the air force to show what it can do.

The thing is, if Rummy wanted to slow down efforts by not doing much and he knew it was going to happen, then he would be better off arranging to be out of Washington on the day. His behaviour is just too stupid for words. After sitting on his hands for 20 minutes in the videoconference he told Clarke he was moving to another location and then ran outside to take a look, where he was so overcome that he played doctors and nurses for 20 minutes before remembering he was secretary of defense and the country was under attack. This is gross dereliction of duty.

I don't think he knew the attacks were coming, but he seems to be trying to slow them down. Very curious. His secretary says he went back to his office to make some calls when the others went to the NMCC. I wonder who he called, his wife? his bookie?

[ROH]

29. Why did Flight 11 take a detour ...

off its flight plan and away from the WTC?

[philb]

30. where is a discussion of this , or details?

[ROH]

31. "The flight is now “drastically off course” but NORAD ...

is still not notified."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a821zalewski

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/msnbc091102b.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007/
http://www.the-movement.com/Radar/Radar.htm

"You may wonder why the hijackers took this detour to the North-West when they were attacking the World Trade Center."
http://www.the-movement.com/Radar/flight_11.htm

[Kevin Fenton]

33. My understanding

My understanding is that the flight continued on its scheduled course for a couple of minutes after the hijacking. Then, at the point closest to the WTC, it turned south. Some of the other planes seem to have carried on for a couple of minutes after they were hijacked too. I don't see anything particularly odd about this. Until it turned, ATC could have explained the problem as some sort of electronics malfunction.

[ROH]

38. No

Please check the references.

[Kevin Fenton]

43. Thompson's entry

Thompson's entry for 8:13 says this:
"The pilot responds when told to turn right, but immediately afterwards fails to respond to a command to climb."
I think right means northwest; the northwest turn seems to be part of the usual flightpath and the turn seems to have been made in accordance with ATC instructions by the real pilot just before the hijacking.
Otherwise, what does "turn right" mean?

[ROH]

44. It would be interesting to see data on the usual flightpath, although...

the route after the start of the hijacking is the most critical point.

According to the CR: "From this and other evidence, we believe the hijacking began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm


The following comments are based upon a hijacking-start time of 8:13; if we accept a CR time of 8:14, that would make it a thirteen minute detour:

Picture Mohamed Atta, supposed ringleader of the attacks, giving the hijackers their final pep-talk before sending them on their way to die:

"Ok boys, obviously you're going to be a little stressed about this mission. So what I'll say to you is this. Chill. Don't stress about getting to your targets quickly, don't even worry too much if you miss your plane. It's your day and you want to give these folks a fighting chance. Think how much more fun it will be if you get chased by a fighter, or the people on the plane try to stop you!"

"So what I want you to do is wait a while before starting the hijack, then if you want to fly away in the opposite direction for a while, feel free. Leave yourself plenty of time to change your mind, after all, suicide and mass-murder is a pretty heavy trip."

...

So why did they take a fourteen minute detour up through New York State before turning towards Manhattan? Sight-seeing? Can't tell North from South?

http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight11.htm

[Kevin Fenton]

45. Before or after?

I understand Thompson's 8:13 entry about the ATC's order to turn right to mean that the first plane here:

(the one farthest to the right, where the hijacking is supposed to start) should actually be after the turn NW, not before it. It seems to me that the plane had already turned NW and Atta just kept on going that way, on the plane's previous heading (although the plane didn't climb in accordance with an instruction from ATC and the transponder later went off).

[ROH]

46. Yes, it seems that the hijacking probably started after that turn, but ...

why would the hijackers continue north-west for up to 13 minutes when the WTC is located to the south-west? Wouldn't it greatly increase the chances of the hijacked flight being intercepted?

Why didn't they hijack the flight earlier (i.e. before 8:13) anyway and fly south-west to the WTC, without any north-west course being taken at all?

[Kevin Fenton]

48. Why

"Why would the hijackers continue north-west for up to 13 minutes when the WTC is located to the south-west? Wouldn't it greatly increase the chances of the hijacked flight being intercepted?"
"Why didn't they hijack the flight earlier (i.e. before 8:13) anyway and fly south-west to the WTC, without any north-west course being taken at all?"
A: They departed from the scheduled course at the point where it was closest to the WTC. Given that they kept flying in the right direction, they would have assumed that ATC wouldn't get that worried for the time being. I think a plane losing radio contact is not that rare. I think they go a little early, but I suppose it's not that easy to tell exactly where you are when you're sitting in the back - it's only an error of a few minutes. It increases the chances of the flight being intercepted, but I don't think an interceptor would shoot the first flight down. How would anybody but the hijackers know what they were going to do?

[ROH]

51. On the 8:13 to 8:27 part of the route ...

weren't they closest to the WTC at about 8:17 to 8:18?



Even at 8:20 (i.e. a point approximately midway on that 8:13 to 8:27 part of the route) a line drawn to to the WTC is shorter than a line drawn from the 8:27 point to the WTC.

[Kevin Fenton]

52. Yeah, I guess you're right

Although I don't think there's much difference (it's only a couple of minutes further from when they turned than it is from a better point on the line - although you have to add the time they were travelling along the line before they turned south).
From when they turn until when they hit it's only 18 minutes, which is not a lot. The turning point is directly north of the WTC, but I don't know if that's significant. Given there's no reason to shoot American 11 down, even if it is intercepted, I don't think they should be in as much of a hurry as the other three planes.
I can't really offer you a definitive explanation, maybe there was trouble in back and that delayed them a little, maybe they had decided to turn when they were directly north of it and stuck to the plan, even though they could have gone earlier. Maybe they had all agreed that American 11 should hit and the other three planes should be hijacked at 8:45.
Generally, I think United 175 was the "best" hijacked plane, followed by American 11 and American 93, whereas the hijacking of United 93 appears to have been completely botched.

[DoYouEverWonder]

54. Wouldn't the plane have already been on auto-pilot?

I would assume that from the time the hijacking began to when the plane turns south, was how long it took for the hijackers to kill the pilots, get their bodies out of the way, secure the cabin and then figure out how the f to fly the plane.

[Old and In the Way]

36. I'm pretty sure 77 hits the Pentagon 52+ minutes after 175 hits the WTC.

nt

[Kevin Fenton]

37. 34 minutes

United 175 hit at 9:03:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?day_of_9/11=dayOf911
&timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=100

American 77 hit at 9:37:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=
complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=dayOf911&startpos=200

[Old and In the Way]

49. ok...thanks for straightening me out on that.

Looks like the 52+ minute spread was between the 175 time of hijacking and 77's Pentagon crash time.

[Old and In the Way]

35. Remote Control seems the easiest way to pull this off.

* Raytheon engineers/program managers involved with RC Systems conveniently on one of the planes.
* FBI/CIA obviously had their hijacker marks....what if they were already playing roles of hijackers that morning in the exercises underway?
* One of the pilots, Burlingame, was a planner in the simulation, IIRC.
* No interceptions at all. Why? Why not send unarmed aircraft up to get a look-see into the cockpit once it was apparent that there were terrorist flights underway?
* Why were base commanders told to load their interceptors with everything they had...thus assuring that no intercept would be made?
* What about the C130 in Washington and in Pennsylvannia?
* Top command MIA....Meyers shooting the breeze with Cleland while a huge simulation underway?
* Hans Hanjour, ace commercial acrobatic pilot.
* Rumsfield's amazing predictions. Actually 2....predicted a major attack soon, then the Pentagon would get hit.
* George Bush in the classroom wondering what the hell had happened to the other 2 jets.


I can't buy the decoy theory, passenger transfer, remote crash, etc....too much risk and complication potential. Much easier to use KO gas and RC fly those jets into their targets.

Personally, I think 77 was stalling waiting for 93 to get airborne....if they all go at the same time, I'll bet 93 was planned for the Capitol Building. Take out the entire Legislative Branch. Bush gets his wish to be dictator.

[demodewd]

40. re: decoy theory

I can't buy the decoy theory, passenger transfer, remote crash, etc....too much risk and complication potential. Much easier to use KO gas and RC fly those jets into their targets.

Personally, I think 77 was stalling waiting for 93 to get airborne....if they all go at the same time, I'll bet 93 was planned for the Capitol Building. Take out the entire Legislative Branch. Bush gets his wish to be dictator.

Correct me if I'm wrong but to take over the flight system of a commercial jet is one thing,to accurately guide that commercial jet into buildings at high speeds with exceptionally difficult aeronautical maneuvers is another. I think that would be complicated and not fool proof. Better to bring down the commercial flights which is a relatively easy aeronautical task and substitute them with drones that are retrofitted with state of the art guidance systems that zero in at an exact location on the buildings via homing devices.In effect the planes would become smart bombs.And remember the War Games which gave them ample cover.

And there is some evidence that that is actually what happened. First is the pod structure on the plane that hit the towwers. I believe there WAS a flame that was shot out of this apparatus just as "175" makes its entry in the South Tower. There is controversial evidence that "11"s entry into WTC1 was precipitated by a flash(missile(s). And then there's the Pentagon with its whitish initial blast color preceding the fuel blast.How would you coordinate explosives in the building with an oncoming jet in your scenario?

Why would "93" take so much time to fly all the way out to Cleveland before it turns around. In relation to your scenario,this doesn't add up. Commercial 93 was already 41 minutes late in liftoff. If it were to be coordinated with "77",and to some extent I think it was,it would have turned around much sooner after reaching cruise altitude so that it would crash just shortly after "77". But it kept going westward for 52 minutes! Why? So that "77" would need to fly further out too? I don't believe so. That 52 minute westward flight was needed in conjunction with something else,it had to be. Why delay the enactment of your process when time would be of the utmost essence in achieving your goals?

The 52 minute delay was absolutely necessary to bring down 93 at a rendezvous airport ,fill it with the passengers and then lift it off or another plane in its stead.I don't see any other feasible explanation in light of the anomolies associated with the three building crashes in relation to the entries of the planes.The only explanation in light of all this is that the perpetrators had to buy time.

Crashing into the capital building IMHO would not have guaranteed Bush anything. Is the plane going to kill more Republicans than Democrats ? Is the plane going to kill anybody? Wasn't the Capital building evacuated prior to a possible "93" entrance into the city? And how could one guarantee that the strategy would absolutely succeed which would be an absolute requisite of pulling off the stunt anyway.

Do you believe that the numerous cell phone calls from "93" were real? I have doubts,but I believe that the perpetrators were bent on playing this out because they knew the tremendous programming effect it would have on the public.And I think it was very possible that this is why they decided to go ahead with 93 even with its 41 minute delay. Shanksville was planned.

[Old and In the Way]

50. Maybe when we get a real 9/11 investigation, we'll get real answers.

The reason I wonder about 77 is that "bump" in the flight path...why that manuever, unless they were trying to burn time without moving further west.

pods and 93 rendezvous airports just strike me as risks that would be unacceptable. Too great a chance of exposure. For what purpose? Those airliners make perfectly good flying bombs. If you are going to do away with the passengers anyway, why a complicated transfer scenario? I've seen that "flash" just as 175 goes into the WTC....seems to me that a combination of static electricity and/or metal-to-metal friction would address that phenomenon.

As far as taking out the Capitol, why would the junta care if they offed a bunch of Republican legislators in the process? If you plan a naked power grab, best to take out as much of the Legislative Branch as possible.

[demodewd]

53. 52 minutes

I agree that 77 bought some time with the bump. But what about 93? Why is it buying time? 52 minutes out to Cleveland...after being held at Newark for 41 minutes. Why? They are quite late already...so why wasn't the plane turned around lets say 25 minutes into the flight and then it would have coordinated itself with 77 that crashed into the Pentagon at 9:39. Why the 26 minute difference? What advantages would the perpetrators have in that amount of delay? There had to be a reason why 93 flew 52 minutes before turning around. And you and I both agree that it was out of the human "hijackers" hands.

That's why I believe the original flight 93 was brought down. That explains the 52 minute ride to Cleveland. An operation occurred during that time. Otherwise why the delay?

The War Games covered the risk of exposure. And the plane exchange operation hasn't remotely,pardon the expression,been exposed. It worked quite well. The pod? I'm convinced but how many people are? Its created controversy in the 911 Truth Movement circles but 99 plus percent of the population are unknowing about it.I don't think the maneuvers done that day with those planes could be 100 percent guaranteed achievable by taking over their flight systems from outside. And that is what the perpetrators would have demanded. If it was a metal to metal friction phenomenon,why is the flash confined to the one area? Why don't we see the flash on the left side of the fuselage,or where those weighty steel alloyed engines entered? Or the wings?

The junta got what it wanted without committing such a drastic measure as killing legislators. Why do that when they knew that 911 phenomenon would already put them on the Patriot Act,increased military expenditure,Homeland Security express train.Its unneeded. Better to let the public think they still have something close to a working democracy than blatantly flaunting their power by such a draconian measure. And as I said previously...how could they predict the outcome? Who would be killed,would any be killed? This is how the oligarchy would do things.