So why would hijackers crash planes into the twin towers anyway?

Originally posted by donlashway
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

Can I break the ats rules and just state my opinion?
If you could recall news reports concerning the flight training they received, number one thing they wanted to learn was how to set auto pilot.
What if they were told fly them low and slow over NY so we can make our demands?
But they never took time to see that the coordinates they were given meant they would hit the towers.
Second plane tries to turn at last second; untrained pilot turns the wheel like in a car not knowing in would just tilt sideways?
They were not told it was a suicide just a highjacking for demands?
Just my thoughts , I don't want to defend them or argue...

You might be partially right. A number of years ao I actually heard a report that there was some speculation that not all the hijackers knew it was a suicide mission. There really only needed to be two pilots per plane who would have to know what was happening because the rest were there to act as muscle to make sure the passengers were cowed enough to stay put. Theoretically it could be possible that these henchmen might have been told it was a standard hijacking for ransom and were kept in the dark as to what the plan actually was.

We'll almost certainly never know.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


We'll almost certainly never know.

Unless we do something really revolutionary that's never been done in the history of investigation before. Like look at the physical evidence. It's on the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island.

Here's an off the wall thought for you. Al Qaeda was trying to start the Apocalypse. And they might have succeeded.

Here's my reasoning. Osama Bin Laden was a religious nut. Starting the Muslim Apocalypse would have been the best thing ever for him and his group. He had delusions of becoming the Mahdi.

So this is what I think he did. He found a end of the world prophecy and tried to make events fit the prophecy. And while hitting the Twin Towers was important I think the shots that was to fulfill the prophecy was the attack on Washington DC.

Here's the prophecy in question. Remember how Daniel got the prophecy. He is describing a vision of events in the far future.

Daniel 11
2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.

Now why did he pick this prophecy? Because in this prophecy the end of the world starts with an attack on a country that looks Greek to Daniel. Washington DC would look like a 21st century Athens to a person in 500 BC Persia.

I would suspect that OBL was trying to kickstart the prophecy. And this is why I'm worried he succeeded. The timeline of Daniel's Apocalypse jumps from verse 11-3 to the ram and goat prophecy of Daniel 8. Now in that prophecy the next couple of events are this.

2 countries/kings in the middle east that were once part of the Persian empire would be conquered. Then the ram itself is killed. Then the "Greece" of the great horn of the goat is broken and fractures into the 4 notable horns.

So far the US seems to have taken the bait and taken out Iraq and Afghanistan. And currently is in a "cold" war with Iran. Only problem I see with this strategy is that OBL may have underestimated the amount of time required. It took 150 years approximately to go from Alexander the Great to the Abomination of Desolation. I'm guessing if the prophecy is actually running the Abomination of Desolation would occur in the 2020s approximately.

here is a follow up...

news.yahoo.com...

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who told military authorities that he was responsible for the planning of the terror assault "from A to Z," previously mocked the tribunal and said he would welcome the death penalty. His co-defendant, Ramzi Binalshibh, told the court that he was proud of the attacks.
((The defendants were held at secret CIA prisons overseas where they were subjected to what the government called "enhanced interrogation techniques." Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times, officials have said.))

Even with the changes (in court/tribunal proceedings), the defense lawyers say the commissions are anything but fair. ...

((i put in emphasis from the original text quotes))



perhaps the tape delayed testimonies by the 5 prisoners, especially Khalid S Mohammad, will state matter-of-factly just why these targets were selected among all the potential targets in the USA

After a lot of reading and absorbing opinions and "facts", I would say that there were multiple motives behind the collapse of the towers.

I firmly believe that planes crashing in to towers was just a publicity stunt. I believe that whoever did this, if they wanted to be sure, had to have a backup plan. Whatever the naysayers believe, there is no assurance that crashing the planes would bring those two buildings down. Since it is a first such event in the history, we have no frame of reference, so didn't the "terrorists"...they couldn't have known that it would do the job. And think about it then, what would happen if they just slammed planes in to towers and nothing else happened? Would it have the necessary impact on the public? 1993 WTC bombing proved it's not such an easy task.
Apparently there was a plan to knock down one tower so it would lean against the other and bring them down both. Plans failed.

I'm not comparing circumstances of these two attacks, just saying...it's not all that easy. Without going in to one side of the fence or the other, I just find it unbelievable that they would try that and hope for the "best". I think one attack (planes) was for the public and the world to watch, and the other to ensure the collapse of the towers (probably some sort of controlled demolition). I am actually a bit worried that we would blindly accept that it's perfectly normal for those towers to fall, when we have no frame of reference up until that moment. I would be more inclined to call it a "million in one shot". Ok...perhaps a thousand in one. I'm saying...you can't plan this. For the full effect (which is obviously what they got in terms of results) they would need to be sure the buildings will fall...and how would they be sure if something like this never happened? They had to be sure. They had to have some kind of backup if things don't go as planed.

Why is government denying controlled demolition you ask? Why just not admit to it...if the terrorists did it? Well admitting that may open up a pandora's box of responsibilities, which are today brushed off as "incompetence" .

I wont pretend I have the answers, but one of the many reasons may be...

Check out who got hammered for legal responsibility last time WTC got bombed....Legal responsibility

I believe that only the towers demolition was a part of the terrorists plan...the rest of the show (the Pentagon, Flight 93, WTC7) was initiated to take advantage of the situation. This is why I think there were some justified allegations of foreknowledge of the attacks. As soon as the military found out about the plans, they put the plan in motion to use the event for it's own purposes.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

A number of years ao I actually heard a report that there was some speculation that not all the hijackers knew it was a suicide mission. There really only needed to be two pilots per plane who would have to know what was happening

I don't buy that.
Why the pilots training if you were just going to hijack for ransom or publicity?. In all the other hijackings the pilots did what they were told.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

Apparently there was a plan to knock down one tower so it would lean against the other and bring them down both. Plans failed.

I doubt even qualified engineers would assure that hitting building A at point B would guarantee one would take out the other. Nevermind what truthers call goat hearders.

I believe that only the towers demolition was a part of the terrorists plan...the rest of the show (the Pentagon, Flight 93, WTC7) was initiated to take advantage of the situation.

So the Pentagon knew within 15 minutes of the first impact that 93 had roommates of the other planes and they should attack it? They knew they could get a fighter to the target and down it in a remote area with no one seeing the missile attack?

Is this the same military whos motto is hurry up and wait for instructions?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


You have atta's college transcripts? GOOD WORK, dave!!!!

Maybe atta should run for office?

reply to post by samkent

I doubt even qualified engineers would assure that hitting building A at point B would guarantee one would take out the other. Nevermind what truthers call goat hearders.

I was referring to the 93 bombing. Apparently the bombers admitted to that plan. You can spin it any way you like it.

So the Pentagon knew within 15 minutes of the first impact that 93 had roommates of the other planes and they should attack it? They knew they could get a fighter to the target and down it in a remote area with no one seeing the missile attack? Is this the same military whos motto is hurry up and wait for instructions?

I'm not sure if I understood you here...I must say I'm not a native english speaker...maybe that's it. Can you please explain further what you meant.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Before 9/11, Al Qaida was repeatedly causing mischief throughout the world from the USS Cole bombing to the embassy bombings in Africa to even the first WTC bombing in 1993, so predicting that Al Qaida was going to launch another attack in a year's time was a given. In fact I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that in a year's time, there will be more trouble in the mideast between Israel and its neighbors, North Korea will threaten to start a war again, and at least one politician will be exposed as a liar. Is it really that "suspicious a coincidence" that I'd know this or is it simply a case that I'm predicting that someone who shows repetitive behavior wil keep doing it?

You do know that Al Qaida bombed two of our embassies in Africa before the 9/11 attack, right?

Oh I am very well aware of that. But then again with all these apparent "intelligence failures", there's no way he would know something of that detail if he had no clue a terrorist attack was imminent that day.

All right, if you want to keep beating this dead horse, fine. Let's just pretend for the sake of argument that on 9/11 there were no wargames. How would this have led to any different outcome on 9/11? The hijackers still would have turned off the transponders, wouldn't they? Air traffic controlelrs still would have to pick them out from among the 3000 blips on the screen, wouldn't they? They would still be running around in circles tryign to find out how many planes were hijacked and where they were heading, wouldn't they? Interceptors would still be ordered to stay back and the president would still need to authorize any shoot down order, don't they?

So where is the massive impact these wargames are supposed to have had on the events of 9/11, exactly?

"When a transponder is turned off, several things happen to civilian (FAA) radar
screens that do not affect military radar. First, a small identifying symbol on the
blip on the controller’s radar screen goes out. Second, although the civilian ATC
still has the ability to track the aircraft in two dimensions, he or she is no longer
able to pinpoint its altitude. When an aircraft under
ATC control goes silent, the blip for that aircraft is instantaneously inserted in a
conspicuous manner on the screens of every other ATC in the region. Everybody
sees it." taken from Crossing The Rubicon.

Military radar can still fully track aircrafts when transponders are turned off. If there hadn't been all this confusion between the drills and real time, action could have been taken. The fighter who was out of the area running a drill (being directed by those behind the radar screen) could have been the fighter who was up in the air AT LEAST shadowing ONE of these aircrafts. And yeah, the chain of command for a shoot down is SO large that it wouldn't be able to be completed for all 4 hijackings but if there's fighters shadowing planes that are in direct line with the NYC skyline and Washington D.C., I'm pretty sure they'd take some initiative. There not just going to watch planes hit the White House/Capitol , The Pentagon, and the World Trade Center. If you really think that man, then I'm at a loss for words

So why would hijackers crash planes into the twin towers anyway?,

BECAUSE THEY HATE AOUR FREEDOMMS!!!

reply to post by homervb


Well, apparently there was much "confusion" at that time...because of the war games. That's not truthers speaking...that's the OS trying to explain lack of military action.

so maybe you should talk to the OS camp and explain to them that that's no excuse for confusion they were apparently having that day.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

I'm not sure if I understood you here...I must say I'm not a native english speaker...maybe that's it. Can you please explain further what you meant.

You made it sound like TPTB were waiting for a reason to shoot down a passenger plane and the attacks on WTC were the trigger.

Originally posted by donlashway
reply to post by Insolubrious

 

Can I break the ats rules and just state my opinion?
If you could recall news reports concerning the flight training they received, number one thing they wanted to learn was how to set auto pilot.
What if they were told fly them low and slow over NY so we can make our demands?
But they never took time to see that the coordinates they were given meant they would hit the towers.
Second plane tries to turn at last second; untrained pilot turns the wheel like in a car not knowing in would just tilt sideways?
They were not told it was a suicide just a highjacking for demands?
Just my thoughts , I don't want to defend them or argue...

Originally posted by GoodOlDaveYou might be partially right. A number of years ao I actually heard a report that there was some speculation that not all the hijackers knew it was a suicide mission. There really only needed to be two pilots per plane who would have to know what was happening because the rest were there to act as muscle to make sure the passengers were cowed enough to stay put. Theoretically it could be possible that these henchmen might have been told it was a standard hijacking for ransom and were kept in the dark as to what the plan actually was.

We'll almost certainly never know.

LMAO wow dude you have no problem considering other people's theories as long as they glide smoothly with the O.S. it's so damn obvious

reply to post by samkent


Wasn't my intention. As I said...I believe that there was some foreknowledge...who and how? I don't know. But if there was, and some people from the government decided to use the event for it's own purposes, they would have planned their action accordingly. So it's not 15 min after...as you said...it could have been planned from start. So is the fact that the very moment the attacks took place, they were running the drills (war games). Could be a coincidence...but having in mind that there were a whole lot of coincidences that day...one must be suspicious of that coincidence. In my mind...either the terrorists knew the timing of the drills and used that, or the military knew the timing of the attack and used the drills scenario for the excuse to let terrorist succeed, which in the end we all must admit, played in to the hand of certain US interests.

Still, it could all be a coincidence...if you want to believe it.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

so maybe you should talk to the OS camp and explain to them that that's no excuse for confusion they were apparently having that day.

The excuse is you need to get 'verified' information up the chain of command to the person with the required power to authorize decisive action.

Remember until the second plane struck the first impact could very well have been an accident. After all passenger planes were never used as weapons before.

How long would it take to cross check the passenger lists from the suspected hijacked airlines against the bad boys list the CIA had? You would have to get to the right person at the air lines, who were likely in a tizzy at the time. Then they would likely have to FAX the lists. You've got to be talking 10 minutes at least. WHat was the time between WTC 1 and WTC2?

Yea I can see confusion.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

In my mind...either the terrorists knew the timing of the drills and used that, or the military knew the timing of the attack and used the drills scenario for the excuse to let terrorist succeed, which in the end we all must admit, played in to the hand of certain US interests.

Or, option 3 - the military conducting drills or exercises (which it does on a constant basis) had nothing to do with the response to the events that day. Which it didn't.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

In my mind...either the terrorists knew the timing of the drills and used that, or the military knew the timing of the attack and used the drills scenario for the excuse to let terrorist succeed, which in the end we all must admit, played in to the hand of certain US interests.

Or, option 3 - the military conducting drills or exercises (which it does on a constant basis) had nothing to do with the response to the events that day. Which it didn't.

Yeah, because you know for sure. Pshhh. So done with the OS troops. And no, there's not drills going on constantly. These were drills held annually and semi-annually. These are events that are established to happen every year at a certain point. All I simply asked was do you think the terrorist knew of these drills. (See how I tried to stick to the OS by just hinting they might have known and you guys just ripped it all to shreds with every doubt in mind all because you deem me a nut job truther?) But I can't even fairly debate without the OS being on point to doubt every single thing I say. But hey, "Oh I heard that maybe the hijackers didn't know it was a suicide mission" is all good in the eyes of the OS. Apparently that's more solid then me hinting that the hijackers might have known about these war games were happening. Osama bin Laden called the hijackers martyrs, they released hijacker confession tapes containing their last will and testaments, so NO you're wrong. If the OS is true and the tapes are real then these hijackers knew they weren't come out of this alive.

Oh and before you immediately discredit everything I've just said, here you go:

www.msnbc.msn.com... /15082633/ns/us_news-security/t/video-showing-atta-bin-laden-unearthed/#.T6PfPzlmUec.email

NBC News has obtained new images of Sept. 11 hijackers Mohammed Atta and Ziad Jarrah delivering what is apparently their last will and testament in Afghanistan on Jan. 18, 2000, as well as images of a rogue's gallery of other terrorists and senior al-Qaida leaders listening to a speech days earlier by Osama bin Laden at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan on Jan. 8, 2000.

Can I break the ats rules and just state my opinion? If you could recall news reports concerning the flight training they received, number one thing they wanted to learn was how to set auto pilot. What if they were told fly them low and slow over NY so we can make our demands? But they never took time to see that the coordinates they were given meant they would hit the towers. Second plane tries to turn at last second; untrained pilot turns the wheel like in a car not knowing in would just tilt sideways? They were not told it was a suicide just a highjacking for demands? Just my thoughts , I don't want to defend them or argue...

wow...that's some wild theorizing. So you believe that the attack was performed by radical muslim therorists and you think they didn't knew it was a suicide mission?

They were cruising to deliver demands?...hm...on autopilot? I don't wanna laugh, but this is wilder than most 9/11 truther conspiracy theories.

So how would that work...meet our demands or we will crash this plane and kill everyone on board? Wouldn't that presume their deaths also if the demands were not met? Don't they know that America doesn't negotiate with terrorists?

reply to post by samkent


You are right. I realize there is a chain of command for taking such drastic action...but the confusion ensured that no fighter planes even go up there until it's too late. I'm not talking about shooting it down. I'm talking about intercepting, which is standard procedure once the transponder goes off, and one does not need a chain of commands to come from the president to intercept "runaway" planes. Only the process of shooting it down requires high up commands. Or am I wrong?