9/11 Planning - Intended low death count?.

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Okay you are part of a terrorist cell planning to hijack 4 planes and fly them into places that will cause both - maximum economic mayhem and lower morale of the general public, also a statement against freedom and democracy, we`ll come back
to the targets later, firstly let`s choose weapons, remembering this is an operation that has taken years in preparation - pilot licences etc, so having your own guys with coveted jobs employed by firms associated with airports and air planes (catering and cleaning are good) has been taken care of well in advance, a few well placed items in/under/ the seats matching your ticket numbers is ideal, so the weapons of choice bearing in mind you are 19 versus a possible maximum of 800 plus crew members. The choices are A....



Or B......



Okay the targets, the first two are pretty straightforward in selection, they depict everything that you oppose, your life means absolutely nothing to you - so American infidels lives mean a whole lot less, absolute carnage is the target here, so do you hit the towers at a time they are packed with people - at a spot where flames will rise and the building is basically all sealed off, and with some inside help there has been a whole heap of explosives placed inside including vans full to the brim in the car parks whilst the planes are in flight (a reminder of why John O`Neill had called an emergency meeting regarding WTC security).......

whatreallyhappened.com...

The idea here is to do as much damage as possible where the black V shape is near the target, for a tree felling type effect.....



Or... Hit the towers around the 80th storey thus missing out on the chance to kill those western pigs at a time the towers are relatively empty and hope the jet fuel flies down the elevator shafts and deposits itself all over each and every floor truss - catches alight and weakens every single weld/rivet/bolt in the place, whilst at the same time somehow vaporising the centre core aided with random items exploding and mostly none combustible office ware and furniture.



Okay the next target and again one that emphasises all that you oppose, the political den of your most despised enemy, bearing in mind you have the least capable pilot of all the pilots taking care with this one, do you go out of your way to pull off a top gun type maneuver to hit the face where construction work is being carried out - thus very lowly populated, and carries a very high chance of crashing pre-impact....



Or take your pick from the other 4 wings fully laden with Americans, from the air as a straightforward descent........



Lastly but by no means least, target number four, the White House would be a huge gamble as Washington D.C. has to be the most flight restrictive zone in the world, but there there is another target an absolute effigy for everything America stands for, if you want to cause more outrage than you could possibly ever imagine, then destroying the very heart and souls of America can be easily established by destroying this.....



Or alternatively and for no apparent reason whatsoever, apart from creating a whole brand new crash type category - do this......



Some very obscure selections and timings occurred that day
.

[edit on 18/08/2009 by Seventh]

[edit on 18/08/2009 by Seventh]




posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Hitting the statue of liberty is only going to send a message, a message that had already been sent at three other sites



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pockets
Hitting the statue of liberty is only going to send a message, a message that had already been sent at three other sites


And the 4th plane was intended for?

The Statue of Liberty can never be replaced.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 



The Statue of Liberty can never be replaced.


"Damn, dirty Apes!!!"

(
Sorry, couldn't resist that joke)

The SoL as a symbol, yes. Target? Low priority, low value i would think. (And actuall quite small, seen from the air).

But, I betcha
the French would've built a new one for us!!!



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hehe, Eiffel is long gone now
.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 


A) Go for the box cutters. This was a coordinated effort, if just one hijacker is caught with a gun there is a chance that a whole bunch of bells and whistles go off and the whole effort is done. One guy with a boxcutter and he can just say he forgot it was in his pocket. No big alarms.

Flight 93 was probably headed to either the White House or the Capitol Building, as to where 77 hit the Pentagon, you assume that is exactly where he was aiming, same goes for the WTC. They may have just taken the best oppurtunities.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Hmm, why are you guys arguing such trite technicalities when the premise here of the OP to me seems quite valid?

The point is, had this really been a terrorist attack intended to inflict maximum casualties, there are so many other better ways of doing this, with far greater casualties. And as the OP promptly points out, even within the plan itself, they could have inflicted way more casualties.

For example, if mass casualties were the objective, as one would suspect from other terrorist attacks and bombings, just keeping those planes in the air longer or even taking later flights would have increased the amount substantially. The towers were not anywhere near capacity at that time of the morning, whereas at say 11 AM, or 2:30 PM there would have been more people in the towers, and more people on the streets.

And if taking out top government officials would otherwise have been the objective, then other targets would have made more sense.

The bottom line is that the more one considers these things, the more this appears to be a carefully concocted scheme with many beneficiaries including the MIC, Big Oil, Israel, Silverstein and his insurance, the airline put options people, and many other unknown people for various reasons.

It does not appear to be the work of typical terrorists.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


I think the terrorist picked flights that were traditionally lightly occupied in order to minimize interference from the passengers, the most likely source of problems once they were in the air. Later AM flights generally are more full.

The targets they picked were as much symbolic as practical. They were not only icons, they were also located in cities with the best news coverage.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 



The towers were not anywhere near capacity at that time of the morning, whereas at say 11 AM, or 2:30 PM there would have been more people in the towers, and more people on the streets.


I'd have to say that in hindsight, that seems apparent. BUT, to them in their planning? I would certainly have thought that 8:00 AM was a normal starting time for work, in an office buillding.

One thing (and since I can't read the minds of the dead men) that always stood out to me was, the hitting high up, the AA11 hit. It seems they were naive enough to think that the force of the impact would have caused the building to topple over.

Just an impression...but THAT certainly would have been FAR more devastating, yes? Again, hindsight -- a lower hit would have likely caused greater chance of imbalance, and fall over.

These guys may have been educated, but.....they may still have operated under certain misconceptions of physics, and reality in some sense. I have an opinion that is something I've noticed, and is a culturally-based observation when it comes to the ability to reason mechanically....but, I best not express it openly, lest risking offending someone.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
The intent was obviously to cripple the economy. If anyone besides me remembers the tech sector was already very bad off to begin with.

Flying the planes into the bottoms of the towers would not have made much sense as the chance of hitting the target would decrease greatly if aiming for the base. The only real difference between hitting the bottom of the towers would be 10,000+dead and trillions of dollars in mayhem vs 3,000+dead and trillions of dollars of mayhem.

As far as box cutters go they were the perfect choice. Even Seinfeld had a pre 911 routine joking about the razor blade disposal slot in airplane bathrooms. Razors weren't banned from airplanes pre 911 and guns were.

Also, the original estimates of casualties projected was 10-15 thousand. That was on most news sources.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I, for one, don't think the planners thought the buildings would collapse. I think they were just going for maximum effect without collapse.

After 93' I think they sort of gave up on making the buildings fall, just wanted to kill as many Americans as possible at once and make the buildings themselves useless. They may have even thought that destroying the buildings and making us tear them down would be even more symbolic.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   


For example, if mass casualties were the objective, as one would suspect from other terrorist attacks and bombings, just keeping those planes in the air longer or even taking later flights would have increased the amount substantially. The towers were not anywhere near capacity at that time of the morning, whereas at say 11 AM, or 2:30 PM there would have been more people in the towers, and more people on the streets.


Reason struck early in morning is that is when many transcontinent flights
leave - time around 8AM is peak time for East Coast airports

Problem is as day goes on delays accumulate from weather and
mechanical problems. Delays which would destroy timing -consider
Flight 93 took off 41 minutes late from Newark (since live in NJ fly out
of Newark - delays are common, rated one of worse aiports in country)

passengers on Flight 93 learned of other attcks and formulated plan to retake aircraft



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 



Flight 93 took off 41 minutes late from Newark (since live in NJ fly out
of Newark - delays are common, rated one of worse aiports in country)


I'll second that comment!!!

Was based there, with the airline. In this case, though....glad they were delayed!!! Results could have been worse......



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
The intent was obviously to cripple the economy. If anyone besides me remembers the tech sector was already very bad off to begin with.

Flying the planes into the bottoms of the towers would not have made much sense as the chance of hitting the target would decrease greatly if aiming for the base. The only real difference between hitting the bottom of the towers would be 10,000+dead and trillions of dollars in mayhem vs 3,000+dead and trillions of dollars of mayhem.

As far as box cutters go they were the perfect choice. Even Seinfeld had a pre 911 routine joking about the razor blade disposal slot in airplane bathrooms. Razors weren't banned from airplanes pre 911 and guns were.

Also, the original estimates of casualties projected was 10-15 thousand. That was on most news sources.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by jprophet420]


Regarding flying into the bottom JP it was far easier to hit the towers
at the bottom than the Pentagon - in doing so equalled a whole lot less deaths and was a huge risk in failing altogether, this is the one part of all 4 attacks that makes no sense whatsoever, if going out of your way to hit a part that yielded big benefits it would be understandable, but it was not, in fact it was completely opposite
.

As far as weapons go there are reports of at least one gun, and I stated a way of getting weapons on the plane in my 1st post.

/cheers.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Overall some good replies thanks guys
, will look more in depth later, if i`m not mistaken though i`m sure I saw WW actually agreeing on one point
.

/cheers.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Seventh
 





As far as weapons go there are reports of at least one gun, and I stated a way of getting weapons on the plane in my 1st post.


Evidence from phone calls made by Flight attendents and passengers
report hijackers being armed with short utility knives often misreported
by media as "boxcutters"




Members of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States passed around and examined a Leatherman-style utility knife on the second day of a two-day hearing. Also known as the 9/11 commission, the group is an independent, bipartisan panel investigating the attacks on New York and Washington.

A staff member testified that the hijackers purchased at least two such knives and that they weren't found in belongings the attackers left behind.





To help screeners before 9/11, the airlines had developed a guide that classified box cutters as restricted, staffers said. But pocket utility knives with less than 4-inch blades were allowed, they said, and the guide provided no instruction on how to distinguish between those knives and box cutters.


Number of knives (and pieces of knives) recovered from crash scene
of United 93

FBI able to track purchases of Knives by hijackers

www.911myths.com...

Calls also indicate Peper spray or MACE sprayed in cabin to drive passengers back away from cockpit.

Fake bombs used to control passengers



The hijackers of Sept. 11, 2001, blasted Mace or pepper spray at flight crew members and passengers to keep them away from the cockpits and wielded knives in their orchestrated takeovers of the aircraft, according to a report issued Tuesday by the commission investigating the attacks.

The report provides the most comprehensive picture yet of what the commission called the common strategy the terrorists used to commandeer the four airliners that were flown into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.

The commission concluded that the hijackers made bomb threats on at least three of the four planes and shot pepper spray on at least two flights. Passengers calling from cell phones noted the use of box cutters on only one flight, the report said. The commission also said it was skeptical of an earlier report that a gun was aboard one plane.

Read more: www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2004/01/28/MNGQ04JEEH1.DTL#ixzz0PA18GnJv


That gun was used is unconfirmed - attempting to smuggle gun aboard
would be highly risky and if discovered the entire 911 plot wrecked as
airline security immediately increased.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Any other forum, I would expect this. This forum though, of all... it's amazing to see such blatant frivolity and ignorance.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by king9072]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but the 'big benefits' were the financial destruction. Theres well over 300 million americans, 3000 deaths or 25000 are both a drop in the bucket. Its the difference between 0.00001% and 0.000083%.

While you stated a way of getting weapons on the planes, their way was obviously more efficient.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
Any other forum, I would expect this. This forum though, of all... it's amazing to see such blatant frivolity and ignorance.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by king9072]


Are you referring to the OP or the replies?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Well i`m surprised, this attack had allegedly been planned for years, no matter what time the planes left they still have a potential maximum passenger capacity of 200, only idiots would dream of hijacking planes whilst outnumbered 40/50 to 1 respectively armed with crafting knives, if a plan of this magnitude had been orchestrated by such an intricate network of terrorists with huge financial backing, over many years, making sure one way or another firearms were on board would have been prerogative.

The towers - There is absolutely no reason at all to have hit the towers high instead of low, if you are going to burn a building down where do you light the fire - attic or basement?, unless of course there are alternative motives ie - fuel escaping to floors beneath to blame for global collapses and of course to set fire to WTC7, none of this could have been achieved if they were hit where common sense predicts would be maximum carnage.

The Pentagon - Very easy answer, you cannot be placing appropriately burnt bodies and plane debris in wings that are fully populated can you?, and quite simply why there was no plane done this is the complicity of the manoeuvres that it entailed, even for the remote control option it was to risky.

The White House - As long as it looked like this was the 4th target it`s all that matters, anyone in their right mind would know there were plenty of other targets to cause insult and anger to the American public, Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, Lincoln Memorial, Mt. Rushmore, to name but four.






top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join