Terrorist Math: 3+1=4

[spooked911]

I noticed a strange coincidence with 9/11 and the London bombings, although what it means I don't know for sure-- I think maybe it is some sort of signature to show these acts were done by the same people.

On 9/11, 4 planes were hijacked, 3 hit buildings, 1 didn't-- this 1 plane crashed on the ground, and much later than the first 3 planes.

On 7/7, 4 mass transit vehicles were bombed, 3 subway trains (inside the ground), 1 bus above ground-- and this bus was bombed much later than the 3 trains.

Is this all just a coincidence?

It is hard to believe it is.

[pauldp]

1. Sorry Spooked I think you're grasping on this one.

Maybe... but I think the staged exercises are much more of a red flag.

[MercutioATC]

2. Are you SERIOUS???

That would mean that the terrorists PLANNED for a failed hijacking on UAL93.

Why would you plan a hijacking, knowing it would fail?

[atim]

3. Some other coincidences: create distractions from Tony's other problem

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=80&contentid=2409

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=80&contentid=2413

[philb]

6. Apparently it is suggested that the Arabs did it for 9/11

If they had wanted to take out the Twin Towers and Pentagon, they would have planned to hijack 2 planes from airports close to New York or a flight heading to New York, so as to not allow NORAD to have time to intercept and prevent the attack. On a normal day NORAD can have a jet to any area in the NorthEast in less than 15 minutes, so they would have planned to not give more time than that after radio contact and route changed.

And likewise, even if they knew how to cut off transponders they wouldn't since that offers no benefit to a hijacker since FAA and NORAD and Pentagon radar can still follow them, just not know their altitude which isn't that important. And by cutting the transponder off they know that NORAD would have been notified immediately.

By choosing Boston they gave NORAD plenty of time to intercept them under normal operating conditions. Which apparently 9/11 wasn't.
The route diversions were also strange and gave NORAD more time. But also had other perhaps not coincidental factors which have been discussed on some of the web sites.

But likewise the timing of the Fl 77 and Fl 93 hijacks were extremely strange and would seem to have guaranteed they could not possibly have been successful unless NORAD was completely taking the day off. Both by waiting to hijack in Ohio meant those planes wandered all over the Eastern U.S. and gave NORAD plenty of time to intercept. Such a plan could not have possibly been expected to be successful if the planner had half a brain and knew anything about FAA/NORAD proceedures.

[Make7]

11. I love to see a source for this one:

philb wrote:
On a normal day NORAD can have a jet to any area in the NorthEast in less than 15 minutes...

Where did you get that information? (And remember it should be pre-9/11 response times.)

-Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

12. Golfer

I believe Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted (over Florida) 22 minutes after ATC first realised there might be a problem. As ATC is not in constant contact with every plane, the problem probably occurred, let's say, 25 minutes before the intercept. The plane was first intercepted by a fighter in the air (perhaps on a training mission), not the one launched in response to the loss of contact, which arrived shortly after.

I think the maximum reaction times for strip alert planes were shorter then than on 9/11 (when they were 15 minutes), but on 9/11 the planes apparently didn't need the full 15 minutes to get airbourne anyway (perhaps because they were in a higher state of readiness due to the war games), so this is irrelevant.

Therefore, I think the planes should have been intercepted approximately 25 minutes after ATC first realised it had lost contact.

[Make7]

20. "I believe...." "I think...."

I was asking for a source showing that intercepts had occurred in that time frame, or some kind of verifiable document that states that the 15 minute time frame was an operational target of the military. You have provided neither.
____________________

Here are times from the NTSB report for the Payne Stewart incident:

09:33 EDT - radio communication lost
09:54 CDT - intercept plane within 2,000 ft of aircraft

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

Note the time references. EDT (Eastern Daylight Time) and CDT (Central Daylight Time). That means there is a difference of one hour - which brings the intercept time to 1 hour and 21 minutes.

Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft and stayed with it from 11:09 a.m. to 11:44 a.m...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/oct99/crash26.htm

So, according to the Post, the FAA requested an intercept at 10:08 EDT. That's 35 minutes after radio contact was lost. And you "think the planes should have been intercepted approximately 25 minutes after ATC first realised it had lost contact." What are you basing that opinion on?
____________________

If philb wants to claim that NORAD can have a plane to any location in the North Eastern US in 15 minutes, I'd just like to see a reasonable source or example that would back it up. Or perhaps a map of the NORAD bases with alert aircraft (pre 9/11) showing the area that would be covered within 15 minutes of a scramble order.

:) Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

23. Intercept

On 9/11 the F-15s launched from Otis were 4-5 minutes away from the South Tower at 9:03 (taken from Thompson's timeline):

The minute Flight 175 hits the South Tower, pilot Major Daniel Nash says that clear visibility allows him to see smoke pour out of Manhattan, even though NORAD says he is 71 miles away. The other Otis pilot, Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy, recalls, “We're 60 miles out, and I could see the smoke from the towers.” They call NORAD right then for an update, and Duffy relates, “At that point, they said the second aircraft just hit the World Trade Center. That was news to me. I thought we were still chasing American 11.” In another account Duffy again relates, “It was right about then when they said the second aircraft had just hit the World Trade Center, which was quite a shock to both and I, because we both thought there was only one aircraft out there. We were probably 70 miles or so out when the second one hit. So, we were just a matter of minutes away.” He asks for clarification of their mission, but the request is met with “considerable confusion.” Bob Varcadapane, a Newark, New Jersey, flight controller who sees the Flight 175 crash, claims, “I remember the two F-15s. They were there moments after the impact. And I was just—said to myself, ‘If only they could have gotten there a couple minutes earlier.’ They just missed it.”
Boston ATC realised American 11 was hijacked at 8:25:
8:25 a.m.: Boston Flight Control Tells Other Centers About Hijack, but Not NORAD
The Guardian reports that Boston flight control “notifies several air traffic control centers that a hijack is taking place.” But it does not notify NORAD for another 6-15 minutes, depending on the account.

From 8:25 to 9:03 is 38 minutes, plus another 5 for the F-15s to get to the WTC. That makes 43. If you look at the route supposedly taken by the F-15s from Otis, you can see that it is not direct. Also, ATC delayed notifying the military. When I adjust for these two factors, I get approximately 25 minutes.

What are you saying, that it should take exactly 43 minutes?

[Make7]

28. pre-September 12th, 2001

philb wrote:
If they had wanted to take out the Twin Towers and Pentagon, they would have planned to hijack 2 planes from airports close to New York or a flight heading to New York, so as to not allow NORAD to have time to intercept and prevent the attack. On a normal day NORAD can have a jet to any area in the NorthEast in less than 15 minutes, so they would have planned to not give more time than that after radio contact and route changed.

And likewise, even if they knew how to cut off transponders they wouldn't since that offers no benefit to a hijacker since FAA and NORAD and Pentagon radar can still follow them, just not know their altitude which isn't that important. And by cutting the transponder off they know that NORAD would have been notified immediately.

Post #6

What I am saying is that before 9/11 occurred the procedure was not to notify NORAD the instant radio communication was lost, a plane went off course, or if a transponder signal was changed or turned off. They would attempt to find out what the problem was first. Hijackings were extremely rare, but radio problems, transponder issues, and flight deviations were not nearly as uncommon.

What I'd like to know is: why does philb think that NORAD can have a plane anywhere in the North Eastern US within 15 minutes?
____________________

Kevin Fenton wrote:
From 8:25 to 9:03 is 38 minutes, plus another 5 for the F-15s to get to the WTC. That makes 43. If you look at the route supposedly taken by the F-15s from Otis, you can see that it is not direct. Also, ATC delayed notifying the military. When I adjust for these two factors, I get approximately 25 minutes.

Let us suppose for a moment that the target of Flight 175 was not the WTC, and that ATC notified the military instantly.

According to the 9/11 Commission timeline, the time elasped from the notification to NEADS until the fighters were airborne was 15 minutes. Then by your calculations it should have only taken 10 minutes for the fighters to get to the WTC.

ATC was aware of the hijacking at 8:25 am. Add 25 minutes until intercept and we get 8:50 am. Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 am. That's still not enough time.

So are you saying the fighters should have intercepted Flight 175, not because there was enough time, but because the target happened to be right next to Flight 11's target?

-Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

33. Timing

Yes, I'm saying that a good response time would have been to have the F-15s over Manhattan at around 8:50. In actual fact, 13 minutes later they were still 5 minutes away. I think this is a poor response time and I attribute it to delays at the FAA and the somewhat indirect route taken by the fighters.

I don't think an fighter should have intercepted American 11 (it would have to be bloody quick) and I don't think that, if they had reached United 175, they should have shot it down over a built-up area.

The response is slow here, but not suspiciously slow IMO.

Again, what's your position? Do you think the reaction time to American 11 and United 175 is good, average or poor?

[Make7]

43. procedures

I agree that the time it took to get the hijack information from the ATC to the military could have been faster, but I don't know what the procedure was to relay that information that day. How many supervisors did it go through? Was it supposed to go to the FAA first and then the military? And once it got to the military, how long until it went through proper channels?

According to the 9/11 Commission it took 8 minutes to issue the scramble orders after the military was notified. (for AA11) And it only took 7 minutes to get the fighters airborne. (One of the pilots said he received advanced warning before the scramble order, which probably saved a few minutes.)

So right there we have 15 minutes. My first response was to plilb's post where he stated that NORAD can have a plane anywhere in the North Eastern US within 15 minutes. I think that is incorrect.

I agree with your assessment - I think the response time could have been faster. But I believe they were probably "normal" for the procedures in place at the time regarding AA11 and UA175. It it my understanding that the procedures have been significantly streamlined since then.

I think one of the problems in trying to determine a reasonable time frame is that there is so little information to base it on. (At least that I am aware of.) Maybe someone else here has more info to make a better estimate.

-Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

47. Ad hoc

Some of the actions seem to have been somewhat ad hoc that day, for example Boston Flight Control itself called Otis and Altantic City air bases at 8:34. Perhaps this means that the procedures weren't that specific, or that the people at Boston Flight Control were not familiar with them, or that they felt it would be a good idea to take a shortcut.

Boston flight controllor Pete Zalewski first told his supervisor something was wrong with American 11. Flight control manager Glenn Michael also seems to have been involved somehow. According to the Guardian, some other flight control centres were notified at 8:25.
Boston Flight Control called the FAA Command Center at 8:28. And they called the Operations Centre at FAA headquarters at 8:32.

After 8:37 (taken from PT's timeline)
NORAD gives the command to scramble fighters after Flight 11 after receiving Boston's call. Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins at NEADS tells Colonel Robert Marr, head of NEADS, “I have FAA on the phone, the shout line, Boston . They said they have a hijacked aircraft.” Marr then calls Major General Larry Arnold at NORAD's command Center in Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, and says, “Boss, I need to scramble Otis .” Arnold recalls, “I said go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get the authorities later.”
This seems to mean that Boston called NEADS and then NEADS called Florida, where Arnold said go ahead and scramble. I guess NEADS then called Otis. If the first call from Boston to NORAD really did come at 8:37, twelve minutes after Boston started notifying of the hijack, then this is an inappropriate delay, especially seeing as they were calling bases a few minutes before this.

It seems that part of the delay occurred on the runway:
Duffy says, “Halfway to the jets, we got ‘battle stations’ ... which means to get ready for action.” The actual scramble order does not come until the pilots are already waiting in the fighters: “We went out, we hopped in the jets and we were ready to go—standby for a scramble order if we were going to get one.” Duffy continues, “I briefed Nasty on the information I had about the American Airlines flight. About four-five minutes later, we got the scramble order and took off.” (taken from PT)
Perhaps you could classify the runway delay as "normal" pre 9/11 (there seems to have been a similar (but much longer) delay at Langley), but I view it as unjustified and unnecessary. Obviously, this doesn't mean it's the result of anything but a genuine screw-up.

Perhaps the response was slow because some of the people in charge that day were inexperienced:
(1) Captain Charles Leidig was in charge of the NMCC, standing in for his superior, but had only qualified for this role a month previously.
(2) Ben Sliney, the FAA National Operations Manager, started work in that position that day.

15 Minutes
15 minutes is the maximum scramble time for the 14 aircraft that were on strip alert in the US on 9/11 (it probable takes a lot longer to scramble planes from bases without fighters on strip alert, although such times this may vary from base to base). I don't see how you could have a set time for an intercept anywhere in the NE US - it would have depended on the speed and heading of the plane to be intercepted and how close it was to the two bases with strip alert aircraft.

Stand Down
I can't believe a specific stand down order was issued for 9/11 and the people receiving this order at the bases did not kick up a hell of a stink about it afterwards.
The procedures for escorting hijacked aircraft were changed in the spring in a way which may have delayed the response, but the change was ambigious and the military ignored it anyway, so I don't think this order hampered their efforts.
As far as the claim that Myers and Rumsfeld sat on their hands and then lied about it, I think this is fairly credible, but I can't see how this could have affected the response to the planes which crashed in New York.

[Make7]

52. 15 minutes

Kevin Fenton wrote:
15 minutes is the maximum scramble time for the 14 aircraft that were on strip alert in the US on 9/11 (it probable takes a lot longer to scramble planes from bases without fighters on strip alert, although such times this may vary from base to base). I don't see how you could have a set time for an intercept anywhere in the NE US - it would have depended on the speed and heading of the plane to be intercepted and how close it was to the two bases with strip alert aircraft.

That's what I was thinking - so why does philb think that NORAD can have a plane anywhere in the northeastern US within 15 minutes? Is he actually basing that on something or just guessing?
____________________

The procedures that day were not followed 100% - I agree. Some shortcuts were taken - however Boston Center did not call NEADS the instant they believed AA11 was hijacked. Did they just not think it was important? Or were they possibly going to supervisors, reviewing the radio communications and trying to make a definitive assessment? I remember someone testifying before the 911 commission explaining how there were too many steps and too much time wasted in the procedures for ATC to notify the military.

How many hijacks before that day turned into suicide missions using the planes as weapons? The procedures (whatever they may have been) were set up for "normal" hijackings. That certainly is a failure of foresight in not streamlining the communication channels, but knowing the outcome now and figuring out what should have been done is much easier than trying to decide what to do as events are unfolding.

The possibility of a stand-down order is remote in my opinion. At the very beginning of the hijackings, it is doubtful that anyone high up in the chain of command would have been able to speed up the response, but once things started to unfold it would have been nice to see some leadership from someone near the top of the chain. Especially the President.

-Make7

[spooked911]

7. Yes, but I don't think we have the same idea who the terrorists were

I think the terrorists did have flight 93 go later and that it wasn't destined to fly into a building.

[MercutioATC]

8. Then what was it destined to do?

Just a theory: The hijackers were instructed not to hijack the plane until the it was at cruising altitude and on autopilot, and an opportunity presented itself. On UAL93, this took until the plane was over Pennsylvania.

No, I don't have hard evidence to support this, but it seems a lot more realistic than anything else I've seen here.

[Kevin Fenton]

13. Can't see it

"Just a theory: The hijackers were instructed not to hijack the plane until the it was at cruising altitude and on autopilot, and an opportunity presented itself. On UAL93, this took until the plane was over Pennsylvania."

I don't think so. How would the hijackers know it was on autopilot?

I think the hijackers are genuine and I can see why the other planes were hijacked the way they were, but the hijacking of United 93 makes no sense to me. My explanation is that something goes wrong and that this is the reason for the lateness. Perhaps they were confused by the delay at the airport, perhaps one of the hijackers decided the day before that he didn't want to die, fell ill, or something like that. There were only 4 hijackers on the plane, maybe the "missing" hijackers was the bright one who knew the plan best. Just because the hijackers screwed up one plane, doesn't mean they're not genuine. It was a very difficult operation - especially as they couldn't communicate with each other during the hijackings - and they probably knew it wouldn't be 100% successful. Only 2 out of 3 African embassy bombings were successful, too.

[MercutioATC]

16. ALL planes are on autopilot once they reach cruising altitude.

Actually, before that, even.

Waiting until crusiing altitude would give two advantages:

1) It would lessen the chance that the cockpit intrusion would cause behavior that would be noticed as odd by ATC (not responding to climb clearance).

2) If the plane is flying itself, the pilots could be neutralized without crashing the plane.

Of course, they eventually DID deviate from ATC clearances, but not until they had control of the plane (except in UAL93's case).

It's not foolproof, but as a plan it gives the greatest chance of success.

[Kevin Fenton]

17. Advantage

OK, I can see the benefits of waiting until a plane is on autopilot and/or at cruising altitude.

However, I think the hijackers' main consideration was to "sequence" the planes in the best way. Both United 175 and American 77 were hijacked at around the time American 11 crashed. Before the first plane crashed, nobody had any idea it was a suicide hijack and there was therefore no reason to shoot American 11 down, even if it were intercepted. If all the planes had been hijacked at the same time, the FAA and the military would have realised very early on that they were no ordinary hijacks. In order to increase the chances of the first plane being "successful", the hijackers had to reduce the chances of the other planes hitting their targets.

[Endangered Specie]

4. you dont seriously believe this...

If you use your imagination, numerous mathematical coincidences can be conjured up, just like people who buy that "bible code" nonsense.

[Frederik]

5. I don't see a signature here

to be frank. But who knows. Maybe I just don't see the point of "signatures" like this, whether you're arranging a "false flag" terror attack or just a terror attack. Anyway, they appear to have found the guys who did it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1622881

[janedoe]

9. I think it's meaningful.

I said something about this in (I think it was) the general forum within a day of 7/7.

For 9/11, The WTC was spectacular, but just "one" event and in "one" location. The Pentagon made it look like DC was being attacked, without doing much damage. They didn't want to ruin the Capitol or Whitehouse, so pretending flight 93 was headed that way did the same job.

The significance of 3+1? That "1" odd event could be anywhere... implying "it could happen anywhere and to anyone, so you better be scared."

Now, London -
Three bombs in the subway was seen as "one" event. The bus event gives it the "terror power," like flight 93. "Be scared; it could happen to you anytime and anywherre."

If it weren't for the bus event, you'd be safe simply riding your bike to work instead of taking the subway. Now a bus can blow up next to your bike ...or some other "unkown" event.

Why 3+1=4?
If it were only 2+1, it would be more of an isolated and "underfunded" event. 3 can be seen as "many" bombs in "many" places.

[MercutioATC]

10. It's amazing what "patterns" can be found in retrospect...

Maybe, however, terrorists wanted to make a statement and planned to hijack planes to crash into icons of American power. Four hijackings were successful. Of those, three hit their intended targets and one didn't make it.

Why wouldn't they want to ruin the Capitol or the White House? If you're trying to make a statement, high-profile financial and governmental targets make sense. I think it's very likely that UAL93 was originally destined for one of the two.

[Kevin Fenton]

14. White House

My understanding is that the 4th target was the Capitol. I read somewhere the hijackers thought it would be hard to hit the White House due to its size. I suppose it is a lot smaller than the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol.

[MercutioATC]

15. Either one would have served the purpose.

I just don't believe that the hijackers meant for it to crash in Pennsylvania.

[mikelewis]

27. Wouldn't it make more sense to crash it into WTC7?

If I were the designer of 9/11 and had gone through all the trouble of loading a few buildings full of explosives, I'd really want them to get hit by a plane. I would almost need them to hit so there'd be an explanation for ALL of them to collapse. I would also want to time it so the towers collapse would open up an avenue for the final plane to cruise right through the fiery rubble of the collapsed towers. It would have been an awesome spectacle. I then could have dropped WTC7 and no one would even bat an eye at it's collapse. If I were the terrorist mastermind, I would have been pretty pissed off that the plane crashed or maybe was even shot down. Oh well, those stupid "rag heads", they can't get anything right, can they?

[Make7]

29. Not with a Combat Air Patrol over New York. ( n/t )

[mikelewis]

30. The Combat Air Patrol wasn't looking for 93 in New York

93 was heading to Washington, remember? A secret Service person broke into the radio frequency and told to protect the White House.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=ua93
"The Langley F-16s headed to Washington are told that all planes in the US have been ordered to land (that command was given at 9:45 a.m.). According to the New York Times, at some point after this, someone from the Secret Service gets on the radio and tells the pilots, “I want you to protect the White House at all costs.”

The jets weren't dispatched to cover New York until after the first building fell. Actually, it was 1 minute before the first one fell but that's just semantics. They also did not have shoot down orders. We'll never know where 93 was actually headed, so the point is moot, but if it was my plan, I would have slammed it into WTC7 and gotten rid of a huge question mark.

[Make7]

31. But if it was your plan it would have been heading to New York.

You can't have it both ways.
____________________

There are reports that the Combat Air Patrol was established at 9:25 am. (source)

"I would also want to time it so the towers collapse would open up an avenue for the final plane to cruise right through the fiery rubble of the collapsed towers." - mikelewis

Are you changing when the towers collapsed too? And the flight schedule of UA 93? (It was more than 25 minutes late taking off.) And assuming that none of the air traffic controllers or the fighter pilots would notice another aircraft flying towards New York?

:) Make7

[mikelewis]

32. I never said it was a perfect plan but...

You did state that I couldn't crash my 4th flight into WTC7 because of the Combat Air Patrol. To begin, the combat air patrol doesn't have much of a chance to stop me.

They were essentially flying blind. There was a lot of confusion on that day. There were at least 2-3 Air FTX taking place with simulated planes showing up on radar. There was also reports of 7 other planes unaccounted for at @ 9:37 so even if they were covering New York, which they weren't, they would have had no idea which plane to shoot down. If the pilots were unwilling to start shooting down airliners without a Presedential order then New York was a wide open target. D.C. was where all the action was being focused, anyway. Crazy terror reports all from all over the city were pouring in and the air force was directed to protect the White House at all costs. All the while New York lay protected by two essentially blind and largely impotent pilots. They didn't even get vague shoot down orders until 9:59 a.m.

"He recalls that around the time of the collapse of the South Tower, “The New York controller did come over the radio and say if we have another hijacked aircraft We're going to have to shoot it down.” However, he says this is an off-the-cuff personal statement, not connected to the chain of command."

According to the 9/11 commissions report, they probably shouldn't have been in New York at all. "The 9/11 Commission later concludes, in direct contradiction of the recollections of the pilots and others involved that day, that the fighters are never directed toward New York City at all, but rather are ordered to head out over the Atlantic Ocean. According to the 9/11 Commission's conclusions, the fighters do not reach New York City until 9:25 a.m.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=ua175


Now, of course any information about the time the fighters showed up is pretty irrelevant, since we really don't know for sure when they left Otis and when they reached New York. In fact, according to Richard Myers, no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon was struck. That story changed later but it jives with Guiliani's statement that he called Bush and ... well, just read it..

According to New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's 9/11 Commission testimony in 2004, about one minute before the first WTC tower falls, he is able to reach the White House by phone. Speaking to Chris Henick, deputy political director to President Bush, Giuliani learns the Pentagon has been hit and he asks about fighter cover over New York City. Henick replies, “The jets were dispatched 12 minutes ago and they should be there very shortly, and they should be able to defend you against further attack.” <9/11 Commission Report, 5/19/04> If this is true, it means fighters scramble from the Otis base around 9:46 a.m., not at 8:52 a.m., as most other accounts have claimed. While Giuliani's account may seem wildly off, it is consistent with reports shortly after 9/11. In the first few days, acting Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers, and a NORAD spokesman, Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, claimed no fighters were scrambled anywhere until after the Pentagon was hit. This story only changed on the evening of September 14, 2001, when CBS reported, “contrary to early reports, US Air Force jets did get into the air on Tuesday while the attacks were under way.”

So it's possible the "Terrorists" on 93 could have planned a turn toward New York. Any building on the Eastern seaboard was a potential target. How could they know the terrorists were plannning to strike the White House or any other house for that matter. If they were taken as completely by surprise as they said, there would have been no time to determine where the flight was headed. In fact, the only information the public has about a possible location is when the "terrorists" tell the passengers that they are returning to the airport. I guess the possibility does exist that the new flight plan the terrorists filed shortly after they took over the plan could have lead a bee-line for D.C. but aside from that, there is no earthly reason to deduce that the plane was heading for the White House.

But anyway, my story is make believe. We all know it was those damn Arabs. I just like to pretend sometimes that perfectly good buildings can't simply just collapse and that it would be a hard thing to accomplish to actually get an suspected hostile aircraft anywhere near the Pentagon, the center of the most powerful army ever created. Of course, in the real world, these things are true. Buidlings do simply fall and the most sophisticated, expensive and powerful defensive machine the world has ever known couldn't identify and intercept 4 giant flying houses in over an hour.

In my make believe world, though, I actually feel a bit safer. See, in my make believe world, if we are ever attacked by another country's air force, we could actually identify and kill the enemy. In the real world, appearantly, an enemy could fly giant flying elephants with rocket launchers on thier backs ten times around our great country before our pilots turned off CNN and went on a counter-offensive. In the real world, a fire in a downtown building could melt steel beams if there is any kerosene laying around and destroy the entire building in to a nice fine nontoxic powder. In my make believe world, it would take a bomb to knock down a building that hadn't been hit by an airplane and was across the street and had a building in between that did not collapse and was also filled with asbestos.

So, in my make believe world, WTC7 could have very well been the target of Flight 93. In my make believe world, WTC7 was the command center of the attack and subsequently had to be destroyed to eliminate any evidence of that fact. In my make believe world, a huge mistake was made when flight 93 was shot down by our air force pilots. The pilots didn't do anything wrong, they believed we were actually under attack by terrorists. However the people who had a perfectly good building full of explosives and no plane to hit it with began to freak out, just a little. But then one man had an idea on what to do. He said "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." In my make beleive world, this seems logical. 3+1=4 4 planes hijacked, 4 buildings collapsed. End of story. Snap back to reality...

[janedoe]

34. Nice work!

:-)

[Make7]

38. Now I understand.

Flight 93 was actually shot down, but in your WTC7 scenario it couldn't be shot down because they didn't have orders to do it. (Even though it would've been after you claim Flight 93 was shot down.) (Or did I read that incorrectly?)

Given the circumstances of that day, believing that an off-course plane headed to New York, after both Towers were hit much earlier in the day, would not get a tremendous amount of scrutiny is pure fiction.

Are you saying radar ceased to function, and that a fighter would not be requested to make a visual inspection of a plane flying towards the Combat Air Patrol area that had been set up?

Perhaps my grasp of "make believe" isn't as acute as yours.

:) Make7

[mikelewis]

39. I'm theorizing...

That 93 wasn't supposed to have been shot down or crashed and that the original intent was to have it strike WTC7, the only collapsed building not hit by a plane. Obviously, radar did cease to function correctly on 9/11 or we would have had at least a few interceptions but so far, not one has been reported as successful. There were a few attempts but the fighters were directed against the wrong planes. When the fighters were scrambled for flight 11, the fighters actually went after Flight 175 by mistake. When the Toledo Fighter group went after flight 1989, it had had no indication of even being hijacked.

Also, to make a visual inspection of the plane requires the pilot to actually intercept the plane and even if the New York group split up, they would have had to have inspected 3.5 planes a piece before they could have ascertained which flight was the actual threat. Remember, there were reports of 7 unidentified planes heading to New York. Even if they got lucky and intercepted 93, they may not have shot it down without the Presidential Directive to do so.

Now, whether or not they would have been directed to intercept any of the planes is debatable. Remember, the Otis Flight group was supposedly directed to fly out and protect the ocean. They could have been order to intercept 93 or 77 or even 175 since they would have had time to do that had if the revised accounts are true of fighters actually being scrambled. Otis was only allegedly scrambled after it was too late to stop flight 11 from crashing into the first tower. They mistakenly targeted 175 but for some reason did not intercept it though they had the time if they flew at top speed.

Obviously, something went wrong with 93. Either it was shot down without orders by people not in the loop or it crashed as the OCT describes, either scenario means that it was unable to reach it's intended target. Since there is no earthly way to determine the actual target of 93, it very well could have been and should have been WTC7. Flight 93 crashing into WTC7 would balance out the equation. 4 planes hijacked - 4 buildings collapsed. Now the equation balances out anyway except one of the planes doesn't actually hit the last building. In my make believe world, if I hijack 4 planes and plan on destroying 4 targets, I would plan on the planes crashing into those targets to at least give the appearance of a reason for the buildings destruction. In the reality of 9/11, 4 planes are hijacked, 3 strike their targets, one crashes and 4 buildings collapse. If you believe this, then maybe your grasp of "make believe" is much more acute than mine. The OCT is saying a building can simply fall down without being struck by a plane. That takes quite a giant leap of the imagination to reconcile that argument.

Also with the collapse of the towers, the last plane could actually strike the broad side of WTC7 whereas if they were still standing, the building would be much more difficult, if not impossible to strike.

Regardless, this is simply speculation on my part. We all know what really happened anyway.

[Make7]

40. Obviously.

mikelewis wrote:
They mistakenly targeted 175 but for some reason did not intercept it though they had the time if they flew at top speed.

So they could have caught up to UA175, but wouldn't be able to find UA93 coming in after the Towers collapsed? Almost an hour and a half later? If you say so...

mikelewis wrote:
The OCT is saying a building can simply fall down without being struck by a plane. That takes quite a giant leap of the imagination to reconcile that argument.

It does? I think many buildings have collapsed "without being struck by a plane". If fact, I'd venture to say that most buildings that have collapsed have not been struck by a plane.

mikelewis wrote:
We all know what really happened anyway.

I'm sure that is why there is such widespread agreement in this forum.

:) Make7

[mikelewis]

41. Great retort but there's an even better reason to why I'm wrong...

I believe I also spelled the word accelerant wrong as well so obviously my whole argument must be fallacious.

You're nit-picking over semantics {which I don't mind} but this was simply an exercise in conjecture. See, we have no idea where 93 was headed when it suddenly stopped flying nor do we know what made the plane crash in the first place. We don't know how WTC7 suddenly collapsed or why someone would destroy it if there was indeed intent behind this dastardly deed. We don't know why our air force suddenly froze and failed to respond when their entire existence was designed for moments like these. We don't know how a flying warehouse slipped through the defensive ring of one of our most protected buildings nor do we understand how it apparently disintegrated to the point that it did. We don't understand how our President, the heir of 200 years of chopped cherry trees and emancipation and victory at all costs, could simply sit down and read a book about a goat with school children while our country was under attack. We don't know why we're in Afghanistan or Iraq since the dust hasn't settled on the questions from 9/11. So forgive me if I offend your sensibilities by offering my thoughts on a topic that should be open for discussion. I don't have any answers, I just have guesses. If this were a game show and I had a million dollars riding on the answer, I would guess that out of all of the building flight 93 should have struck, it would have been one of the buildings that fell down.

Now you state, "I think many buildings have collapsed "without being struck by a plane". If fact, I'd venture to say that most buildings that have collapsed have not been struck by a plane."
And this is true, but not one, not one single solitary itty bitty polka dotted steel frame building had ever ---- ever, never, ever before collapsed due to fire. But, in the reality of the OCT, three buildings did just that and one of them didn't have the benefit of having a 65 ton airplane slam into it. So yes, buildings do collapse but there is usually a good explanation for them to do so. In regards to the collapse of WTC7, there is no good reason offered, in fact, the FEMA report states , "The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings."

And we all really do know what happened on 9/11. Remember, history is written by the victors, so the 9/11 commission's report is what happened on 9/11. There may come a time when people begin to really ask some hard questions about this day but my guess is that will never happen. These questions will never get answered and the partial truth will become fact and slip off into the history books. A thousand years from now, some child will skim over the 9/11 paragraph in their history textbooks and if they should happen to read it, it will be a much abridged version of a nightmare but nothing more. It will rank up there with Leif Erickson's discovery of North America. After the 9/11 paragraph, the child will turn the page and our brief moment in history will change to something equally as boring but most likely equally as tragic and they'll neither know nor care that people had questions or tried to find the answers to those questions. The page will turn and the single most terrible betrayal in world history will dissappear...

[Make7]

42. Perhaps, you should use spell-check then.

I was just saying I thought it unlikely that an attack on WTC7 would be successful after so much time had elapsed after the two buildings right across the street were hit by planes. I was theorizing too...
____________________

mikelewis wrote:
...not one, not one single solitary itty bitty polka dotted steel frame building had ever ---- ever, never, ever before collapsed due to fire.

I'll have to disagree with you on that.

"In Chicago, Illinois, the McCormick Place Exhibition Center collapsed as a result of a fire in 1967. In this structure, the steel-frame of the building was unprotected. The reference to McCormick Place is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel.

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

And here's a picture:

?pic

____________________

Dude, go have a beer or something.

-Make7

[spooked911]

45. Great post!

You're nit-picking over semantics {which I don't mind} but this was simply an exercise in conjecture. See, we have no idea where 93 was headed when it suddenly stopped flying nor do we know what made the plane crash in the first place. We don't know how WTC7 suddenly collapsed or why someone would destroy it if there was indeed intent behind this dastardly deed. We don't know why our air force suddenly froze and failed to respond when their entire existence was designed for moments like these. We don't know how a flying warehouse slipped through the defensive ring of one of our most protected buildings nor do we understand how it apparently disintegrated to the point that it did. We don't understand how our President, the heir of 200 years of chopped cherry trees and emancipation and victory at all costs, could simply sit down and read a book about a goat with school children while our country was under attack. We don't know why we're in Afghanistan or Iraq since the dust hasn't settled on the questions from 9/11. So forgive me if I offend your sensibilities by offering my thoughts on a topic that should be open for discussion. I don't have any answers, I just have guesses. If this were a game show and I had a million dollars riding on the answer, I would guess that out of all of the building flight 93 should have struck, it would have been one of the buildings that fell down.

Truly inspired!
:toast:

[janedoe]

35. 3+1=4

Perhaps there's a 25% chance those stupid "masterminds" will mess up. So, they get it right 3 out of 4 tries.

You bldg 7 story does make sense.

[MercutioATC]

36. Unless you lived in NYC, you'd never heard of WTC7 before 9/11.

Hitting it doesn't make much of a statement.

Also, realize that there are at least a few of us who don't believe the buildings were loaded with explosives.

[mikelewis]

37. You are right about that...

I hadn't heard of WTC7 until 9/11. In fact, I hadn't heard of WTC7 until about this time last year. I hadn't seen the collapse nor had I read the official explanation. I hadn't read a building failure report nor a single government document for that matter {and I have actually signed a few in my day.} But when I did take note of WTC7 and found out what was in the building, I realized that the statement the building could make could reverberate much louder than all of the other possible targets combined. If the attacks were conducted from the Mayoral Command Bunker, then all that evidence just laying around may have made a huge statement.

As for the bombs, that may be a stretch of the imagination. There of course is no proof that the building was demolished with bombs but there's also no good explanation as to why it fell so my guess is just as good as yours as to why it spontaneously collapsed. How a person can watch the video of the collapse and see anything but a controlled demolition amazes me but I know it shouldn't. If Julia Roberts can find Lyle Lovett attractive and Mick Jagger was claimed to have been the sexiest man alive, then I can absolutely see how most people can believe the buildings just fell down. I guess its simply a matter of perspective. To most, buildings just falling down without a good explanation, seems completely logical. I guess it's because the powers that be says that's what happened. If they said it, it must be true. But I stopped believing what they say and so I just stick with plausible explanations.

Something brought down WTC7. According to all the laws of physics, the building should have remained intact until acted upon by an outside force. There was no apparent outside force that adequately explains its destruction, no catalyst to bring down that house of cards. Fire can't bring down a perfectly good building, at least not in that short amount of time. Hell, fire can't even collapse a wooden framed building in that short amount of time unless it is doused in an accelerant. So until a plausible explanation arises, I'll just stick with my crazy theories. I don't expect you to believe the buildings had bombs in them. Hell, I can't even convince you that it's not logical that a jumbo jet could actually fly into the Pentagon so how could I possibly convince you that there were bombs in those buildings.

[seatnineb]

18. It would not suprise me.....

....if the story of the bus mutates into a flight 93 like scenario:

Where the heroic passengers(having learned via cell phone of the other blasts) on the bus fought with a suicide bomber in an attempt to prevent him from detonating his explosives.

[MercutioATC]

19. Maybe all of the passengers on the trains were spirited onto the bus,

driven over the Atlantic, and shot down by holograms.

:eyes:

[pox americana]

21. Maybe Saddam had WMD.

Equally implausible.

[MercutioATC]

25. Agreed.

[seatnineb]

22. Why Merc...

You can always rely on our unamed friends to provide shit like this........

Shahzad Tanweer's friend, who refused to be named, said: "I heard he spent time studying Islam with preachers with very strong ideas. When he came back he went to hear extremist imams who had come from Pakistan."
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=652386

...the kind of crap that the likes of Merc and co believe far too easily.

[MercutioATC]

24. What does THAT have to do with the discussion?

I'm just commenting on the absurdity of some of the CTs here, especially those that suggest that planes were landed and passengers switched.

That aside, what do you have trouble believing in the link you provided?

[seatnineb]

26. And I was just hypothesizing

...how the story of what happened on the bus could be spun by the official spinnsters, using as a template or influence ,the heroic revolt scenario of Flight 93.

As for the link I provided....

In this case,for me, an unamed friend who says that the London bus bomber went to Pakistan and became radicalized;proves nothing.

[spooked911]

44. flight 93 WAS different, since according to passenger Tom Burnett, the

hijackers were talking about crashing the plane into the ground. He described overhearing the hijackers talk about this in a phone call to his wife.

Clearly, for whatever reason, the hijackers on flight 93 had different plans than on the other 9/11 flights.

This fits with the London bus bomber having a different plan than the tube bombers.

Maybe that aspect is a coincidence, but still four bombs on 7/7 and four airplane crashes on 9/11 seem more than a coincidence.

[janedoe]

46. I don't buy the phone calls.

Do you think the phone calls were real?
From what I remember, they talked about WTC1 having collapsed -- before it collapsed.

[spooked911]

50. Jeremy Glick was talking to his wife and she supposedly told him the South

tower collapsed before he started the revolt.

Either she is lying or the time of the passenger revolt is wrong. I always assumed it was the latter. However, it is interesting to think that Glick's wife knew of the tower collapse before it happened.

One reason she may have known is if flight 93 was a hijacking drill where passengers were told to call their families and the passengers were also told that their family members had info about terrorist attacks. Thus, the passenger phone calls may have been part of the drill and certain family members may have been told key events that would happen, such as the WTC collapse. In this scenario, Glick's wife would be in on the plot. That's how she could have known about the collapse ahead of time.

I'm not saying I think this is what happened, but it is worth putting it out there.

[janedoe]

51. I still don't buy the phone calls.

Refer to these:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=41531&mesg_id=41531

Caller: Mom? This is Mark Bigham.

Gee... Doesn't "Mom" know her son's voice?
Doesn't "Mom" know her son's last name?

Why are airlines, etc, now, talking about upgrading technology so that cell phone calls can be made from airplanes. Doesn't this imply that the technology didn't support this in 2001? Also, I've read that some of the families whose "loved ones" were said to have made cell phone calls never had those calls appear on their bill ...obviously feeding their skepticism enough to speak up.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=41531&mesg_id=41816

I am a cell phone design engineer. i dont dissagree with your flight att, but this is VERy dependant on several factors.
most important is altitude.
as Kee's experiment says, they work up until 2-5,000ft
i have tried a dozen times (Shhh...)
it NEVER works over 5,000ft. it may connect for 1/2 second, then drops right away.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316975d.shtml

the idea that Olson was even on this flight is a bit too coincidetal for me.
just like the idea that there were 4-5 war games going on that day.
I am a cell phone design engineer. The calls that were made could not have come from 35,000ft like shown in the flight maps for flight 93 and others.
Ted Olson first said that she used a cell phone, then when a few people were saying that cell phojnes wouldnt work,he changed his story to airphones.
the problem is he had aleardy said she was in back (bathroom i think) when she called.
Well, that cant be true either, airphone cords dont reach to the bathroom. i checked.
so he tried to cover his story, but made a faux pas and coulnt go back.
then he said, she might not have been in the bathroom, he thought she was becuase the background noise was quite.
trying to cover up again....

September 12, 2001
WASHINGTON -- "What should I tell the pilot to do? We've been hijacked," Barbara Olson, a former Southern California prosecutor, said matter-of-factly into her cell phone as she sat huddled with other passengers forced by knife-wielding assailants to the back of the jetliner.

Moments later, the solicitor general watched the screen and heard a newscaster speculate that a bomb had exploded at the Pentagon.
"He knew immediately that a bomb didn't go off," McConnell said. "He knew it was the plane."

WOW i guess he is psychic ? There were reports of other bombs...

[spooked911]

53. No doubt, the phone calls should be taken with a grain of salt if they

were clearly made with a cell phone. Meaning that they were faked-- and some 9/11 phone calls almost certainly were faked! Tom Burnett's first call from flight 93, where he talks about hearing the hijackers talking about crashing the plane into the ground was definitely made by cell phone and therefore is highly suspect-- particularly since this was early in the hijacking and the plane was certainly high in the air.

But now "they" say many of the passenger phone calls were made by Airfone, which is technically possible.

You said: " Also, I've read that some of the families whose "loved ones" were said to have made cell phone calls never had those calls appear on their bill ...obviously feeding their skepticism enough to speak up."
Do you have a reference for that? I'd be very interested in it.

[Kevin Fenton]

48. Arabic

If Burnett overheard them, does this mean he could speak Arabic or that the hijackers were speaking English? Why would the hijackers speak English? Or was one hijacker talking to a passenger?

The current explanation for the bus bomber is that one of the lines from King's Cross (the railway station where the bombers arrived in London) was closed (the London Underground is not in very good condition and there are constant line closures). The police think he may have requested additional instructions from his handlers and they told him just to get on a bus and blow himself up.

United 23:
(After 9:00 a.m.)
Shortly after 9:00 a.m., United Airlines Flight 23 receives a warning message from flight dispatcher Ed Ballinger. Flight 23 is still on a Newark, New Jersey, runway, about to take off for Los Angeles. Apparently in response to Ballinger's message, the crew tells the passengers there has been a mechanical problem and returns to the departure gate. A number of Middle Eastern men (one account says three, others say six) argue with the flight crew and refuse to get off the plane. Security is called, but they flee before it arrives. Later, authorities check their luggage and find copies of the Koran and al-Qaeda instruction sheets. Ballinger suspects they got away. “When all we have is a photo from a fake ID, the chances of finding in Afghanistan or Pakistan are rather slim.” A NORAD deputy commander later says, “From our perception, we think our reaction on that day was sufficiently quick that we may well have precluded at least one other hijacking. We may not have. We don't know for sure.”

I count at least five planes that were supposed to be hijacked on 9/11.

[spooked911]

49. I agree that Burnett couldn't have overheard the hijackers if they were

talking in Arabic. And perhaps you are right that the bus bomber was going for a different subway line but it was closed.

As far as the number of flights on 9/11, you are right that they may have been others that didn't work. But of course, the point is that four flights DID get "hijacked", and that would be the number the London bombers might want to mimic.

[janedoe]

54. 3+1=4, yet again!

They like this math, I tell ya.

I don't think this was a simple copycat event, today. Perhaps these are analogous to the anthrax events that urged passing of the Patriot Act. After all, isn't it today that they vote on finalizing the Patriot Act?

[spooked911]

55. I assume you are referring to this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/international/21cnd-attack.html?hp&ex=1122004800&en=c0d42a457154c1db&ei=5094&partner=homepage

"British Police Evacuate 3 Subway Stations After 'Incidents'"

LONDON, July 21 - Just two weeks after a string of attacks on buses and subways in London, the British police evacuated three subway stations and a bus in the city after responding to "incidents."

Good pick up!

[janedoe]

56. Yep. I'm referring to the current event.

I have CNN on in the background. (And they thought it was a good time to buy stocks!)

Bush gave that speech yesterday, talking about "those evil terrorists who want to do us harm." I didn't think he'd do a repeat of 7/7, but... they already had the plan. Why not recycle it? And this time, maybe they could make sure the Kingstar van isn't left next to the bus.

OK... I just heard "the Pentagon is stepping up security." They have bomb-sniffing dogs out.

I didn't think they'd have an article posted about it, already. They don't even know what's going on, yet.

[spooked911]

59. Bloody odd-- the first article said NOTHING about explosions

just that there were "incidents"

Now the same article has been edited to say there were explosions-- the URL is the same!

[janedoe]

60. CNN said the detonators went off, not the bombs.

They also had another bus, supposedly with a bomb on it. So, they parked the bus and cleared the area.

There was another event, it may or may not be related, where they took a guy out in handcuffs from 10 Downing street. It looked like he was wearing a jacket, but it could have been a bullet-proof vest.

[spooked911]

62. This reminds me of the weak follow-up attacks in the US after 9/11

such as the shoe-bomber and other lame attempts at terror. Of course, we also got hit with anthrax-- I wonder if a bioterror attack is gonna happen in Britain soon...

[janedoe]

61. Now, its the hospital.

Earlier, they had about 30 armed police go into the UCH hospital to check something. About 30 minutes, ago, they gave the "all clear."

Now, they just had a bunch of police cars with sirens going head back to the hospital. It's near the Warren street subway station. They think "the bad guy" went into the hospital from the subway.

[catnhatnh]

57. May I offer a theory?

OK- I want to attack a target US-UK whatever...Now while I very much want some successful attacks, I also would like intelligence as to anti-terrorism readiness. Lets suppose for argument sake the number 4 looks like a workable number of attacks. Now to the best of my ability I set the attacks with differing PROBABILITIES of success, lets say 90%,80%,70% and 50%. I can control this to a degree by altering personnel, timing, routes, and tactics. In fact, in my mind a single failure may show me more than complete success-for instance the Pennsylvania flight might show me that while my enemy had both the means and determination to shoot down a loaded commercial airliner, they were too afraid to admit this in public AND were willing to engage in a massive cover-up....Also it shows me a plan I had deemed only 70% likely to succeed is probably good enough. Now when I am shown a plan with a 60% probability of success I know enough not to dismiss it out of hand-I can judge it has a 50/50 chance and if the outcome is sufficiently promising???
What do you think? clever deduction or mad ravings? Keep in mind our own rhetoric-We have to be right 1005 of the time, they only have to be right once. That being true I'd want the intelligence...

[janedoe]

58. I like your probability selection idea.

However, I don't think these "terrorists" need perfect success. But, perfect failure defeats their purpose. Their purpose? to help coax citizens into giving up their civil liberties, their constitution, their bill of rights, and accept the BBB (Bush, Blair, Bolton...) regime.

[catnhatnh]

63. Yep.....

....and if your "terrorists" are the ones proposed by some on this board the same thinking applies....only instead the question becomes "How does the public react to a failed attack? How do they respond to a possible shootdown?