911: Many more planes had been considered as a hijack. Why?

[John Doe II]

What was really going on on 911?
Why were there much more than four aircrafts suspected to have been hijacked on this day?
“Confusion reached such a high level that the FAA admitted to the White House officials who wanted to bring the President back to Washington that the agency could not account for seven planes. In fact, four of those planes turned out to be the downed ones — but that would take a while to sort out. Even more worrying was that it took the FAA another hour and a half to account for three other aircraft.”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174912,00.html

Could it be that theses planes had something to do with a ongoing exercise?
Here is what Col. Alan Scott said before the Commission on May 23, 2003:

"At 10:07 FAA reports there may be a bomb on board 93 --
that's four minutes after the impact. At 10:15 they report that
it's crashed. And you can see now that fog and friction lag
time has increased from seven minutes to nine minutes to 15
minutes, because of the level of activities that are going on.
And there are notations here about other airplanes as we begin
to divert other airplanes that are just out were intended for
training that day."
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Comm...

And apparently this planes out there were reason for much of the confusion:
I quote Paul Thompson's timeline:

9:00
"Northern Vigilance is called off. As the Toronto Star reports, "Any simulated information, what's known as an 'inject', is purged from the (radar) screens." (NORAD, 9/9/01; Toronto Star, 9/12/01) Therefore, many minutes into the real 9/11 attack, there may have been false radar blips causing confusion. Additional details, such as whose radar screens had false blips, or from when to when, are unknown.

One would assume that the Independent Commission tried to figure out which planes had been considered as a hijack and for which reason. But nothing.
So, I’m wondering: Does anybody know more about theses planes?
Should be an interesting issue.

The only quote so far I managed to find:
"One, a TWA flight, refuses to land in Pittsburgh and wants to fly on toward Washington. Another, a Midwest Express flight, disappears from radar over West Virginia. And three jets over the Atlantic Ocean are sending out distress signals, the Coast Guard reports.
A bomb is reported aboard a United Airlines jet that just landed in Rockford, Ill. Another jet disappears from radar and might have crashed in Kentucky.
The reports are so serious that Garvey notifies the White House that there has been another crash. Only later does she learn the reports are erroneous."
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-cle...

[EVDebs]

1. There were wargames Vigilant Warrior etc and Ptech insiders to

consider. Not mentioned in the 9-11 Report. See

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

for more. Also see archives of www.madcowprod.com for story on Ptech, the Saudi software company with intell and FAA access.

[John Doe II]

2. Thanks

This I'm aware of.
What I'm looking for are flight numbers, destination and reason for being considered as hijack.
Asked in a different way:
How is it possible that so many flights had been considered as a hijack?
The only reason can be that there were real reasons to assume a hijack (either simulated or real) and in any case I would imagine a close investigation of this but .... Nothing!

[EVDebs]

3. Read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert

of www.fromthewilderness.com fame This book lays it all out there. Oil is behind everything and Bush & co. won't steer the country OFF of oil. We're stuck for at least 35 more years.

Look at it this way also, like Churchill at the turn of the century getting the royal navy off of coal and onto oil, so to must the US DoD begin to wean itself.

BTW, the wargames mentioned and the scenario painted by Ruppert answer your questions. The book is a long one but you'll be turning pages fast once you get going.

[Old and In the Way]

4. Were the terrorists also advising FAA/NORAD on these other

planes? {sarcasm off}

Actually, a very good line of questioning. Who was giving out these reports? What was the evidence that would lead to these warnings? Seems to me that if these were simulated emergencies, the military should have been quick to shut it down and get the records corrected.

The whole chance that we'd have a massive simulation going on the same day and time that the terrorists just happened to hijack planes is too improbable to be simple coincidence. And more interesting....why wasn't this simulation reported on 9/11? And let's not forget Cheney wanting to give the Senate Intel Committtee lie detector tests to find who leaked the intercepted message about the "match being on".

I really wonder if the "hi-jackers" were part of the simulated exercise? Given Atta's background, perhaps they were dupes in the larger game that was underway on 9/11.

Here's a thread that I have bookmarked that Minstral Boy posted last year. I still think this is where the whole Official Story breaks down...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1298401

[EVDebs]

5. only report was in a footnote and no mention of wargames per se by name

Smoking gun, anyone ? Reminds me of the Warren Commission report that Mae Brussel read and resulted in the exposing of Operation Paperclip, along with White russians in Dallas planting negative info on Oswald...

Are the wargames a modern equivalent to 544 Camp St ?

[John Doe II]

6. It's 21 considered hijacks

By the end of the day, we had twenty-one aircraft identified as possible hijackings. The last one was en route from Madrid, Spain, to JFK International Airport.
(Cape Code One, January 2002)

[HockeyMom]

7. Eight

Local NY media were reporting at the time that there were 8 hyjacked planes. I also find it very ironic, too, that the tapes of the air traffic controllers at JFK were "accidently erased" on September 13th.