Flying a Plane Into the World Trade Center? Why Not Fly Out of LaGuardia?

[veracity]

Flying a Plane Into the World Trade Center? Why Not Fly Out of LaGuardia?

Here is a new, and so far unasked question about the badly debunked official explanation of the events of September 11th 2001. If you spend years planning a spectacular attack the World Trade Center in New York City, and you are a less than adequate pilot, and you wanted to ensure the attack would be completed without giving the U.S. air defense apparatus the chance to follow their normal procedures and intercept your plane, why would you choose to fly out of Boston? Why would you choose to risk getting lost or stopped as you try to fly 190 miles to your target when you can hijack a plane from one of three airports within sight of the target?

There are three airports that would enable a pilot or a hijacker to have visual contact with the World Trade Center within a minute or two of takeoff. With all the planning these so called hijackers must have made, how stupid would they have to have been to travel to Boston in order to attack NY? We have been told that the so-called hijackers were barely able to pilot even simple two seater aircraft, but we are supposed to believe that they felt confident enough to navigate to NY from Boston without the help of ground control. Are we to believe that i they would not have flown out an airport from which they had constant visual contact with their target? Also keep in mind that planes taking off from these NY area airports would have more fuel remaining in their tanks when they made contact. They would not have to burn off 45 minutes worth of destructive explosive fuel.

Here is why they had to fly out of Boston:

Full blog:
http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=396

[mirandapriestly]

1. Yes, no one has asked that crucial question

I'm so glad you posted it. It makes no sense that they would fly from Boston does it? We know they have remote control technology and we don't have proof that the official airlines actually hit the world trade towers.

[sabbat hunter]

2. when did this mysterious

when did the mysterious switcheroo take place?
how did the switch take place?
how many people would need to be involved with this plan?


why hasnt anybody, not a single soul come forward who was involved with this whole scheme as a whistleblower? in a scheme like this you would need a lot of people involved and you would think ONE would have a guilty conscious and step forward. so far none have.


the story in the link is complete speculation not based on any facts

[Jester_11218]

3. Speculation, not quite.

http://tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html

The blog is a commentary based on years of cooperative research. Look into the flight patterns according to the official story. Each plane passed through restricted military air space with no problem. You could not fly a kite over those areas yet on a day with all these hijackings taking place these planes passed through this space with no problem.

I can not put 5 years worth of information in a blog. Do some homework.

[greyl]

5. No, it's total speculation

based on the faulty assumption that you know how the terrorists should behave.

[Jester_11218]

6. That is not speculation?

What proof have you seen related to the official story?

http://tvnewslies.org/html/where_the_hell_is_your_9_11_pr.html

You official story people don't realize that all you have heard is a story. You have seen ZERO proof of anything. You saw some photos of people. That's it.

[greyl]

7. Are you asking if I'm speculating you know how terrorists should think?

If so, no, it's not speculation. It's clear that your whole argument is based on the faulty assumption that you know how terrorists should behave, then you throw in some more speculation on top of it.

[Americus]

8. The question must be very upsetting to OCT'ers/shills

Why is it that whenever someone posts a serious question that raises doubts about the 9/11 OCT/fairy tale, OCT'ers panic? It surely can't be because they are here to help uncover the truth about what happened on September 11, 2001.

I think their disnfo-like responses to serious questions are based on the faulty assumption that they know how to successfully deflect attention away from anything that undermines the absurd OCT.

[greyl]

9. You know how cheerleaders jump around on the sidelines

while never handling the ball?

[mirandapriestly]

14. Americus is just making an observation

which happens to be true.

[StealthyDragon]

19. Why is it that whenever someone posts a serious question that raises doubt

Damage control.

The key to exposing the complete lie is close at hand. aka

"Operation Neowoods"


===============================================================
"Mom? This is Mark Bingham."
===============================================================

[DoYouEverWonder]

65. We may not know how the terrorists think

but we do know that US airspace does not lose planes and when they do lose planes they react very quickly.

Yet, on 9-11 for almost 2 hours total, 4 hijacked planes flew without any attempt to intercept. That is beyond belief. We spend billions a year on defense and expensive systems that are supposed to protect us and they can't catch up with even one of four hijacked passenger jets? Even after the first tower was hit at 8:45 AM, the Pentagon wasn't hit until 50 minutes later and Flight 93 flew around the country until after 10:00 AM. Give me a break.

Guess what? The official story is a lie. Even they admitted to the 9-11 commission, that a C130 flew over the Pentagon on the tail of Flight 77. They also admitted that a C130 caught up with Flight 93. Yet very few 'eyewitness' report seeing two planes at the Pentagon. You would think it would be a frightening sight to see a plane crash into the Pentagon and a big military jet chasing it in? Well, maybe there was only one plane? The one that flew over the Pentagon when it exploded and continued on it's way. Maybe that's why some people say they saw a plane go down in Indian Lagoon? Maybe they just need to land on the runway right behind the Pentagon at National Airport and just happened to fly over at the same time?

[MervinFerd]

23. There might be a reason for that.

[mirandapriestly]

27. Yeah, and what reason is that?nt

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

67. Makes perfect sense

Who knows that who has remote control technology?

Just because you dismiss the telvised (live) evidence as well as eyewitness evidence, does not mean tht the rest of us don't have proof that airplanee hit the towers.

Have you read 102 Minutes by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn? They talk of responding firefighters seeing airplane parts like tires and such in the debris and surrounding areas after the initial strikes.

I suspect I will get a diatribe how Dwyer and Flynn are gubment plants.

[greyl]

4. The WTC wasn't the only target.

Next?

[Americus]

20. More unsupported speculation from an OCT cheerleader.

The subject line is based on the premise that the OCT cheerleader is only that: a cheerleader, not an insider with actual knowledge of the Official 911 plan.

[mirandapriestly]

28. A new and improved "OCT cheerleader"

His posts are completely different than before he "disappeared for awhile".

[Americus]

34. Every Daisy is made up of many petals.

Interesting, MP. Maybe there was a mandatory school for advanced OCT cheerleading techniques and routines, or maybe it's just another one of those many inexplicable coincidences ( of the "before and after" kind ).

[DemInDistress]

10. but why the WTC and not the Indian Point Nuclear Plant that

lies just 11 miles up the Hudson River? With 2 hijacked commercial jets surely more damage could have been done to the NYC metro area by destroying that facility. Also the damage would be like Chernoble nuclear radiation would kill thousands for years to come.

Look at Ground Zero today. Finally plans are ready for the rebuilding of the pathetic Freedom Tower. World Trade 7 is up and running whereas destruction of the Indian Point facility would be "forever" why the WTC?
Maybe because of the S.E.C. criminal investigations of Cheney,Halliburton. The SEC was located on the 12th floor of WT7.
Then there was claims of gold stored inside the Twin Towers vaults. The OP makes a valid point as to why not hijack jets from the 3 local NYC area airports. Ample opportunity and plenty of choices plus no chance of getting lost.
Yes, my OCT friends "911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB"


more: 17.5 mile peak fatality zone http://riverkeeper.org/map_indian_point.php

so why the WTC?

[sabbat hunter]

11. indian point much smaller target

the nuclear power plant is a very small target. towers much much bigger and easier to hit.

[seatnineb]

13. Sabbat my Jewish friend...you have not reckoned with Moslem ingenuity!

Those Muslim geniuses could hit the Pentagon!...........



So what made Indian point so difficult........

[sabbat hunter]

21. do you know the scale difference ?

look at the actual reactor to indian point, notice how small it is.

look how large the pentagon is compared to the reactor.

if the plane didnt hit the reactor then it would be nothing more than a plane crash.


the terrorists goal was to damage symbols of amercia. indian point isnt one of them

the pentagon and the WTC are.

[Americus]

31. How do YOU know the "terrorists (sic) goal"?

Your post is chock full of unproven assertions and fatally flawed reasoning.

1) There is no proof that there were any terrorists involved. PERPS, yes, but it's more likely that the "terrorists" were nothing more than patsies.

2) How would YOU know what the goal of the perps was? Are you a mind reader...or do you have contacts in high places whose identities you'd rather not disclose here? Isn't it far more likely that the goal of the PERPS was to gain the political advantages of a modern day Pearl Harbor attack? The record since 9/11 is certainly more consistent with THAT than it is with anything having to do with moslem extremism.

If you want to give us the benefit of your personal speculation, that's fine - but don't try to pass off your speculation as though it is proven fact.

[seatnineb]

36. Rubbish......

You don't win wars by destroying symbols!


But it looks like Al-Cia-Da have a soft spot for the U.S after all........

The initial plan was to crash the hijacked jets into
nuclear power plants. They decided against it for fear "it would go
out of control". But future nuclear targets have not been
ruled out.


Sunday Times 08 SEP 2002, Page News 1
Masterminds of 9/11 reveal terror secrets
NICK FIELDING
HOME NEWS

The official story is full of shit...........

After all.....

Atta:



...managed to make this hole in the North Tower................



....whilst his buddy Alshehi:



....managed to fly his plane at what appears to be exactly the same angle of attack into the South Tower............



......and you are telling me these boys did not have the skill to fly into a nuclear power plant?

What they did not have was the balls!

[mirandapriestly]

15. No one would have benefited if they'd done that,

that's why!

[jberryhill]

40. Why WTC the first time?

So, the point of the 1993 attack on the WTC, which was intended to bring down the towers but wasn't strong enough (and, yes, suspects associated with that one lived), was a set-up for anticipated investigations that would be going on eight years later?

The WTC was attacked in 1993, and the attack failed.

It looks a lot like they just tried again and succeeded.

[Rich Hunt]

60. well, it's symbolic, for one thing

For another, crashing planes into a nuclear power plant would mess up
a lot of things:

a) It would not look as 'cool' on tv. Such a thing would not
be a media spectacle.

b) I have no doubts that there were "comrades" present in
and around New York City that day. A nuclear attack would
wipe them out as well.

c) The WTC had a lot of symbolism.

[abester]

12. because

• 1) Jets are large. Jets need large turning circles.
  
• 2) Jets are large. Jets are slow. They need some time to pick up speed.
  
• 3) Jets have lots of people on board. The US airforce just don't shoot a lot of people out of the sky (well, except for Iranian flights of course) if they don't know whats going on.
  
• 4) Jets do better at high altitude. Comming in from a bigger altitude is saver, more controlable.
  

Ergo: you need some space to manouver and pick up speed, yet not too far to spend all the fuel. Solution: pick an airport some hunder miles away, bound for the other side of the country so that its tanked up with fuel. Those few gallons you miss don't matter.

If I were a hijacker, I'd do it exactly the same way they did. Taking of in NY to fly into something in NY is just silly.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[mirandapriestly]

17. "shooting out of the sky" is not the issue,

Following Standard Operating Procedure is. before the Air Force "Shoots someone out of the sky" they intercept and signal them, which, they do many times each year. Shooting them down is a last resort done only if the pilot of the other plane does not respond to their signal by following them or complying with their wishes. The Air Force did not even get to intercept,the first stage of S.O.P. you guys always try to re-frame this in order to fool people into thinking that not following the Standard Operating Procedure that day somehow is explainable.

[Ezlivin]

18. You've never flown an aircraft, have you?

Let's take a look at your comments.

You said: "1) Jets are large. Jets need large turning circles. "

Yes, and Hani Hanjour (the non-pilot pilot) turned a precise, tight 270° descending turn in a large heavy. The air traffic controllers thought it was a military aircraft because of the way it was handled.

You said: "2) Jets are large. Jets are slow. They need some time to pick up speed."

Okay, we understand that some jets are large. They only need part of the length of the runway to gain enough speed to rotate (take off). If they set up for a "short-field" takeoff they can leave the ground sooner. In less than a minute a large heavy can have plenty enough speed to slam into a target.

You said: "3) Jets have lots of people on board. The US airforce just don't shoot a lot of people out of the sky (well, except for Iranian flights of course) if they don't know whats going on."

The aircraft need not be shot down. But your comment seems to indicate that you feel our air defense system was working nominally on 9/11 and that they would have instantly responded (as they should have) and taken out any aircraft that threatened certain facilities.

You said: "4) Jets do better at high altitude. Comming in from a bigger altitude is saver, more controlable."

More controllable to whom? A fresh-behind-the-ears pilot who has never piloted an actual large heavy aircraft? And why make the task so much more difficult by gaining altitude, losing all ground references and having to take over when many miles away from the target and heading in the wrong direction?

If you want to see how easy it is to get lost when airborne, do this: Go to your local airport and ask for a one-hour flight lesson. A CFI will take you up. Have him fly you some distance from "your" city, preferably at an altitude of greater than 4,000 feet. Get several miles out. Now try to find your way back on your own.

Now imagine doing that at 35,000 feet going over 500 knots and in the opposite direction. And doing it for the first time. And knowing you have to pull this off with no mistakes. And knowing that there are a lot of people on the other side of the cockpit door that could very well try to stop you. And knowing how to do simple (but not intuitive) things like adjusting the seat so you can reach the pedals, knowing how to set the transponder, how to disengage the auto-pilot and not tear off the wings by descending too rapidly.

[abester]

35. No, I've never piloted an aircraft

So I am admittedly a little bit out of my expertise. Nevertheless, you seem to reinforce my points. For example, regarding point 2, of course you could strike a target at pretty lethaly at takeoff speed, but if you wait until you get maximum speed you have almost 10 times more energy of impact.

Anyway, I don't see why my point(s) are invalidated or my basic assumption somehow untrue. You increase your chanches of hitting a small structure if you allow for a reasonable distance to lign up.

Of course they knew how to turn off the transponder, thats the prime means of communications, they'd be utter fools to forget that. I'm aware things from the sky look different, but modern aircraft have advanced communications equipment with GPS and ground radio beakons, getting a vector to NYC shouldn't be too difficult, and once you're in range on that very crisp and clear day, you'd see the massive skyscrapers rise from perhaps more than 15 miles away.

[bmcatt]

52. Not even close...

I do have a pilot's license (just a private license, but mostly the experience should be sufficient).

Taking your points one at a time...

a. Given the way that planes fly in "thicker" air, you're not actually going that much faster once you're flying. Granted, you can reach fractional Mach when you're at altitude, but planes really don't do those speeds when they're within a few thousand feet of the ground.

b. Have you ever tried hitting something with a car? Or a bicycle... To try and get some sense of scale for speed, try hard to run over a child's wooden block (like the kind that have the ABCs on 'em) while pedaling full speed on a bicycle. Distance doesn't matter - you're just plain moving too fast for more than minor course corrections.

c. Transponders are not a primary means of communcations. Those devices are called "radios". A transponder is a way to provide identifying information and altitude to ATC (air traffic control).

d. Of course it's easy to get a heading to NYC. Well, except it's not. Because airplane navigation systems don't care about cities. They care about navigational aids (VORs, etc), waypoints (which are, generally, the intersections of two radials from two different VORs) and airports. In an airplane, you really don't care about "where's city X?"

e. Navigation systems are *incredibly* complex. Even in a light plane, pilots need to learn (or be taught) how to use each one because *they're all different*. There's no standard, beyond the "basic 6" and VOR/NDB readouts, for how the controls in a plane are laid out. This isn't like hopping into a rental car and being able to, in an instant, figure out how to turn on the engine, turn on the lights, honk the horn, or turn on the heat.

f. Finally... Skyscrapers are only skyscrapers when you're on the ground. When you're in the air, they're just more bumps on the ground. There's really not that much that's distinguishing about stuff on the ground when you're in the air. It's not like there are highway signs, nor street signs. There's not even a giant compass in the sky.

[rman]

51. These jets obviously did not have large turning circles,

Did you miss the fighter-jet like maneuvering of flight 77 at the Pentagon?

It's well known these jets did have rather low occupancy. Moreover, traffic controllers had figured out rather quickly what was going on.

It's not like a passenger jet is hard to control at lower altitude.

[New World Odor]

55. LaGuardia

LaGuardia wasn't controlled by BushCo. What airport they would fly out of was determined by security infiltration not location.

[MervinFerd]

22. WOW!!! THE --SMOKING GUN---- Boy, you've nailed them now!

What brilliance! What perspicacity! What insight!

Why would the Secret One World Government Conspiracy fly out of Boston instead of NY?

This is an example of one Conspiracist Logical Fallacy: The Unexplained Sinister Mystery.
It sounds suspicious, but really means nothing.

[Rich Hunt]

61. Actually, you're DEAD WRONG

....and there is no excuse for your sarcasm.

Terrorists will take the path of least resistance. As I keep saying,
they most likely felt more 'comfortable' with the security in Boston.

And perhaps the conspirators were more familiar with Boston anyway.

[MervinFerd]

24. Why would the Secret World Government not fly out of LaGuardia?

Salt for the Goose.....

[MervinFerd]

49. WHY? Sauce for the Goose, is Sauce for the Gander.

[number6]

25. depends on what flights were available

Out of LaGuardia?

if you believe the official gov. conspiracy

of lousy cessna pilots and box cutters ..

[jwtravel]

26. Plane size might have precluded LaGuardia

LaGuardia has much shorter runways than JFK, Newark, Boston, and most other large airports. Shorter runways generally mean small or mid-sized planes with as little load as possible, fuel included. Larger planes and longer runways allow takeoffs with more fuel, which is what the terrorists were after.

[mirandapriestly]

29. Cancel by MP.

[DemInDistress]

32. jw.. right about LaGuardia and there short runways,,

but not JFK or Newark.

Welcome to DU !! :hi: :hi:

[mirandapriestly]

33. but I've flown into LaG on commercial airliners,

so it's possible, and doesn't Newark have an airport?

[DemInDistress]

53. but did you fly into LaGuardia on a 747,.727,.or an L-1011?

NYC has banned 747's over Queens due to noise levels. Since I haven't flown in yrs. maybe they changed some rules.
Anyway,how you doing mirandapriestly?

Have you sen this video? It shows a fantastic array of colors within the cascading debris field that was once WT2. Just what caused this miriad of color? Purples.,blues., yellows., reds and other colors.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem4/911.wtc.2.demolition.east.9.top.wave.wmv

[mirandapriestly]

54. I don't remember. But I still think the local airport

makes more sense. Amazing video, sure would like to know what caused this and other phenomenon.

[Jester_11218]

38. Not a chance

Boeing 757s, 767s, Airbus 300s. Maybe even 757s which fly out of both JFK & Newark for sure.

It is not a matter of plane size at all.

[sabbat hunter]

44. all planes

except for the new airbus can land at laguarida airport. it is a full service national airport. all the major and most of the minor airlines use it for domestic travel, including cross country, flights to alaska and hawaii. just no international flights.

[mirandapriestly]

30. Keep this point about airports in mind

it's got the trolls frothing at the mouth.

[DrDebug]

37. BTW Where would you stay if Boston was the only possible flight to WTC

Boston or Portland?

The last evidence we have of Mohammed Atta is in Portland on the morning of September 11, 2001. I mean that is one of the few things everybody agrees on...

Portland? Why Portland?

Well, when I doubt look at a map.



Hmm, what is so special about Maine??

[mirandapriestly]

50. Canada?nt

[jberryhill]

39. Because he was connecting from Portland, Maine

They wanted planes fueled for cross-country routes on flights likely to have low bookings, and they needed access to the planes through airports having security flaws they had identified.

In order to get into the secure side of airport-land, Atta entered through Portland. Because of the way airport security works, by controlling access from the ticketing area to the gate area, the entire system is only as secure as the least-secure gate-access security area.

If the point is that room or time was needed to switch the planes, then was the Pentagon part of some other plan that coincidentally happened on the same day?

[DrDebug]

41. They could have used MacArthur airport. Equally small

It would be a lot easier because he was already in Manhattan the day before. He didn't to make a cross country trip and could have spend the whole day watching the towers and visualizing how to crash into them.

The whole point is that it doesn't make sense really, because not only was Sept. 11th a weird day for Atta which thousand of things which could go wrong, the same applied to Sept. 10th.

Fact: Atta was in Manhattan on Sept 10th. Fact since he seems to have purchased something that day. Time is unknown though.
Unknown: Atta drove to Boston to pick up his friend. That's +/- 180 miles
Unknown: Atta drove from Boston to Portland. That's +/- 110 miles
Fact: He arrived in Portland just before 6PM

This means that he would have had to travel +/- 300 miles, eat something, go his friend. That's at probably 7 hours, so he had to leave Manhattan before 11AM. That's a lot of stress especially when you have to crash into a tower the next day.

Atta in Portland

Fact: The next day he was spotted on the camera on either 5:45 or 5:53 depending on which clock you look at
Unknown: He boarded the plane
Unknown: He arrived in Boston
Unknown: He transfer to Flight 11
Unknown: Flight 11 leaves with Atta
Fact: Flight 11 transported was turned off at 8:28
Unknown: A voice is heard however there is no positive identification
Fact: Flight 11 crashes into WTC at 8:46

So the only fact you have is that Atta was in Portland at 5:45 or 5:53. He had 3 hours to leave the country and escape to Canada which was plenty of time. Since the OTC is just fiction, it can be replaced with the fiction that Atta walked around in the airport, got on a car, drove to Canada and was in Canada when the plane hit the WTC. Another fictional story is that he is a cave in Appalachian Mountains.

BTW: You replied at the wrong place. Press reply at the bottom of a post, because that way it shows up in the "My DU" list.

[jberryhill]

42. There are probably a lot of places they could have used...

So?

It's not a question of aiport size, it is a question of security, and whether there is a flaw - maybe a particular model of metal detector - that you know you can exploit at that airport. Maybe only a limited number of airports were cased for flaws.

Actually, the list of places gets small if the way that they managed to evade security with the box cutters was by having aiport or airline workers with access to the "secure side" manage to get those things into, say, a terminal restaurant to provide them to the hijackers.

Let's say you needed to be on an airplane on an appointed day, and you wanted to have a knife with you on that airplane. How would you go about doing that?

You can't be sure YOU are going to make it through security on THAT day with THAT knife. But if you have access to a network of other people, then at various times prior to then, they could try getting knives through security, or get food service jobs at airport terminals, whatever, so that a knife could be taped to the bottom of a lounge chair at a particular aiport in advance of a particular day.

That kind of plan is going to require you to get to the airport where whomever it was managed to pre-position the knife you needed to pick up. Once you are on the secure side with a knife, then you can get to the secure side of any other airport with that knife by taking connecting flights.

But that kind of plan is going to limit you to having to go through an airport where whomever it was managed to plant your knife.

[DrDebug]

43. And a knife is enough?

They make an incredibly complex Portland diversion plan because they are trying to smuggle two knives? And that will enable you to hijack a plane? I don't think so.

Edit:spelling

[jberryhill]

45. You are entitled to think so or not

But any a posteriori analysis of what you ended up doing on a given day, as opposed to an infinite universe of things you might have done, but did not do, is going to look "incredibly complex".

Considering that witnesses on at least one plane said that the attackers were armed with box cutters, then it appears that, yes, they were able to hijack a plane with box cutters. Given that the operative assumption about hijackings prior to 9/11 was that the hijackers are trying to go somewhere instead of crash the plane then, yes, you cooperate with the guy who has a knife to someone's throat.

They wanted a simultaneous attack, and the notion that they would put that plan at risk over the uncertainty of key people not being able to get through security with a knife seems like too much of an operational risk not to have developed a means for getting the knives pre-positioned wherever that may have been able to have been done. Working around that, so that all of your people get on their assigned flights doesn't seem like a big deal in view of the goal of preserving the integrity of the mission.

[DrDebug]

46. The main objective is to have a plan which can succeed

And the knife stuff is nonsense, because people aren't likely to be afraid if you manage to have a knife. And the plan is incredibly complex with lots of things which could have gone wrong and there is no trail of hijackers to be found.

So you believe every fairy tale people tell you?

[jberryhill]

47. Whatever

And the knife stuff is nonsense, because people aren't likely to be afraid if you manage to have a knife.

Four men with box cutters who have slit the throats of someone already are going to scare people, yes. I'm not sure you understand the pre 9/11 mindset toward hi-jacking generally. There are guys in the front of the plane with box cutters and they are threatening the crew and passengers. Pre-9/11 the best approach is to remain calm and not provoke violence. Only when the passengers on flight 93 became aware of what was going on elsewhere did they decide to, and succeed in, overpowering the hi-jackers.


So you believe every fairy tale people tell you?

No. Nor do I care to even bother with people who can't have a discussion without making childish insults.

Oh, yeah, you're right, the robot-plane stuff just makes soooo much more sense.

[DrDebug]

48. Because it has a better chance of succeeding

If you were going for such a plan, you'd make sure that it won't fail, because if it fails, it might get exposed.

Plan 1:
* Send some hijackers armed with knives cross country
* Have them change planes
* Hope that the knives are enough to take the plane
* Hope that nobody discovers the knives
* Hope that nobody raises alarm when you take over the plane
* Hope that there will not be any delays
* Hope that you can actually hit the towers

Plan 2:
* Get some pictures of the designated patsies in an airport near the border
* Remote fly the planes to the target
* Give the patsies a new identity, the usual million bucks.

Why would Osama bin Laden choose plan 1 if he can afford plan 2?

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

57. Wow

Let me come up with the most outlandish plan and then ask why someone would not have chosen that instead of what actually happened. Then when no one has a good answer, I'll use that as evidence the first thing was a conspiracy because my plan was better.


What logic textbook is that in?

[New World Odor]

56. flight manifest

Why weren't the alleged hijacker's names on the Flight Manifest?

[Bolo Boffin]

58. The flight manifests had the names of the hijackers on them. n/t

[New World Odor]

63. no

There are no Arab names on any of the four flight manifests.

[BuddyYoung]

64. Question: has it ever been proven that the only hijackers were Arabs?

I'm not arguing with you. I'm just wondering how it was known WHO the hijackers were?

[New World Odor]

68. how much do you know?

The Arabs were set up as patsys. There is no court admissable evidence that the purported 19 did the job. Of course whatever role they ultimately played was superceded by another group of conspiracists. Seven of the alleged hijackers have been reported alive by legitimate news sources(I don't know how much you know.)

[BuddyYoung]

69. Does the other side admit that the seven are still alive?

Credible information like that is evidence that simply can't be ignored, so I assume what the other side would do is the usual denial, followed by "prove it, then WE'LL impeach the credibility of any news source or anyone else making such a claim, including family members of the seven ".

I know a pretty good bit about all this, and I agree with you that even if an as yet UNproven conspiracy was plotted by Osama bin Laden, another group of people beat them to the punch, with a little conspiracy plan of their own. And IT worked, too!

[New World Odor]

70. explained away

Most of the reporting came from BBC and other foreign newspapers. Apparently there was some mention of it in the NY Times,probably conveniently tucked away on page 39.

I think those who still are in denial will explain it away as a point of assumed identity.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. That's not true.

Of course the names of the hijackers were on the flight manifests. They bought tickets.

Where in the name of your deity of choice did you get the idea that no Arab names are on the manifests?

From Suskind's new book, The One Percent Doctrine:

At 1:10 p.m.< on 9/11>, an analyst burst into the room holding printouts. There were manifests from the four flights, just sent to him from an official at the Federal Aviation Administration - an agency that had spent the morning locating and grounding hundreds of planes that were airborne at the moment of the first attack. Sending passenger lists to CIA for review was among the day's first acts of recollection.

"Two names," the analyst said, flattening a page on the table. "These two we know." Everyone crowded around, looking at the printout for Flight 77, which had left the Pentagon in flames. Staring back were the names of Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, men who had appeared on various internal lists as members of Al-Qaeda.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

[Jazz2006]

74. Not true.

The manifests have been posted on this very forum.

I'd suggest you do a search before spouting such nonsense.

[BuddyYoung]

62. Possibilities

* They purchased tickets in non-Arab names

* There were no real hijackers

* If you're talking about flights 77 & 11, they were not scheduled for 911 ( believe those are the two flights that weren't scheduled to fly on 911), according to BTS records. That suggests there might have been two fake flights as substitutes, and who knows what's on the manifests for fake flights, and how accurate they'd be even if there are manifests for them.

[jberryhill]

73. Columbine High School

You know, if you look at lists of people who died at Columbine High School, a lot of times you won't find two names on those lists. Harris and Klebold surely did die that day, so why are their names not on Columbine HS victim lists.

If by "flight manifests" you mean the lists that were released to the press that day, there are threads here that drill deep into the topic. The bottom line is that the airlines were cooperating with authorities who, for various reasons, scrubbed names from the lists before release to the press. There are also some apparent transcription artifacts relative to spellings of some names. That happens when you have an N generation fax that someone needs to turn into news copy in a rush.

And maybe its because I knew a fair number of foreign students in grad school but, at least it used to be that some Saudis were issued student visas on what, in retrospect, were some dodgy documents. What would you think the odds are against three guys named Abdullah who shared an apartment, and all of them had the same birthday? I've seen it. Basic record keeping in the kingdom is not on par with the most remote counties in the US. For all the effort that Saudi Arabia puts into projecting an image of modernity, the fact is that its a pretty backward place and most of the real work is done by foreigners.

But the existence of a living person of the same name as one of the hijackers doesn't surprise me a whole lot.

[Rich Hunt]

59. Good question, but...

I can't imagine them flying out of LaGuardia. For one thing, they
probably felt they had a better chance in Boston. Maybe they had
'allies' there or just knew the airport better.

Secondly, you have to think like a conspirator. You don't want to be TOO close to your target.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

66. Timing is a simple explanation

...but it probably won't work here.

How many long-haul cross country flights take off from each airport daily? Now, how many take off within a half hour of each other from each airport?

With this method, they were able to have 4 long-haul (i.e. heavily fueled) planes in the air at the same time for maximum effect.

Look at the schedules for each of the planes, they were all scheduled within an hour of each other.

Simultaneous attacks allowing them to make the strike before there was a chance to respond militarily and shoot down the airplanes before all of them hit their targets, or keeping them from taking off.

Once planes started hitting buildings, don't you think the ATC system would respond by ummm keeping airplanes from taking off?

[savemefromdumbya]

72. aircraft can be painted in different colors and marked with numbers

drones

1962 revisited?