5th hijacked plane?

[riptowtan]

I was just listening to a debate with Jason Bermas and James Bennett, and Jason mentioned another plane with 5 hijackers that were let go. I'm a little confused. Did this happen on 9/11? Did it even happen? This is the first time I've ever heard of this.

[stateofgrace]

Google is your friend. (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=5th+hijacked+plane%3F&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

As is determining the dross from reality.

Have fun.

[911files]

Delta 1989 which took off behind AAL11 and UAL175, BOS to LAX was "forced landed" and investigated as a possible hijack. Sorry, no hijackers on that one. I'm not sure what other flight they could be referring to.

[KDLarsen]

Korean Air also had a plane force landed somewhere in Canada, due to a complete communications breakdown.

But it's most likely a reference to Delta 1989.

[debunker9145]

Probably a reference to Delta 89

[beachnut]

Korean Air also had a plane force landed somewhere in Canada, due to a complete communications breakdown.

But it's most likely a reference to Delta 1989.
The Korean Air got confused and squawked the hijack code. Dumb move, got them sent to a small airport. Things like this can happen when you are talking beyond Standard English phraseology used to fly.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/08/14/alaska.sept11/
The Korean Air jet was still squawking the hijack code when the military jets made visual contact with the pilots.
Under a military jet escort, the pilots cooperated with orders to land at an airport in the nearby Whitehorse Airport in Canada's Yukon territory.
Still unsure if there was a hijacking in progress, the Royal Canadian mounted police boarded the plane with guns drawn.
But it proved a false alarm.

[JoeyDonuts]

You gotta figure, with the monumental goatscrew in the ATC world on 9/11, ANY deviation from by-the-book procedure was going to stick out like a sore thumb. It actually surprises me that there weren't dozens of potential "hijacks" grounded and investigated further. Methinks you can attribute lack of personnel/situation awareness for that. Another thing to consider is that there wasn't any way for NEADS to know that the attack was over after the last plane went down, so they continued "the fight" long into the afternoon and night.

See some of the old threads Gumboot and Cheap Shot contributed in for some real meaty in-depth on this.

[njslim]

Possible distorted reference to United 23. Plane was on tarmac at JFK 9AM (sometimes
incorrectly reported as Newark) destination Los Angles. Flight Crew recieves warning
message from flight dispatcher Ed Ballinger. Crew fakes mechanical problem and returns
to gate. Several Arab looking - number varies from 3 to 6 argues with crew that have
to get to LA. At gate they vanish before police can detain them. Luggage searched
afterwards supposedly had copies of Koran and Al Quaeda literature in them

[MikeW]

Yes, sounds like a United 23-type reference. I've just posted a link to a 9/11 Commission document on exactly this kind of issue, though - download it here (http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team7_Box7_OtherFlights_9-11.pdf).

[Magenta]

United 23 was mentioned in Lynn Spencer's book. Excerpt from the book in a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=103009#JREF_Forum_top)last year:

United Flight 23 Captain Tom Mannello was ready to take off from New
York's JFK airport in his B-767 when an alert message arrived on the
flight deck. "Secure the cockpit! Beware cockpit intrusion!" As his
First Officer barricades the cockpit door, the lead flight attendant calls
on the interphone. "I think it's strange, so I thought you ought to know.
We have four Arab men in first class this morning."

[njslim]

Yes, sounds like a United 23-type reference. I've just posted a link to a 9/11 Commission document on exactly this kind of issue, though - download it here.

Reading through the docs came across one report that stated United 163 was spared
hijacking because there were 30 US Marines on the flight.

Can imagine it now - 30 Po'ed members of Uncle Sam's Missguided Children vs 5 ragheads!

Would have loved to see that one!

[JoeyDonuts]

Wouldn't have lasted long. Ever hear the term "21-Boot Salute?" :D

[Mince]

It was going to be flown into PrisonPlanet headquarters, but there was a 9/11 Truther on the plane who could not allow that to happen.

[bob the analyst]

WTC was a target, in fact, a small fire was noticed in wtc on the 14th floor, the initial call to the NYFD went out 20 seconds for a fire response to them before the first jet hit the big tower

[T.A.M.]

WTC was a target, in fact, a small fire was noticed in wtc on the 14th floor, the initial call to the NYFD went out 20 seconds for a fire response to them before the first jet hit the big tower

not to be picky, but it is FDNY.

As well, I would love a link to a reference for this. Thanks in advance.

TAM:)

[Cheap Shot]

You gotta figure, with the monumental goatscrew in the ATC world on 9/11, ANY deviation from by-the-book procedure was going to stick out like a sore thumb. It actually surprises me that there weren't dozens of potential "hijacks" grounded and investigated further. Methinks you can attribute lack of personnel/situation awareness for that. Another thing to consider is that there wasn't any way for NEADS to know that the attack was over after the last plane went down, so they continued "the fight" long into the afternoon and night.

See some of the old threads Gumboot and Cheap Shot contributed in for some real meaty in-depth on this.
I beleive it was UAL23, I thought Newark but it could have been JFK, also I beleive a rerouted aircraft had some get off the plane where I don't remember but the plane was originally filed to Las Vegas, they got on a tain and were detained but let go.
At the center we had a 11 suspected planes, the command center I believe they had an additional 8 aircraft that were considered suspicous.

[chillzero]

not to be picky, but it is FDNY.

As well, I would love a link to a reference for this. Thanks in advance.

TAM:)

In a new thread, of course.

[T.A.M.]

In a new thread, of course.

nah, but perhaps in the general thread.

TAM:D

[Myron Proudfoot]

Reading through the docs came across one report that stated United 163 was spared
hijacking because there were 30 US Marines on the flight.

Can imagine it now - 30 Po'ed members of Uncle Sam's Missguided Children vs 5 ragheads!

Would have loved to see that one!

There was an article in the WashPost sometime after 9-11 about the flight that took off from Dulles. A local martial arts club was supposed to be on the flight but switched to an earlier one. That MAY have been an interesting hijack attempt as well. (the article was about survivor's guilt)

[Myron Proudfoot]

Yes, sounds like a United 23-type reference. I've just posted a link to a 9/11 Commission document on exactly this kind of issue, though - download it here (http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:Team7_Box7_OtherFlights_9-11.pdf).

So, what's your opinion of what happened on United-23? I've always wondered about that flight and if there was another target in DC besides the Pentagon, the Capital and the White House...

[MikeW]

So, what's your opinion of what happened on United-23? I've always wondered about that flight and if there was another target in DC besides the Pentagon, the Capital and the White House...
Hmm, I'm undecided.

On the one hand, the first reports seem to make a superficially good case for other targeted flights: multiple Arab men, in first class, odd behaviour, "box cutters found".

But on the other hand, I've also read that those first versions of the stories got things notably wrong on several points (I'll have to try and find those articles again).

And some of the flights were caught in the local ground stop just after the second impact, which doesn't fit with me. The four hijacked flights were all scheduled to depart between 8:00 and 8:10 am, so having coordinated those so well I can't see why they'd schedule others that would only depart after the attack was becoming clear.

So, maybe there are other explanations for the reports. Might be a topic for a future FBI FOIA?

[Gravy]

Hmm, I'm undecided.

On the one hand, the first reports seem to make a superficially good case for other targeted flights: multiple Arab men, in first class, odd behaviour, "box cutters found".

But on the other hand, I've also read that those first versions of the stories got things notably wrong on several points (I'll have to try and find those articles again).Yes, I've used United 23 as an example of how inaccurate early information can be. From a September 14, 2001 New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/14/us/after-attacks-airports-bush-top-aides-proclaim-policy-ending-states-that-back.html):

Law enforcement officials said one of those held was carrying a false pilot's identification. And at least one of them had tried on Tuesday while wearing an American Airlines crew uniform to board a flight to Los Angeles around the time of the hijackings, only to become infuriated when it was canceled because of the attacks at the World Trade Center.

...Investigators said they believed that at least one of those taken into custody at Kennedy yesterday was among a group who tried to board a Los Angeles-bound plane at the airport on Tuesday morning, around the time that three other West Coast-bound planes were slamming into the twin towers and the Pentagon outside Washington.

In that incident, the flight was canceled at Kennedy just as passengers were beginning to board United Airlines Flight 23 to Los Angeles, investigators said. ''These guys got belligerent, and said something like, 'We've got to be on this plane,' '' an official said. ''They expressed a desire to remain on the plane and resisted getting off.''In fact, as this October 20, 2001 article (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/20/us/nation-challenged-inquiry-fbi-asks-if-hijacking-plot-included-plane-kennedy.html) and Lynn Spencer's book state, the four men were already on flight 23, which was in line on a JFK taxiway when the airport was closed. None of the men was wearing an airline uniform. The plane was bound for San Francisco, not Los Angeles.

And some of the flights were caught in the local ground stop just after the second impact, which doesn't fit with me. The four hijacked flights were all scheduled to depart between 8:00 and 8:10 am, so having coordinated those so well I can't see why they'd schedule others that would only depart after the attack was becoming clear.

So, maybe there are other explanations for the reports. Might be a topic for a future FBI FOIA?United 23 was scheduled to depart at 8:30. If it were from another airport I could better understand why terrorists might choose a flight with that departure time. But on-time departures are rare at JFK (don't go by departure statistics, which measure when the plane pushes back from the gate), so a half-hour difference in planned departure times for the hijackers could be a big deal.

It would be interesting to see if the FBI was able to interview these guys. Parts of these reports may be good examples of confirmation bias. How many times a day do people in airports or on planes get upset when they are delayed and rush out when the plane door opens? Once it was clear that the plane was at least returning to the gate (passengers may not have known that the airport was closed), why would additional plotters blatantly draw attention to themselves?

This excerpt from the 9/14 article gives an idea of the confusion and suspicion that was rampant:
The incidents came on a nerve-racking day in New York, filled with bomb scares, transit disruptions and a sense of paralysis and fear. Schools and businesses reopened and the city struggled toward some semblance of normalcy. But stores and train stations opened and closed sporadically and engineers tested buildings near the World Trade Center's ruins amid fear that they might collapse. At one point, the entire borough of Staten Island was closed off in a hunt for a suspect who turned out to be a phantom.