A question about bin Ladens' plan on 9/11

In the real world, if a terrorist wanted to crash four hijacked aircraft into important buildings in the US, he would plan to maximize the surprise factor, because the longer the authorities were aware of the existence of a critical situation, the more time they would have to react and intervene to thwart the plan.

To maximize the surprise factor, the terrorist would select flights for his hijackers that were scheduled to arrive at the target cities within a small time period.
This ensures the flights don’t have to veer radically off-course, which is an act that immediately attracts the attention of flight controllers, because the off-course plane is a danger to other aerial traffic. Only during the last moments do the planes have to leave their scheduled route to hit their targets, which, happening almost simultaneously, maximizes surprise.
Such a plan also reduces the urgency of a rushed hijacking. The hijackers can choose the most appropriate time to effect the hijacking anywhere along the flight path, and still be flying towards the target.

The way bin Laden planned his operation, all the hijacked flights were flying away from their targets.
This means the hijacks had to be effected quickly, because the longer it took to gain control of the plane, the further away from their targets the terrorists would be.

If there were difficulties gaining control of the flights, (which could be expected since they were relying on hand-to-hand combat), they might have to fly back over a large part of the USA to reach their target, all the while exposed to attention and interception by the authorities.

The flights would also necessarily arrive at their targets staggered in time, depending on how long it took to effect each hijacking, giving authorities a larger window of reaction time.

Why would bin Laden choose to hijack planes that were flying away from their targets, when choosing planes that were flying towards their targets would give him a much better chance of ‘success’?

Full tanks of fuel,

what has bin laden to do with 9/11 in the first place ?

as far as i know none

but it might be that i missed the hypothesis of the thread

Your post makes absolute perfect sense. So add another odd question to what happened that day. Also I don't know if this has been covered but why wouldn't a pilot of a plane being hijacked, pull back on the stick and make the plane climb rapidly pushing all attackers back against the walls or right down the aisle. I don't know but none of the whole hijack thing makes sense to me.

reply to post by aethron


S&F great thread, the only thing I can come up with, is they needed to hit their targets while the planes were still full of fuel. But other than that you bring up a good point.

The FBI have said publicly that it has no evidence that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. The "actual" mastermind (or rather the one who confessed to organizing the 9/11 attacks after lots of waterboarding by the CIA) also admitted to robbing a bank that had not been been built at the time

Liking this thread. There are so many unanswered questions.

Why fly into the side of the pentagon? Why not crash the plane into the roof and spread the jet fuel over the widest area?

Ryland: A Sibel Edmonds 'Bombshell' - Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Until 9/11

Edmonds expert fills in details from recent BRAD BLOG interview with noted, gagged FBI translator/whistleblower...

During my recent interview with FBI translator-turned-whistleblower Sibel Edmonds on the Mike Malloy Show, a caller had asked her opinion on whether she believed 9/11 to have been "an inside job."
After explaining the difference between what she does and doesn't know first hand, she went on to explain: "I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union [color=gold]we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11." ...

www.bradblog.com...

However, we know Bin Laden had nothing to do with 911, the US Government flat out lied.
So we must ask, who mastermind the hijackings?

Why the WTC's in the first place? If you want and try and effect the financial district why not hit Walmart headquarters? You crush Walmart, you crush us.

Seriously though, who else thinks the intended target of flight 93 over Shanksfield, Penn. was going to be WTC 7 instead of the supposed White House? That's why they went ahead and collapsed it when the plan failed.

Bin Laden's dead so it doesn't matter if they point the finger at him. I've been waiting for the release of the next 1980's cassette tape recording from the supposed Bin Laden. You would think a Billionaire could afford a HD camcorder and not have to resort to 20 year old technology.

reply to post by aethron


Well, the time difference was mainly for the purpose of publicity. Hit one tower, give the media time to start filming, then slam into the second. The same with DC. What really happened on the 4th plane over PA, I don't know. Although, I do think though, that it was odd that ALL of the planes were off course, and with how strict the FAA is, you would think that it would only be a few minutes before action would be taken. Which is why I believe that we will never see the black boxes, or hear anything from them, such as radio traffic between the pilots and towers. I am very skeptical of all 9/11 theories, I used to tear down anyone that said it was our own government, but have come to open my eyes.

The main problem with all 9/11 theories, is that the more we learn about it, the more contradictions we find in ALL theories, including that "it was terrorists from the middle east" and everything else the government says, all the way to the higher echelons of the hidden powers of the world orchestrating the whole thing. we may never know the whole truth. Anytime people start to get close to anything, more evidence to the contrary surfaces. Its almost like studying the stars, every time we prove one thing, we disprove another. I think that they designed it that way. interfering here and there, to discredit one theory or another.

reply to post by aethron


You have remember before 911 when a hijacking occured the only way to really get killed was to resist. You could take over a plane just by claiming to have a weapon. So pilots or anyone else doing anything to stop them would have been beyond rare. Only after 911 when people figure they die either way do you see crew and others actively resiting a take over. Also you have to keep in mind that once you get control of a plane and want to crash it into something their was not much we could do about it. Our air defence is geared to stopping threats entering our air space. The fact is we can not do much more now then we could then in that area. It was a very simple plan get on planes, take over planes from people who have been taught not to resist and crash them. No weapons to be smuggled in, no explosives to detect (full tank of gas is already on board) , no real way to stop it. Very few people and very simple. Thats what a classic black up looks like no matter of its the CIA or a terrorist group.

What a great thread.
Lets hope everyone sticks to the OP.
Once the de-bunkers come in, the bickering starts and OP is forgotten.

Originally posted by waypastvne
Full tanks of fuel,

I think this is highly likely reason, but do not discount the OP's discussion of the issue. The OP brings up a good point that needs to be thought through.

reply to post by MrSpad

Only after 911 when people figure they die either way do you see crew and others actively resiting a take over.

Actually I do, when that crew knew they were all going to die, I don’t believe they all sat quietly and still. I can tell you if I was a passenger even before 911 happened and I knew the hijackers were going to use the plane as a weapon, I wouldn’t have just sat in my seat I can promise you that, I would have gone down fighting I would have jumped those punks box cutters or not, and I know other passengers would have done the same.

No, I disagree with your opinion.

reply to post by impressme


You can fight all you want but once they get in the cockpit all they need do is shut the door and you're just along for the ride.

A toss up between planes full of fuel or risking a long amount of time of being shot down by NORAD either way the OP brings up a good idea because if you are going to pull off four hijackings at the same time you certainly do not want to be detected while approaching your targets, the risks would be way to high. Either way this reeks of military op. We heard all the excuses from the Pentagon “mass confusion” was their answer. We were all doing war games that day, everyone was doing war games. Our military were doing war game exercises in Washington and they claim they were doing exercises in New York, uh, we were all just confused. What a coincidence, so many coincidence that day and yet no real answers.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive

You can fight all you want but once they get in the cockpit all they need do is shut the door and you're just along for the ride.

Who said all the hijackers were in the cockpit? And from my research there were no locks on the cockpit doors at that time. So no I am not buying into your opinion. However had I not took an interest into 911 years ago your opinion would have made since to me.

reply to post by aethron


Read "AMERICA"S SECRET WAR" By Dr George Friedman of STRATFOR private intelligence.

lays out Bin Laden's plan in detail

Keys were

Aircraft on transcontinental flights - full of fuel

Takeoff times close togather - prime time in Eastern time zone is between 7 am - 9 am. Any later risk delays as weather, mechanical problem, congestion cause delays in system which would disruption timing

Use Boeing 767/757 aircraft which are both numerous and have same cockpit layouts and controls which make
pilot training easier

As for targets Bin Laden had particular reasons for picking each target. WTC were referred to as Towers of the Jews and represented money. Pentagon was Tower of War - the military and last target, Capitol building was
the Tower of Law, representing US government.

As for Flight 93 - it took off from Newark right across river from WTC. Why fly all way to Ohio, then turn south
toward Washington DC if target is in NY. Its intended target was Capitol.

reply to post by waypastvne


Completely correct. It was full tanks of fuel. This element was even discussed on 9-11 during the early news reports. The terrorists viewed America as 'asleep' that day, the fact that they had to change their flight path from just outside of boston and turn around to new york isn't such a great distance that they would have expected the US of august 2001 to go and shoot down the plane. This wasn't the first plane hijacking in islamic terrorist history. Usually, in the past, terrorists would hijack, keep the pilot alive and start negotiating their commands.

Its only logical that Osama assumed the US would not shoot the planes down, and therefore the need for full tanks of fuel overrided the odds of the US 'running down' these planes.

reply to post by aethron


My question is who directed the hijackers to the WTC and Pentagon? Radar is different than gps.