Did Mohamed Atta think he was a good enough pilot to crash a 767 into the

[spooked911]

WTC? This same argument goes for the other three 9/11 pilots, as well: officially-- al Shehhi, Hanjour, Jarrah.

Obviously this is a hard question to answer, but I think it is important for understanding how the attacks may have been set up, particularly if we postulate some form of remote control being used to control the planes.

Here are the possibilities as I see them:

1) he was a really good pilot and could have done it. The argument against this is he officially had never flown a large jet airplane before, had only flown prop Cessnas and used a 767 flight simulator.

2) he couldn't have flown it and he knew it, and he also knew his job was only to make it seem as if he could have flown a 767. He actually just hijacked the plane, had the pilots land it somewhere secret, and then there was a plane swap.

3) he couldn't have flown it but he thought he could have. To make sure he got to his target, the planners took over the plane by remote control. The hijackers were themselves hijacked.

I don't know-- I have a hard time with options 1 and 3. Leaving 2.

Is there some other explanation? Perhaps there were better terrorist pilots on the planes and the official hijackers were just patsies that were set up? Maybe they weren't even on the planes?

[LARED]

1. What makes you think flying a 767 into a 1350 foot tall building

is particularly difficult with the skills Atta had?

[spooked911]

4. please see my post #3

[Rich Hunt]

2. good question

...but I don't find 2 or 3 plausible.

But then again, I don't know how much skill is required to just fly a plane into a building. It's not as if he had to take off or land the thing.

[spooked911]

3. Multiple professional pilots have doubted the ability of a novice to fly a

767 at that speed into such a narrow target. And it is not matter of landing, BUT the pilot also has to descend to the right level.

It's like if you were asked to drive a high performance race car at 500 mph into a narrow alley without hitting the walls, and you've only ever driven an old Honda Civic.

It is not a trivial feat.

And this was done three out of three times!

[LARED]

8. Well I think if I practiced for six months on a high performance car

that traveled at 300 MPH I could hit the alley with a 50 mile approach to line up with a higher end machine.

Atta and al-Shehhi received nearly six months of flight training prior to taking controls of their aircraft. Given that, I'm sure they were trained sufficiently to move up and down and left and right while approaching a 1350 tall by 200 foot wide building in order to hit it just about dead center.

I realize there are a few pilots that have expressed doubt about their abilities, but so what? There are a few intelligent, professional people that think the WTC was demolished via controlled demolition. Go figure.

edit to clarify

[spooked911]

10. They didn't get training on the actual jets they flew.

They had never even flown a jet before.

[LARED]

19. So what part of my statement do you disagree with

Atta and al-Shehhi received nearly six months of flight training prior to taking controls of their aircraft. Given that, I'm sure they were trained sufficiently to move up and down and left and right while approaching a 1350 tall by 200 foot wide building in order to hit it just about dead center.

So they had never flown a jet before. So what. I've never driven a Formula 1 race car, but I'm sure you or I could make turns and make it go faster and slower and hit a large target if I know how to drive a regular car and had spent time in a Formula 1 race car simulator.

[spooked911]

36. Perhaps. But could you have won a race or even passed a professional

driver in a race?

Sure you could have driven one, but that doesn't mean you could have driven it well.

The twin towers were tall yes, but they were also very narrow. Going several hundred miles an hour and hitting one dead on in the center is not an easy feat, no matter what you say.

[LARED]

38. I say it is an easy feat

given training in real aircraft and on a simulator. What would be hard about the task. The towers were visible for at least 20 miles before impact. The skys were clear and quiet.

The towers at 200 plus feet across are hardly narrow. And neither tower was hit dead center.

Sorry, but you are not making a convincing argument that the hijackers did not have the skills to fly into the towers no matter what you say.

[spooked911]

40. Yes, well-- I never really expected to convince you.

Although for some reason it is irresistable to keep trying.

:)

[petgoat]

41. A radio navigational beacon installed in the tower would make targeting

a lot easier, wouldn't it? Whether for human cockpit pilots or remote
pilots or robot pilots.

[demodewd]

5. re: crashed

The only thing Atta crashed was a lot of parties.

[spooked911]

6. Yes!

:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

[spooked911]

7. I guess I should also point out that there is NO evidence that Atta,

al Shehhi, Hanjour and Jarrah were EVER in the cockpits of the four 9/11 planes.

[LARED]

9. Do you mean for training or for the hijacking? (n/t)

[spooked911]

11. Training?

Why would they be in the 9/11 jets for training?

[philb]

12. Was Woolworth Building (or WTC7) used as HQ for remote control

and demolitions control on 9/11?

P. Ashby -EMT thought he saw something like a missile shot at WTC1 from across the way.

(blanked out paragraph followed by)
SO THOUGHT SOMEBODY LAUNCHED MISSILE FROM THE EAST RIVER OR OVER THE HUDSON TO KNOCK IT DOWN I MEAN THATS WHAT IM THINKING IF THEY ARE IF THEY ARE STILL OUT THERE TO LAUNCH ANOTHER MISSILE I GOT TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE BECAUSE WE WERE IN WAR ZONE. RIGHT EXACTLY.

IM TRYING TO WALK TOWARDS NOT THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE BECAUSE I FIGURED THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER HISTORIC LOCATION FOR THEM TO ATTACK OR LAUNCH MISSILE I WAS TRYING TO HEAD TOWARDS THE MANHATTAN BRIDGE AND TAKE MY CHANCES THERE


Woolworth Building missiles at WTC1 building
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/297359.shtml
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4035
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/113055p-102094c.html

Video:
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/naudet/woolworth.php


I copied this from the site listed below because its hard to read there- or maybe just for people like me with limited computers.

Bo Dietl’s Covert Ops w/ Beau Dietl & Assoc. & Witkoff’s Woolworth Bldg:
9/11, Missiles, Anthrax? http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/09/297359.shtml

1. Background: The Woolworth Building, Broadway, Architect: Cass Gilbert; Height 792 feet 1913; World’s tallest Bldg- 1913-1930; Woolworth’s went out of business in 1998; Building sold to Witkoff Group, $155 million.
2. Background: Bo Dietl’s Beau Dietl & Assoc. (BDA) , Private Global Covert Operations and Covert Surveillane w/ connections to large military contractor corporations; NYC Global HQ; BDA Exec. Personnel histories in (pre-BDA & BDA), 92(Bush Sr) RNC and ’96 RNC Security; 00, 01 involved in organizing N. Carolina for Bush campaign; several with past of current top secret clearances; some left U.S. Delta Force & UN Special Forces covert op admin; others left narcotics squads in NYPD, others left corp security for 1 of 3 corps in U.S. allowed to import opium for manufacturing morphine/ codine; others left LAPD, CMO. Bo Dietl: an ex-detective of NYPD, BDA still called in for high-level investigations(coverups?) dealing w/(1)NYC murder/mutilation of Catholic nun, (2)other NYC(ritualized?) mass murders of 8 children (ages 3 to 12) & 2 adults- all shot once in head; (3) 86 Republican & Conservative Parties on NY nominated Bo Dietl for NY 6h District(Congress)-fails; endorced by: Pres. Reagan, V.P. Bush, Sen. D’Amato
NY Times, NY Post © Dietl was 92 Dir. Of Security, RNC(Houston, Tx); 1995-present Dietl made Chairman on NY State Security Guard Advisory Council, appointed directly by Gov. Pataki, another close Bush family ally; ’96 consultant to Dir. Of Security, RNC(San Diego, Ca); still groomed for the public eye in his books, films, guest lectures, etc. (d) Dietl directly advised Royal Faily of Saudi Arabia on issues of personal/physical site security; (e) he supervised security serv. For high officials of Peoples Republic of China, BDA “emplys cross-section of male/female operatives that can blend into any situation. These individual have training & expertise to execute whatever op is necessaru to accomplish the client’s objectives—form reg. surveillance to undercover assignments. BDA’s “operatives” capable of managing the most complex situations either domestically or abroad; specializes in installing surveillance devices/equip., including covert video/audio soulutions; devloper behind computer spy software, One Tough Computer Cop, w/ Computer Concepts, Inc. of Bohemia, N.y. to spy on another’s Internet/network activities; investiagive/security services typically w/ huge corporate clients; services from corporate/due diligence investig, corp. litigation support against class action suits, civil/criminal proceedings, & armed personnel.
3. Two Known Business Partnerships between CEOs of BDA & The Witkoff Group: (a) Dietl started own film production company, How Good Is This Production Company, w/ partner Steven Witkoff image developer, CEO- The Witkoff Group, (b) Dietl involved in real estate himself, in partnership w/Steven Witkoff, w/owner interest in major buildings in big cities in U.S.
4. Pre-9-11: from 1945, whole Woolworth’s observation deck on top (58th floor) is closed; Witkoff buys it in 1998.
5. NYC police know what is going on downtown: (a) World Trade Center police channel
07: Male: “The first one (WTC1) they think was a guy shooting missiles off the Woolworth Building , & the 2nd one (WTC2) they think is an airplane that was circling to watch it, and hit the WTC” {Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/29/03; (b) “The Woolworth Building: The Woolworth Building: They’re shooting at the Trade Center from the Woolworth Building” a police officer screams on the police channel; “There’s fuc*ing explosions going off on Vessey Street” another officer yells, {NY Post, 8/29/03}; (c) a called-in police complaint: “Someone has fired missiles at the World Trade Center’s north tower(WTC1) from atop nearby Woolworth Building. Said terrorists in plane watching attack then plowed into south tower(WTC2) (witnesses (a) & (c) : 2 different reports of the same observation) “Can you send somebody over to the Woolworth Building to check the roof?” a Port Authority police officer asked. “There’s a possible.. they said it was..we just had a second explosion, possibly a missile from the roof of the Woolworth Building.” “The Woolworth Building?” replied a police operator; ‘Yeah, on … on Broadway” officer said, {Transcripts, NY Port Authority emergency calls/radio transmissions; WWBC.com (?), 9/1/03; (d) WTC Ch. 07: Male: “Either, either a plane crashed into the Trade Center, or a rocket hit the Trade Center, & Uh, people are all over the the place, dead” ; (e) there are several claims of “sonic boom” – like sound occurring either directly w/ or directly before/after WTC1 hit.
6. Post 9-11, Post Oct. anthrax: Beau Dietl & Assoc. launched wholly owned subsidiary, BDA Mail Screening Services to profit based on fear from mailed anthrax attacks, even though they have questionable technology, ………
7. Top Floors of Woolworth Bldg have ideal trajectory to area of explosion @ Vessey, Fulton, & Church St; observation deck closed pre 9-11 useful of (BDA specialty) in film equipment & later hit evaluation, and /or missiles. Witkoff management cover: 2 CEO to CEO personal business links between Witkoff & Dietl already; assets used in private covert op w/ deniability” though built w/those w/military covert op & past top secret clearances; & BDA w/mil. Contractor connections;
8. Similar to Dyncorp by the way, Did Bush watch Beau Dietl covert camera feed since he keeps claiming he (unlike rest of whole world) watched WTC1 hit live? Was Woolworth both missiles as well as controlled demolition HQ, or was it WTC7? Did BDA send the anthrax to later benefit? One of………them has Newark, NJ connection.

I found this info due to the info about a Danish video I've ordered.
It had links to some of this.

[Kevin Fenton]

13. Good pilots

The pilots, as presented by the official theory, were not competent to fly the planes, although it's possible that one of them might have got lucky on the day. However, Al Qaeda is good at planning and would never launch a major attack without the proper people of the off-chance it would get lucky.

The evidence that the supposed pilots couldn't fly came from the FBI. If you are sceptical about some of its other statements, then you should be sceptical about this one too.

(1) It appears the Afghan airline Ariana, which Al Qaeda primarily used for smuggling drugs and arms, was used to train AQ pilots.

"Mid 1996 - October 2001
There also are reports suggesting that Ariana Airlines might have been used to train Islamic militants as pilots."

"October 1, 2001: Taliban Possibly Trained Pilots in Afghanistan
It is reported that “a worldwide hunt is under way for 14 young Muslims said to have been trained in secret to fly Boeing airliners at an air base in Afghanistan. A senior pilot for the Afghan state-owned airline Ariana has told how he and four colleagues were forced by the Taliban regime to train the men who are now thought to be hiding in Europe and the United States. The fourteen men, seven of whom are said to speak fluent English, are described as ‘dedicated Muslim fanatics’ who spoke of being involved in a holy war. They are thought to have left Afghanistan a year ago. All had close links with the Taliban and some had fought for the regime.”

If a hijacker learned to fly in Afghanistan, there is actually no way the FBI could have discovered this during its mockery of an investigation.

(2) At least 6 of the hijackers were not who they appeared to be (at least one on each plane). Possibly other hijackers had stolen the names of AQ fighters who died in Chechnya (or elsewhere). Proper pilots may have actually boarded the planes under false names. Before it went completely belly-up, the part of the FBI investigation in Saudi Arabia was investigating pilots there. If real Saudi pilots had nothing to do with 9/11, why was the FBI investigating them? And why were these records shredded?

(3) One of the original hijackers of American 77 was called Mansour Khaled, but he was soon replaced by Hanjour on the official list. In Hamburg, Atta lived with a radical Muslim called Atif bin Mansour, who was a fighter pilot for the Pakistani airforce. IMHO it's highly likely it is the same person. By common consent, American 77 was being flown like a fighter - this would be perfectly normal if a fighter pilot were at the controls.

(4) There were lots of reports that some of the hijackers (6-7) had attended military flying institutions in the US and the DoD denial of this is particularly weak.

The four bad pilots have three jobs (1) recon, (2) co-pilots during the actual flights (if only one hijacker can fly, why are there two people in the cockpit?) (3) decoys during preparation - Egyptian intelligence was obviously confused by the poor quality of the pilots and, although it discovered the plot, said that it propably wasn't that serious.

[spooked911]

14. Good points. I would quibble with one thing though-- that the reports

that the hijackers were bad pilots came from the FBI. In fact, most of these reports came from the mainstream media-- before the clampdown came on doing original reporting on 9/11 and the hijackers (as opposed to mouthing the government line).

I agree other pilots were used. I would suggest the official hijackers were true double agents/patsies that were given some mission where they were supposed to learn to fly, and these people were not even on the 9/11 planes.

[Kevin Fenton]

15. Plausible patsyometer

I mean that the FBI doctored the list of hijackers (at least to take out MK) and the MSM couldn't then write/broadcast about the actual hijackers not named by the FBI (of which there were at least 7 - MK and the six guys with demonstrably stolen identities). The MSM's reporting was skewed by what the FBI said from the get-go.

How good a patsy was Oswald, for example? He was actually a trained marksman, clearly unstable mentally and an obvious commie, in addition to which he demonstrably bought a gun which was fired at the time in question and was blatantly at or near the scene of the shooting. Despite this, I'd only give him a seven on the plausible patsy scale (gun not very good, not a great marksman, etc.).

How would you rate the hijackers as plausible patsies? I think that their behaviour is not what we would initially expect from people who are supposed to be Islamist fundamentalists, so I give them just a 3 (for being able to fly a bit). However, on closer examination their behaviour makes a lot of sense. Why do you assume that Al Qaeda is primarily a religious organisation with goals determined by religion? Surely, it's message is mostly political - Osama et al. are always banging on about the Crusader-Zionist alliance and trying to get them out of the Middle East. Their religion merely informs their outlook - it's not the reason they're in the business. So I don't see anything unusual in the hijackers getting aled up and doing a bit of coke. I see them as political terrorists. If you were going to meet your maker in a year, wouldn't you do a few lines and indulge yourself at a lap-dance bar?

If they are patsies, how come they're such bad patsies, has the CIA deteriorated to such a point that it can't even find a decent patsy?

[spooked911]

18. You make good points, but I think they were just fine as patsies.

They certainly worked for the vast majority of the public.

Some people even rationalize their behaviour as fitting in with the western world as part of their overall scheme. Moreover, people in the US just don't have much contact/experience with suicidal Islamic extremists, so I don't think most people know any different.

The main reason to think these guys (Atta in particular) were patsies was:

1) their flight training seemed to be more for looks than really learning to fly 767s/757s (I know you have other ideas about this)

2) they went about the US being very noticeable -- as if they WANTED to be recognized

3) it is not clear Atta even made it onto flight 11-- his flight from Portland gave him six minutes to get from the Portland flight to flight 11

4) the $100,000 wired to Atta shortly before the attacks-- why would he need so much money if they were going to die soon, more likely he needed it to "disappear"

5) Atta's father said he talked to his son the day after the attacks and his son told him he had to lay low

6) There is reason to believe Atta was trained at a US military base


Atta would seem to be a highly trained military/intelligence asset who was told to do some sort of job for 9/11. What exactly he thought he was doing is not clear and is the point of this thread.

[Kevin Fenton]

20. Atta

Hang on, I'll just get my patsyometer out and fire it up...

(1) Flight training is for recon and as a decoy. Some more recon flights in addition to the three I already mentioned (from the Commission report) (a) Jarrah up the Hudson corridor from Philadelphia in late May/early June (b) Hanjour also flew it (c) Hanjour rented small aircraft from Fairfield, NJ several times in June and July (d) on July 20 HH flew from Fairfield to Gaithersburg, MD (so he would have gone near Washington). That's lots of recon flights.

Let's see, if somebody was following them thinking they were terrorists and wondering what sort of attack they were going to attempt, wouldn't they assume HH and ZJ were the real pilots and therefore rule out the possibility they'd hijack jetliners and crash them into buildings, because they obviously didn't have the skills.

(2) That they were noticeable is a good point. I think my best argument here is that they must have some sort of reason for it. Maybe it's a bluff/double-bluff - they're trying to attract attention and then make the US authorities think they're doing someting else, buying themselves time to do the hijacks. Do they look like Islamist fundamentalist suicide hijackers or the sort of drug smuggler that doesn't have a very long career?

(3) PT's timeline says they arrived from Portland at 6:50, over an hour before American 11 took off, and cites Der Speigel as authority for this. There must be some reason they went to Portland, but I can't figure it out at all. Any ideas? If he did almost miss the plane, how does this excite the patsyometer at all?

(4) Money to disappear? Then why did they wire some of it back? Maybe the person wiring the money (Saeed Sheikh) didn't know the date of the attacks.

(5) Atta's Dad is just sticking up for his boy. I don't blame him, but I don't find it in any way credible. If he is a patsy, shouldn't he be killed - he's supposed to be dead?

(6) My guess is that some of the hijackers whose names were the same/similar to those who trained at US bases actually trained there (6 seems a lot), but some didn't. Doesn't this make him a bad patsy - surely it gives him a clear connection to the US military?

[Kevin Fenton]

21. Big Wedding

I always thought there must be some way that pesky KSM was using the fact that the US had penetrated AQ's communications network and I've just found a good candidate:

November 30, 1999: Jordan Thwarts al-Qaeda Plot
Jordanian officials successfully uncover an al-Qaeda plot to blow up the Radisson Hotel in Amman, Jordan, and other sites on January 1, 2000. A call between al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida and a suspected Jordanian terrorist exposes the plot. In the call, Zubaida states, “The grooms are ready for the big wedding.” This call reflects an extremely poor code system, because the FBI had already determined in the wake of the 1998 US embassy bombings that “wedding” was the al-Qaeda code word for bomb. Furthermore, it appears al-Qaeda fails to later change the system, because the code-name for the 9/11 attack is also “The Big Wedding.”

So, the code names for the millenium plot and 9/11 are the same. Wouldn't the US intelligence agency that found this out think that the operations themselves were the same? And you know which two places were going to be attacked in the millenium plot, don't you?

[spooked911]

22. One strong possibility is that some of the key hijackers had doubles

that were doing some of these things. Seems unlikely that Hani Hanjour, who was completely inept, rented and flew a plane by himself. But perhaps a double did? There are reasons to think there were two Attas as well. Having a double helps when you want to have a patsy do somethign THEY don't want to do or can't do.

As far as Atta getting on flight 11, see this post "Six whole minutes":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=12490&mesg_id=13789&page=

[Kevin Fenton]

25. OK

So his connecting flight was 50 minutes late and he arrived sweating at American 11. This has happenned to me, too. Once I even managed to arrive at an airport (Frankfurt) after my connecting flight was scheduled to depart and still managed to catch it, even though it was not listed as late and was departing from another part of the airport (I had to run like hell). The time between my first plane landing and second plane taking off was about 20 minutes. The connecting flight was no longer shown on the screen at the departure gate, but I dashed down the air bridge and just made it to the plane as they were shutting the door. Lots of people make tight connections, is perfectly possible.

Still, I've got no idea why he went to Portland.

[janedoe]

26. Does this sound like the plan of a mastermind?

Why would he risk not making this flight?

[Kevin Fenton]

30. I don't understand

why they did it. None of the hijackers did it for the other flights, as far as I know.

How big is the risk? Was the plane usually on time? I have no idea.If the plane was usually on time and Atta had checked it out and knew this, the risk would appear minimal. Why was the plane delayed for so long anyway? There can't have been that many flights taking off from Portland at that time.

[petgoat]

28. "no idea why he went to Portland."

The cynical answer is: so he could be photographed at the ATM and the
gas station and the airport security, and so his bags could fail to make
the transfer to flight 11.

The strategic answer from a hijacker's point of view might be that he
and al-Omari wanted to appear unconnected to the other three hijackers
on their flight.

[Kevin Fenton]

31. Not sure about that

Atta could surely be photographed in Boston just as easily. What's the point of his bags not making the flight. If he's a patsy and it's supposed to leave a trail, then why not just leave the stuff in the car?

If he's genuine, the point of taking the bags could be to confuse anyone who might be following him.

As far as I know, the hijackers on the other planes didn't take connecting flights, so why would just two of them do it? Perhaps because American 11 is the most important plane for the hijackers.

[petgoat]

32. 9/11 Commission says no video at Logan

"What's the point of his bags not making the flight."

Isn't that where they found his will?

"why not just leave the stuff in the car?"

Cause he would have had to leave the stuff in the car deliberately,
while if he was late for his flight the bags could miss the plane
"accidentally".

[Kevin Fenton]

33. Identification

(If he was a patsy and wanted to draw attention to himself then) surely there must have been some way to identity him as being at Logan without going to Portland - he seems to have been a fairly memorable character.

Or is it a false-flag operation front-loaded with lots of bits that don't make any sense just to confuse CTers?

How did he know his connecting flight was going to be delayed, causing his bag not to make American 11? If his bag was being setup for discovery as part of a false flag operation, wouldn't this mean the false-flaggers arranged the 50-minute delay of the flight from Portland?

If it's a false-flag operation why not just leave subtle clues, rather than overblown, big ones that look silly?

If the hijackers are genuine, there must be a good reason to go to Portland, but I'm not sure splitting up is that reason.

Maybe it hinges on whether they thought they were being followed.

[spooked911]

34. I think the "official" reason for going to Portland was Atta thought

security would be lighter at Portland and that he wouldn't have to go through security again at Logan. The evidence for this is Atta supposedly became upset when told he would have to go throuhg security again at Logan.

I don't think 9/11 was a true falseflag operation. The hijackers were Al Qaeda patsies, just they were helped along quite a bit. The question is: how exactly were they helped?

So what exactly are the big overblown clues that look silly? Note: they may look silly to us, but they sure worked well for the vast majority of the US population.

The Arabic flight training manuals in the car and the delayed bags served the purpose of blaming the attacks on Islamic extremists, which was the point I think.

There still is reason to wonder if Atta made it on flight 11. Six minutes to connect? And what is the deal with some passengers boarding the plane after it left the gate? How did that work exactly?

[Kevin Fenton]

37. I don't like the official reason

He didn't have anything that would worry security, which was hardly tight at Logan or the other airports from which the other flights were hijacked. There must be a better reason. He went with Alomari, who was one of the hijackers who had a false identity, maybe this is significant.

Most of the US population hasn't looked into the details closely, which is why they believe the official story. The bags (with wills, flight training manuals, etc. - an orgy of evidence) at the airport and in the cars lack a little in the subtlety department. If somewhat wants to plant clues, shouldn't he do it in a manner which makes them look like normal clues, not planted ones, by disguising them a bit - what was it the FBI investigator said - "Everything we found we were meant to find"? Either they were laying a trail and doing it very badly or they had some other motive that we just can't figure out. It points too obviously to Islamist extremists - the only things they forgot to plant are sand and a couple of camels. Then again, maybe it's a double bluff, but I doubt that - why not do it right and quell doubts?

What's more, despite the fact that there's lots pointing to Islamist extremists, there's no documentary evidence of the plot itself, like an airline schedule with the flights ringed. How come?

If he missed the flight, then why didn't the other hijackers abort? And if the planes are remote-controlled, why do the hijackers stay in the cockpit and pretend they're flying them?

[spooked911]

39. I like your questions.

But-- do we even know the hijackers were in the cockpit?

We do have those radio transmissions with foreign voices supposedly from flight 11 and flight 93. Both times supposedly the "hijackers" thought they were making announcements to the passengers but were also transmitting to ground control. But certainly those radio transmissions could have been faked. So, how do we know the hijackers were in the cockpits?

[Kevin Fenton]

42. Security

The "official reason" for him going to Portland - in a vain attempt to avoid security in Boston - cannot be right. If the plan was to fly from Portland to avoid security all along, shouldn't Atta have checked it out beforehand, like he checked everything else out? He's been to Logan before, so he should know where the security checkpoints are. And why does he arouse suspicion in Portland by asking what appears to be such a dumb question? When he finds out he'll have to go through security again, why doesn't he just go back to Boston and go whoring with his pals instead of spending his last night on earth in Portland? Sometimes there are long lines for security checks, maybe he's worried about the delay this might entail, rather than items he may be carrying. Could he have met somebody in Portland?

We don't know 100% that the hijackers were in the cockpit. All the evidence for this comes from government agencies, which have varying degrees of trustworthiness. However, there is more evidence for the hijackers being in the cockpit than there is for remote control, so we should believe the hijackers were in the cockpit, whilst not entirely closing our minds on this point.

The impetus for the remote control idea comes from the FBI, who claimed the hijackers were bad pilots. There is lots of evidence to contradict this (military training, Atta could already fly, Mansour Khaled, AQ's ownership of Ariana, invesigation of Saudi pilots). Given that the FBI's investigation was a farce of a traversty of a mockery which was cut short for various reasons, there's no real reason to put much weight on its claims, if evidence to the contrary emerges.

[JackRiddler]

23. Point 3 interesting

Please provide link.

[VIHMH5L50P]

29. When you control the government, the media, and the investigation

Your patsy can be a ham sandwich (as they say about who a any lawyer can indict), and still get away with it.

And that the CIA can't find a good patsy is not an indication it's skills have deteriorated, but on the contrary, that they are so good as to STILL be able to fool everybody with him.

(many of the background points you cited as used to frame Oswald that you use to rate Oswald's quality as a patsy as a "7" were complete fabrications too. For example, he was no commie but a CIA operative posing as one, and his gun if it was shot wasn't shot by him, and evidence shows it was not he who purchased his rifle or took it to the range, but someone impersonating him, etc. Or do you think the CIA and FBI would lie so viciously as to setup Oswald then insist on telling the complete truth about him?)

[janedoe]

16. Profiling a terrorist

Spooked911, I agree with your theory (post #14), that the mission of the "hired help" (listed as hijackers on their job description) was to learn to fly, or even just attempt to. Those who hired them knew who they were, even before the planes were officially hijacked.

According the how the "official story" was being revealed on that day, I remember this detail. So, it should still be part of the current official story, although I've not seen many references to it, recently. Maybe you will remember this.

You may remember that there was a big deal about all of the confusion on 911, with who had access to what telephone, etc., for simply talking on the phone with the president -- or just to find out what the heck was going on. So, how was it that they were also able to be so well organized that they were able to diagnose what had happened, listed the "suspects," then tried and convicted their "suspects" -- all by 11:00 AM on 9/11? At a minimum, who found the communications needed to give that information to the media, while they were still fumbling for a telephone in Florida. (We won't discuss who was fumbling around... not gonna go there. ;-) )

So, I conclude "they" had a list (shouldda checked it twice), already prepared, before the planes were even listed as hijacked. Perhaps it even took less time to identify the hijackers than it did to simply recognize the planes had been hijacked!

Here is where I like the subtle suggestion I saw in Kevin Fenton's post #15. (Thanks Kevin.) It even supports the above plan, literally. Big question: Who is Al-Qaeda?" Perhaps "Al-Qaeda" and "they" are the same, or at least one is a subset of the other?

Let's review:
By 11:00 AM on 9-11, "they" are sure this involved 19-Arabs/Muslims terrorists. (They didn't care which ones, as long as those names looked the part.)

The anthrax that followed, soon after 911, was presented to look like it was sent by Arabs/Muslims. But, when the strain of anthrax was traced back to US government lab... we quit hearing about that story.

The London event on 7/7/05 was immediately (within an hour?) blamed on something like, "Al-Qaeda in Europe," thought to be made up of Arabs/Muslims. That lasted 8-12 hours, until their internet site was traced back to Texas. Then, we heard nothing more.

Do you see a pattern, here?

Have we been shown any proof that even any of these Arabs/Muslims physically existed and actually carried out any of these plans? What about "innocent until proven guilty?"

If there really was a terrorist network of masterminds, don't you think they'd want to disguise the folks they chose to carry out any mission? They want their mission to be successful, right? Does it make sense that the mastermind terrorists would all fit such a narrow profile and be so predictable?

In the police line-up, below, please pick out the real "terrorist-mascot," you know, "the bad guy" you've been trained to recognize.


:P }( :-) B-) :P B-) }( :-) :-) :hippie: :-) ;-) :9 :hippie: :-) :hippie::evilfrown: :-) B-) :P :-) :hippie: :-) :hippie: :-);-) ;-)

[spooked911]

17. Nice line-up!

:)

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:)

[petgoat]

24. The Mossad gave the CIA a list of 19 terrorists in the USA who appeared

to be planning an attack. The list was provided 8/23/01 and of the 19,
four names have been released: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan
Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta .

This could be where the FBI got their suspects list so fast. It also
could be a patsy list.

[VIHMH5L50P]

27. Neither Atta nor his fictional 18 underlings hijacked any planes

When enough evidence is in, it's time to analyze and test it, and if test after test passes with flying colors, it's time to draw conclusions (and start making arrests). That time has come for 911.

Your discussion mostly presupposes the assumption that planes were hijacked and that Atta was involved in hijacking them, and I won't even go there any more because it contradicts other real evidence that planes were not hijacked, that military planes and missiles were used, things a Mohammed Atta had no access to.

Clearly there was no airliner in the Pentagon, and if there wasn't, that's at least enough to conclude and prove all attacks in 911 were of the same domestic source, and not of the tale told to us.

We cannot even entertain the possibility that a terrorist fired a missile into the Pentagon, because remember, the government stakes it's reputation and credibility on the fact an airliner crashed into the Pentagon. If proven false, they've just incriminated themselves. It has been. and the whole 911 event is exposed for what it is.

When you know the Pentagon was a government operation, you can't say it was but not the WTC, on the same exact day and time, that the WTC was terrorist.

If one was a hoax, they were all hoaxes. And the evidence overwhelmingly confirms not just one, but all were.

So regarding Atta since from separate evidence it is clear the government planned and made 911 to happen, comes the realization that they would never have put this black op's bloody success at the mercy of such an amateur a pilot as Atta and his 18 disciples, with Atta being probably by far the most reliable of the group.

They would have used either top gun pilots or precision remote control, and since top pilots would never be so stupid as to go on a suicide mission for an internal terrorist event with no fanatical religious angle to it, that leaves a form of remote control as the only remaining plausible explanation. And there is some evidence of that too.

Are you kidding? What if Atta or his buddies missed the WTC? Would the government have detonated down the towers anyway? (well who knows, they had the chutzpah to do it with WTC 7, but no, at least the WTC 7 was done after it's proximate neighbor towers were greatly damaged).

Imagine the headline: "Airliner misses tower, tower falls down anyway, then airliner slams into other nearby tower which does not fall." They couldn't afford such a risk.

(if Atta misses and a WTC tower intended to fall doesn't, people meant to be killed suddenly start discovering explosives all around WTC and start asking questions).

Atta and his boys either didn't exist at all, or if they did and probably still do, they were patsies either way (probably the most sloppy part of the 911 planning), because without patsies such crimes don't pay.

No, there is not one shred of objective verifiable evidence that Atta as portrayed even existed. The evidence supplied of him is hearsay from only those either directly involved in 911 or those closely associated with them.

[spooked911]

35. Many of your assessments are valid but there was still a Mohamed Atta

who took flight lessons and trained on a 767 computer simulator.

The question is: why was he doing this? What did he think he was doing? Was it all a ruse or did he really think he could fly a 767 into the WTC?

[Zaphod 36]

43. Atta could be just an alternative pilot

if the first pilot is getting hurt or dead during the hijacking process.
Moussaoui talked about a plan to hijack planes for pressing free the blind sheikh and other prisoned islamics.
This plan was also mentioned in the August PDB.
In this case Atta must not hit the WTC, but he must land the Boeing at an airport in Afghanistan(?)