A question about bin Ladens' plan on 9/11

Originally posted by DerekJR321
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

So in your opinion even a novice could fly a Boeing Airliner into the twin towers? Thats what your saying?

when your goal is to kill yourself? does it matter how skilled you are? does it matter if you can land a plane or keep from hitting stuff around you on the ground?
being able to fly a plane into a building isn't as big a challenge as you make it out be. you just have to keep the controls centered on the target.

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive


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.

I have had the exact same thought! If WTC7 was the intended target and implosive devices had already
been planted the only way to cover-up the mess would be to bring 7 down.

This thought originated while watching Silverstein's commentary involving the word "pull".
I invite you to go back and rewatch that video with this scenario in mind and see what
you think.

reply to post by rival


No.

United 93 was on a course directly towards Washington, D.C.

From that position (over PA at the time) it would have required a turn to an east/northeasterly heading, 060-070 at least, to reach NYC. (Just a guess, haven't plotted it out exactly, yet).

Furthermore, the hijacker had already tuned one of the airplane's VORs to the same frequency as the DCA VORTAC.

(DCA means "Washington National AIrport", both for the airport code for airlines, and passengers. It is also commonplace when a VORTAC is co-located ON the airport property to give it the same three-letter ID).

WTC 7 as a "target" for United 93 is pure bunk.

At that point over PA (and at that altitude) the VOR receiver certainly could not, as yet, receive the signal, due ot distance and line-of-sight. However, they were using the navigation computer and database as well for steering information to DC.

ALL of these "theories" that people have only exist because they don't undestand aviation, and/or don't bother to read up and research the facts and details.


I have linked this document numerous times --- I am begining to think that no one bothers to make the attmept to actually read and understand it:

www.ntsb.gov...

Some pertinent portions, from page #7 of 15:

As with Flight 77, while the EFIS was in MAP mode, the left and right VOR receivers were tuned to stations whose bearings from the airplane differed by about 90 degrees, at the time at which the VOR station pairs were changed. Again, this illustrates the method the system uses for obtaining VOR position fixes to update the INS.

**EFIS is "Electronic Flight Information System". Refers to the displays on the insturment panel, and also some controls that are used to alter the display, as selected by the user.

**MAP mode is self-explanatory. (Helps to read the link, it is also explained in the pre-amble).

**VOR I mentioned already. (VORTAC is the same, for all intents in this explanation). What they are describing is the "Auto-Tune" function normally carried out by the system to keep the "INS" (Inertial Navigation System) platforms updated as to lateral position, latitude/longitude. (The full system uses "Reference" in the middle, so the acronym becomes "IRS").

Now, the "Auto-Tuning" ceases on the side when......

Shortly after the EFIS was switched to VOR mode,.....

This is accomplished by a Human, in the cockpit. Selecting this mode (VOR) changes the look of the display screen, (the EFIS...in this case, the EHSI....Horizontal Situaiton Indicator) and activates the VOR tuning head so the frequency can be selected manually.....

.... the frequency of the left VOR receiver was set to 111.0 MHz, corresponding to the VOR station located at Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA). At the time the DCA frequency was selected, the station was too far away for its signals to be received by the receiver. If DCA VOR had been in range, the display on the EHSI could have been used to show the airplane’s position relative to an inbound radial to DCA, and thus help navigate the airplane towards DCA. The selection of the DCA VOR frequency in the airplane’s left VOR receiver suggests that the operators of the airplane had an interest in DCA, and may have wanted to use that VOR station to help navigate the airplane towards Washington.

The magnetic heading of 120 degrees selected in the autopilot MCP was the correct heading for flying to Washington. However, even though the EFIS was in the MAP mode at the time,

This may sound confusing, to those not familiar. In "MAP" it displays the COMPUTED course, per what's programed in to the computer. The other selection (rarely used) is "PLAN"....used to review this same programmed info (the flight plan) for continuity. This mode is always oriented "NORTH UP", regardless of airplane heading....so, we use it more on the ground, in preflight, for the checking of the route. From "MAP" to the VOR and ILS modes, the heading display is always reflecting the actual magnetic heading, at the "top" of the instrument (straight ahead, for orientation). (Compare it to how your GPS map, if you have one, works in your car).

IN ALL modes the "Range" knob functions indepently, and the range display scale changes as selected.

Range choices (B-757-200/300 and B-767-200/300) are:

10, 20, 40, 80, 160 and 320 NM (Nautical Miles).

....it was in the 80 nautical mile range setting, and so would not have shown DCA on the display; consequently, it is unlikely that the hijackers used the map display on the EHSI to deduce the correct heading for Washington. It follows that the hijackers had some other means of obtaining this heading.

Which I have expained in other threads already. It isn't any harder than using the computer, and typing in "DCA" (for the VOR) and pushing a few more buttons. "Google Maps" is harder, because IT needs more specific info, sometimes...like street addresses and stuff.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks Weed.

I never had much faith that WTC7 would have been chosen as a direct target--for lack of
significance AS a target. Also, the Empire State or Statue of Liberty would have been more
apt a choice, but because of the circumstances of the WTC7 collapse, the thought merited
consideration.(It would fit nicely into my global view of what happened that day.) But I would
rather the "peg" fit the hole, and not vice-versa.

I think the initial trajectory requiring a course change back to Manhattan Island is telling
enough to cast significant doubt on this theory (the plane in all probability was headed
for a target in DC) but I'm not ready to totally dismiss it yet.

Good question. Thanks for that. When common sense is applied to any aspect of this scenario, it just never adds up.

The answer, I think is: They weren't terrorists and they had to leave from airports where Israelis were in charge of the security, so they could tell the necessary lies to support the cover up.

Also I don't agree with the 'full tank of petrol' counter-argument. A plane hitting the towers, even with a depleted tank of fuel, would have had the desired effect of total shock and fear.

Do you really believe it plausible, that the so-called terrorists' intent was to actually demolish the towers? That would imply a degree of technical knowledge about the structures, etc, and a reliance on chance which is simply beyond reasonable belief. etc, IMO, the towers could not be and were not brought down by the heat of the fire.

So, a full tank of fuel would not have been an issue had 9/11 been carried out by real terrorists. To plow airplanes into and seriously damage the buildings of major US financial and military organisations would simply have been enough of statement, and would still have created huge shock and awe.

If I were a terrorist planning this event, I would weigh up the question raised by the OP, and would definitely gone for it because the probablity of success would have been much, much higher. Unless, of course, my primary motive was to demolish the buildings.....

So, who are the terrorists??

reply to post by wcitizen

The answer, I think is: They weren't terrorists and they had to leave from airports where Israelis were in charge of the security, so they could tell the necessary lies to support the cover up.

Think we found the gist of your argument .......

Why do "truthers" parrot all the anti-semitic garbage is beyond me

Makes everyone think they are nuts

reply to post by wcitizen


It would help if you would actually do some honest research. OBL was disappointed back in 1993, when that attack did not drop either of the towers. So yes, trying to knock them down was a goal of his.

Originally posted by rival

I have had the exact same thought! If WTC7 was the intended target and implosive devices had already
been planted the only way to cover-up the mess would be to bring 7 down.

Surely the only way to cover it up would be to not blow it up! Given that a building falling down without a plane hitting it is surely stranger than a building not falling down.

And as WW says, the bearing of the plane suggests 7 was not the target.

Originally posted by pigwithoutawig
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.

Maybe the pilot wasn't James Bond and your stunt wasn't an obvious option to him at that critical moment. Perhaps they had knives to the throats of the flight attendants and were told it was a traditional hijacking. They were not aware at this time that the plane was to be used as a missile.

Originally posted by mithrawept
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?

Most dismissals of the official details of 9/11 center around how "no untrained pilot could perform all the turns necessary to strike the Pentagon." Yet now we ask why they weren't tactically perfect enough in the execution of then plan to spread full evenly over the top??? That's supposed to by a reason to doubt what happened that day? Why not ask why they didn't sky write Osama's name in the sky first.

Thanks for your responses.

If bin Laden thought that large fuel loads were worth jeopardizing the operation, I think he would have used the fuel to greater effect.

When both planes struck the towers they were flying horizontally.
Because there were no structural support columns except for the central core and the outer walls, a large part of the plane debris and fuel passed straight through the buildings and exploded as a huge fireballs on the outside the buildings.

To maximize structural damage, bin Ladens’ terrorists would have swooped down on the buildings, gaining speed and momentum, striking the buildings diagonally, thereby increasing the length of the path penetrated by the jet, and delivering more of the fuel to the actual building.

If bin Laden thought the buildings might collapse as a result of the impacts, he would have instructed his minions to strike the towers as down low as possible, so that greater forces were being applied from above to the damaged areas.

Why would bin Laden attract early attention in order to have full fuel loads, only to crash into the targets at the angle where damage from that fuel load is minimized?

reply to post by aethron


Interesting.....

To maximize structural damage, bin Ladens’ terrorists would have swooped down on the buildings, gaining speed and momentum, striking the buildings diagonally, thereby increasing the length of the path penetrated by the jet....

I can't presume to be in their minds, but that is true.....in a sense.

However....on that day my initial reaction was, "Were they trying to topple the buildings?"

MY (pure guess) is that they didn't anticipate such a full collapse, but wanted to send some or ALL of the buildings, and debris, laterally.

SO, ascribing the intent of "collapse" after-the-fact, while interesting, amounts to more "Monday morning quarterbacking" (to use an American sports idiom).

While they (most likely) understood the forces of impact involved (please access any number of online calulators to see....we're speaking of MILLIONS of pounds of force, here) they might not have considered the OTHER part of physics...the inertia of the buildings themselves. Being stationary at time of impact. Gravity is far more powerful, overall. ONCE the critical damage was inflicted.

reply to post by aethron


What you question only seems strange if you think the Twin Towers were the only two "targets" in Manhattan on that day...

What?!! Multiple Targets you say? Ya, why not? And maybe the towers were the secondary ones as well...

Myself, I find it strange that both towers fell completely when everyone knew the thought of the designers had been to consider and plan for the odd plane crash event similar to the Empire State Building incident. Soooo, why does the 'collapse' of the towers look so much like a demolition of some sort and not just a falling down like WTC7?

Why indeed!

Look, everyone prior to 9/11 knew steel frame buildings don't fall due to fire and plans and designs were made for a plane crash accident event.

So, why were there two planes in New York that day? Duh, because there were two towers right? Yes, in a way.

But if everyone knew the designers thought of this possibility and fire wouldn't fell them then why not 2 planes in one tower or 4 planes, two per tower? Right? No, 1 plane per tower where you would not exactly expect for total destruction and yet voila! Total Destruction. Clever no?

So what does that tell us?

Maybe that whoever brought the towers down knew fire wouldn't do it and also that a single plane crash was designed for and then so maybe a little extra HELP was needed to take out these two Secondary Targets completely.

Right? You follow? Last time a plane hit a building the building won (Empire State etc.) Everyone knew that.

Building One, plane Zero. Prior incident.

No amount of fire going to do it sorry - see Madrid fire etc. So everybody knows this prior to 9/11 so you can be pretty sure that if the goal was to bring the towers down *somebody* would have to make sure a small fire or single plane would do it, but KNEW the odds of that were actually pretty poor, so therefore they stacked the deck so to speak, had to.

And that's why the 'collapse' of the towers doesn't look like the falling down of WTC7.

Cheers

Originally posted by Majorwood
They knew a lot that was going on from these flights because of all the cell phone calls from these flights to there love ones.

Yes, and yet no "terrorist" cell phone calls from any of the planes? Strange.

Like:

"Hey, I'm taking this plane and all your lives so make calls if you want to various loved ones but I'm not gonna borrow or take your phone not even to call my Mom, Wolf Blitzer at CNN or Osama bin Laden who is waiting patiently in the mountains for any news or updates!!"

Interesting.

Allow others to make calls, not make any yourself, steal a plane and kill everyone on it including yourself and not steal or even 'borrow' a cell phone to phone home and say: "See me on the TV?!!" Fly a commercial jet with all those controls and not know how to use a cell phone or have any 'loved ones' or ruthless masterminds yourself to call? Ya right.

Yes yes, of course, calling someone on the ground would identify and thus implicate them in the plot but not calling Wolf, why not call the media on 9/11 from the plane? Any of the planes?

Where are all the terrorist in plane cell phone calls?

Just asking.

Cheers

Originally posted by wcitizen

So, a full tank of fuel would not have been an issue had 9/11 been carried out by real terrorists. To plow airplanes into and seriously damage the buildings of major US financial and military organisations would simply have been enough of statement, and would still have created huge shock and awe.

If I were a terrorist planning this event, I would weigh up the question raised by the OP, and would definitely gone for it because the probablity of success would have been much, much higher. Unless, of course, my primary motive was to demolish the buildings.....

Or secondary motive...

Y'know, I dunno... Osama bin Laden is/was (star this post if you think OBL is actually DEAD) rich, wanted the towers taken down since 1993 (some claim) and so why not buy a proper flight simulator, install it in a warehouse in Saudi Arabia and train everyone to fly the planes perfectly, covertly? Right? They don't have airplanes in the Middle East?! No secondhand flight simulators for sale at Boeing or Nasa, or on Kijiji? Train the hijackers at U.S. flight schools? Come on. Buy a small plane Osama, rent a pilot, teach everyone in the high desert away from lazy nonprying FBI eyes!

'Oh they went for the element of surprise?!' Training at U.S. flight schools and not concerned nobody figure the plot out?! Ha. Crafty. Hide in 'plane' sight!

And all that training just to kill yourself, would make more sense to train 19 guys to fly, get each guy to train 19 more himself and not die in the first and seemingly ONLY Massive Attack on America. That's a hell of a lot of work just to kill yourself. All that planning, you'd think you'd be intelligent enough to plan a way to do it without all the suiciding... but, apparently, that wasn't part of the plan. Seriously, guys that can fly planes that accurately are too valuable to lose!

Everyone thinks it takes actual people to fly a large jet but really, it doesn't.

What? Are 'War Games' going on every day?! Is NORAD 'confused', I mean, right NOW? What a lucky break Osama.

The other day some Delta plane I think, landed on only half its landing gear. The news said it happened not long ago to another plane but that investigation was still ongoing and had not concluded yet. So a couple of planes land with unextended gear and there's two extensive investigations set going.

Four whole planes crash on 9/11 and we're told, "It's terrorists, case pretty much closed, move along," Interesting.

The "Hit" on the Pentagon was also secondary and it wasn't levelled because it being a federal building no one individual had any private insurance on it lol. Could be.

But Think Multiple Targets... and I don't just mean buildings.

Cheers

reply to post by aethron


Because the buildings are much easier to hit in the manner that they were - from a shallow dive.

Remember these people were not massively experienced. Sure, they had lots of flight hours, but they weren't highly skilled.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


While not perfect were good enough - compare them to WWII kamikazes. 9/11 hijackers had more flight time
than many of the suicide pilots. Had additional advantage that targets were some of the largest structures on
eatrth - a destroyer is only about 375 feet long x 40 ft wide. WTC was 3 times that. Also buildings were stationary, not moving or dodging. Nor were the hijackers being shot at by fighters or AAA.

Off Okinawa were able to sink 30 ships and damage 300 more

reply to post by thedman


Yeah, I know. I'm just pointing out that it's a lot easier to hit something in a shallow dive than a steep one, I imagine. Perhaps weed could clarify.

There's a lot of people on this thread saying that they would have done it a different way, or that the MO was fishy because it seems inefficient. And yet it worked pretty well!