What might have happened?

[TT777]

I've spent quite a bit of time reading the two main conspiracy theories. The Gov't's that 19 men from the Middle East were behind it and the theory that the hijacked planes were diversionary tactics so that planted explosives could bring the buildings down.

What I'm wondering is this...

The hijackers were able to thwart our many levels of defense, not once, but essentially 4 times.

What might have happened if the 19 hijackers had had help from within our own country?

[DavidJames]

What I'm wondering is this...

The hijackers were able to thwart our many levels of defense, not once, but essentially 4 times. Please describe, in detail, the "many levels of defense" that were "thwarted". Again, please be specific. What the levels were. What the capabilities were. What assets were available and where. That kind of thing.

Thanks

[TT777]

Please describe, in detail, the "many levels of defense" that were "thwarted". Again, please be specific. What the levels were. What the capabilities were. What assets were available and where. That kind of thing.

Thanks

I'm just referring to things such as metal detectors at the airports. Organizations such as NORAD who respond to such incidents along with such things as the pilots and/or crew who might have tried to fight back. Or are you trying to say no defenses were thwarted?

[MarkyX]

From what I understand, according to the History Channel "The Humburg Cell", simple things like box cutters were actually allowed on planes.

As for NORAD, they never really dealt with domestic issues. The 67 "scrambles" prior to 9/11 were all outside the North American Borders. It's kind of like bringing in a baseball player to play hockey; it's not something they were trained to do. The procedures and policies weren't meant for domestic because what was the real enemy before 9/11 that could attack the United States on their own turf? You can't really name one.

Pilots, well...I really hate to say this, but they were probably the easiest. They are very strapped to their chairs so you literally had a sitting pig as a target. The hijackers claimed to have bombs, which put the passengers into an awkard position in terms of self-defence.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I've spent quite a bit of time reading the two main conspiracy theories. The Gov't's that 19 men from the Middle East were behind it and the theory that the hijacked planes were diversionary tactics so that planted explosives could bring the buildings down.

What I'm wondering is this...

The hijackers were able to thwart our many levels of defense, not once, but essentially 4 times.

What might have happened if the 19 hijackers had had help from within our own country?

First off, there are not "two main conspiracy theories". There is the main stream accepted explanation of events, and there are conspiracy theories. The only way you can describe the NIST/FEMA/Commission reports as "theory" is if you are using the scientific definition of the word "theory", in which case the "conspiracy theories" are nothing more than working hypothesis.

That said, the hijackers did not "thwart our many levels of defense". What they did do was successfully circumvent airport security and manage to hijack planes. They may, or may not, have been aware that the US did not have a shoot-down policy on hijacked aircraft. They most likely were aware that US, and other nation's, response to hijackings would be based off of prior hijackings. The standard for previous hijackings would be for hijackers to make some demand and for those they made the demands of to either capitulate, or to initiate a standoff with the hijackers.

It is also likely that al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations, were well aware that US defense measures under NORAD were designed to protect the US from outside attacks, not inside attacks.

Additionally, it would be publicly available knowledge to the hijackers and the planners that the US did not have a history of having military aircraft intercept off course aircraft and that this would cause their response time to be slow.

Given those things, what value would you suggest it would be to go through a hypothetical scenario that the hijackers had inside help? Are you planning on writing a fiction novel that would benefit from such roundtable fantastical brainstorming?

ETA: S.O.P. for dealing with hijackers, prior to 9/11, was to do just that; deal with them. Cooperate. Ensure the safety of the passengers and crew (the assumption was made that this was a traditional hijacking).

[TT777]

Given those things, what value would you suggest it would be to go through a hypothetical scenario that the hijackers had inside help? Are you planning on writing a fiction novel that would benefit from such roundtable fantastical brainstorming?


No, I just have lots of time to think and was just wondering what if.

[DavidJames]

I'm just referring to things such as metal detectors at the airports. Organizations such as NORAD who respond to such incidents along with such things as the pilots and/or crew who might have tried to fight back. Or are you trying to say no defenses were thwarted?You made the claim that many levels of defense were thwarted. Certainly you wouldn't make such a claim without knowing anything about them would you?

What makes you think civilian aircraft were defended?
How long do you think it takes from the time of recognition of the need to respond until interception? I assume you've thought of that.

Tell us what you think should have occurred and why. Remember what you said...The hijackers were able to thwart our many levels of defense, not once, but essentially 4 times.What data did you use to arrive at that conclusion?

edit to remove a 'd'

[DavidJames]

Welcome to the forum.

I'm sorry TT for my abrupt response. If you look around you will see dozens of threads, tens of thousands of posts about 9/11 "theories". I suggest you spend some time and read through them, at least the "sticky" ones. Pretty much every argument ever made by those who don't believe the official reports has been discussed in excruciating detail. Take a look and come back if you aren't satisfied the issue hasn't been discussed to your satisfaction.

Of course that's just my thought, do as you like. There are a lot of very smart and very patient people here to answer your questions.

[Pardalis]

What might have happened if the 19 hijackers had had help from within our own country?

Welcome

I'm not sure I understand your question.

If they had had help from within, I guess their plan would have succeeded. But it did succeed anyways, so why do you ask? :confused:

[Loss Leader]

What might have happened if the 19 hijackers had had help from within our own country?

I'm not sure what "help" anyone within the US could have been to the hijackers. These 19 men basically ran a play against a completely unprepared and undefended civilian population. They succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. What "help" do you suppose anyone within the government could have rendered to them.

[Pardalis]

Weird question...

[TT777]

I'm not sure what "help" anyone within the US could have been to the hijackers. These 19 men basically ran a play against a completely unprepared and undefended civilian population. They succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. What "help" do you suppose anyone within the government could have rendered to them.

Well it's obvious the Gov't couldn't have helped them. The paperwork the gov't would've had to fill out would've been tremendous. LOL

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm just referring to things such as metal detectors at the airports.
this isnt a huge a thing as peopel make it out to be, pre-911 checks were cursory at best (even non-existant on some domestic flights) if the box cutters were in a carry-on bag (as opposed to in a pocket) there is little to no chance they woudl have been found

as a side note i once carried a 4in knife in my carryon from canada, no issues at all

Organizations such as NORAD who respond to such incidents
NORAD was never prepared to respond to anything in US airspace, air defense was geared towards an outside threat trying to get in

with such things as the pilots and/or crew who might have tried to fight back.
pre-911 most (if not all) hijackings ended peacefully as long as you cooperated with the hijackers, fighting back would have been percieved as putting yourself and other passengers and crew at undue risk (BTW, what do you think happened on flight 93?)



and now that i think about it, part of the reason for hijacking 4 planes may have been because al qaeda expected 3 of them to be shot down, they were probably as surprised as us

[Pardalis]

Well it's obvious the Gov't couldn't have helped them. The paperwork the gov't would've had to fill out would've been tremendous. LOL

Inadvertantly, your joke gives the answer to your question:

If the 19 hijackers had had help from within the US, we would have found out eventually.

[gumboot]

I'm just referring to things such as metal detectors at the airports. Organizations such as NORAD who respond to such incidents along with such things as the pilots and/or crew who might have tried to fight back. Or are you trying to say no defenses were thwarted?


In the late 90's the FAA deployed "red squads" - teams of FAA employees who tested airport security systems by trying to smuggle various things onto aircraft. If you saw what they got away with you'd probably go green in the face. Firearms. Explosives. You name it, they got it in.

The NORAD defence is often cited. It's a weak argument. See this PDF document (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/NORAD.pdf) for a detailed explanation. In brief, NORAD did not know about UA93 until 4 minutes after it crashed. They were told about UA175 at literally the same time as it hit the South Tower. They had 2 minutes warning for AA77, and 9 minutes for AA11. The intercept of Stewart Payne's learjet took about 80 minutes.

Prior to 9/11 airline crews were rigourously trained in dealing with hijackings. Their priority was always to get the aircraft on the ground intact. That involved cooperating with the hijackers and ensuring the passengers cooperated as well. Any form of resistance was unversally discouraged. This can be seen in UA93. Of all the flights, this one was long after the others, and passengers had time to find out about the previous flights. And what did they immediately do? They fought back and thwarted the terrorists' plans.

-Andrew

[Carnivore]

From what I understand, according to the History Channel "The Humburg Cell", simple things like box cutters were actually allowed on planes.



On the Discovery channel's " Inside the Twin Towers" was airport security footage showing one of the hijackers being searched after the clearly visible knife attached to his belt set off the metal detector. He was waved through anyway - because at the time security policy was to allow blades up to 4 inches long onto planes. I remember that swiss army knives used to be sold in airports.

[MortFurd]

On the Discovery channel's " Inside the Twin Towers" was airport security footage showing one of the hijackers being searched after the clearly visible knife attached to his belt set off the metal detector. He was waved through anyway - because at the time security policy was to allow blades up to 4 inches long onto planes. I remember that swiss army knives used to be sold in airports.
Yeah.

I used to travel with pocket full of stuff that'd cause all kinds of aggravation these days:
At least one pocket knife, a screwdriver, a pair of pliers, a pair of folding scissors, and assorted nuts and screws that tend to accumulate in my pockets.

I always had to use two of the little baskets for dumping my pockets before going through the metal detector - one for left pocket and one for right pocket. Then like as not they'd make me take my boots off - metal shanked cowboy boots.

Then one day I carried a plastic spud cannon in my backpack and boarded a flight from Chicago to Germany. No problems at all - and I had a can of hair spray and a box of rubber balls for the spud gun along with me. Absolutely no trouble boarding in Chicago (except for having to take off my boots for the metal detector :rolleyes:)

All of that Pre-911. These days I clear my pockets before leaving home and pack all my tools in checked baggage.

[Spektator]

Like MortFurd, I routinely travled with potential weapons: my treasured Swiss Army knife, a compact computer-tool kit with screwdrivers, forceps, and other metal implements, and so on. I always took them through security and was never stopped or questioned. Then came 9/11, and on my very next flight, my Swiss Army knife was confiscated. I hated that, because I'd had it since I was twelve years old, but I'd grown so accustomed to carrying it with me that it never even occurred to me it was now forbidden.

[Cuddles]

On the Discovery channel's " Inside the Twin Towers" was airport security footage showing one of the hijackers being searched after the clearly visible knife attached to his belt set off the metal detector. He was waved through anyway - because at the time security policy was to allow blades up to 4 inches long onto planes. I remember that swiss army knives used to be sold in airports.

It's not any better now, at least in Europe. On a trip to France we managed to take 2 Leathermans and 3 Swiss army knives between three of us. We only realised after we'd got on the plane that we'd forgotten to take them out of our hand luggage, but security never noticed anything at all.

[Stellafane]

I've spent quite a bit of time reading the two main conspiracy theories. The Gov't's that 19 men from the Middle East were behind it and the theory that the hijacked planes were diversionary tactics so that planted explosives could bring the buildings down.

What I'm wondering is this...

The hijackers were able to thwart our many levels of defense, not once, but essentially 4 times.

What might have happened if the 19 hijackers had had help from within our own country?

Hi TT777. When 9/11 happened, one of the security guards at Logan Airport (where the WTC hijackers boarded the planes) was my uncle Frank. The man was nearly 80, about 5'6" tall, maybe 120 lbs soaking wet, and frail. All his life he had trouble holding onto a job, because he was lazy and only marginally competent mentally. And he had absolutely no experience at all in security or law enforcement. Apparently, Logan hired him because he was local and showed up every day (which may be indicative of how lackadasical they took security issues at the time). Trust me, this man wasn't qualified to guard a lemonade stand. Yet he loved the job, because it made so few demands on him -- basically he sat around doing essentially nothing.

If my uncle was even remotely typical of the "many layers of defense" that stood between the terrorists and the Twin Towers, then a 9/11-type attack not only was likely, it was inevitable.

[Carnivore]

I dont know why, but I find that really funny. Uncle Frank - the last line of defence!

[Horatius]

and now that i think about it, part of the reason for hijacking 4 planes may have been because al qaeda expected 3 of them to be shot down, they were probably as surprised as us

You also need to realize, even if 3 out of the 4 "failed", you'd still have the worst terrorist atack anyone had ever seen. Would only one Tower being destroyed, while 3 other jets crashed almost at the same time, have been any less dramatic?

[Belz...]

I've spent quite a bit of time reading the two main conspiracy theories. The Gov't's that 19 men from the Middle East were behind it and the theory that the hijacked planes were diversionary tactics so that planted explosives could bring the buildings down.

What I'm wondering is this...

The hijackers were able to thwart our many levels of defense, not once, but essentially 4 times.

What might have happened if the 19 hijackers had had help from within our own country?

No, that still qualifies as one.

[Stellafane]

I dont know why, but I find that really funny. Uncle Frank - the last line of defence!

He was my uncle and all (since passed away), but take it from me: Every time I stepped on a plane at Logan and thought about Uncle Frank and his crew manning the defensive bastions, I was under no false delusions about security. I was fully aware that all my fellow passengers were basically on the honor system. The only impediment to flying in those days was the price of the ticket.

[Stellafane]

You also need to realize, even if 3 out of the 4 "failed", you'd still have the worst terrorist atack anyone had ever seen. Would only one Tower being destroyed, while 3 other jets crashed almost at the same time, have been any less dramatic?

If all four jets had crashed into the sea, it still would've been the greatest terrorist attack on the US, and its impact would have been devastating.

[Brainster]

No, I just have lots of time to think and was just wondering what if.

In fact, probably nothing different would have happened, seeing as how our defense systems had nothing to do with downing Flight 93, the only plane that was impeded from striking its intended target.

[LashL]

He was my uncle and all (since passed away), but take it from me: Every time I stepped on a plane at Logan and thought about Uncle Frank and his crew manning the defensive bastions, I was under no false delusions about security. I was fully aware that all my fellow passengers were basically on the honor system. The only impediment to flying in those days was the price of the ticket.

Condolences to you, Stellafane, on the loss of your uncle, but yes, as someone who travelled for a living for years (before finally settling down and getting a "real" job several years ago) I agree with you that it was always an honor system type of affair in the old days.

[Loss Leader]

If all four jets had crashed into the sea, it still would've been the greatest terrorist attack on the US, and its impact would have been devastating.

With 257 victims, it certainly would have been. But it would at least have been on the same order of magnatude as Oklahoma City, with 168 dead.

[Graham2001]

this isnt a huge a thing as peopel make it out to be, pre-911 checks were cursory at best (even non-existant on some domestic flights) if the box cutters were in a carry-on bag (as opposed to in a pocket) there is little to no chance they woudl have been found

And if you were an employee of the company involved then there was no search at all. In 1987 an ex-employee of Pacific Southwest Airlines boarded a flight with a gun and after shooting his former boss broke into the cockpit and crashed the plane. (See: PlaneCrashInfo.com) (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/unusual.htm)

pre-911 most (if not all) hijackings ended peacefully as long as you cooperated with the hijackers, fighting back would have been percieved as putting yourself and other passengers and crew at undue risk (BTW, what do you think happened on flight 93?)

Quite right, but not always, back in 1994 a FedEx employee, facing the sack over lies in his job application, tried to pull off a suicide for insurance plan which involved him hijacking a FedEx flight (FedEx 705) and crashing it into the FedEx HQ in Memphis. In this case he was allowed through security with a bag containing hammers and a speargun. The flight crew chose to fight back rather than die and after some terrifying acrobatics managed to subdue their attacker and return to Memphis. (See: CVR Transcript (http://www.tailstrike.com/070494.htm))

[David Wong]

Everyone keeps imagining post-9/11 levels of security on 9/11 itself. Do memories really not go back that far? The whole fear at the time was a war with China because of that incident with the downed spy plane. We hadn't had a hijacking in 20 years.

That's the beauty of terrorism. You get to sit back and wait and watch and see where the enemy is being lax. We had cancelled the Air Marshal program (or rather, cut it back to only 30 agents). Security was a joke. The terrorists watch, they do dry runs, they find out exactly what they can and can't bring on board a plane. Then they plan and plan and plan.

It's impossible to stop every conceivable method of attack. And it's awfully easy to come back after the fact and say, "WHY DIDN'T WE SEE THAT COMING?!?!?"

We didn't, because those memos warning that Osama might try to hijack planes were buried under other memos warning of cyber terrorism, or poisoning water supplies, or sneaking a nuke on board cargo boxes, or growing biological agents in a lab, or sneaking a shoulder-fired missile to a hill outside an airport, or suicide bombing a shopping mall, or filling a truck full of bombs and running it into a hotel, or...

You get the idea.

[gumboot]

Everyone keeps imagining post-9/11 levels of security on 9/11 itself. Do memories really not go back that far? The whole fear at the time was a war with China because of that incident with the downed spy plane. We hadn't had a hijacking in 20 years.

That's the beauty of terrorism. You get to sit back and wait and watch and see where the enemy is being lax. We had cancelled the Air Marshal program (or rather, cut it back to only 30 agents). Security was a joke. The terrorists watch, they do dry runs, they find out exactly what they can and can't bring on board a plane. Then they plan and plan and plan.

It's impossible to stop every conceivable method of attack. And it's awfully easy to come back after the fact and say, "WHY DIDN'T WE SEE THAT COMING?!?!?"

We didn't, because those memos warning that Osama might try to hijack planes were buried under other memos warning of cyber terrorism, or poisoning water supplies, or sneaking a nuke on board cargo boxes, or growing biological agents in a lab, or sneaking a shoulder-fired missile to a hill outside an airport, or suicide bombing a shopping mall, or filling a truck full of bombs and running it into a hotel, or...

You get the idea.


I'm glad someone else sees this so clearly. There is a huge difference between intelligence and actionable intelligence.

Anything short of "terrorists are going to take over aircraft today and hit X buildings" is pretty much useless.

The USA had grown lax. It was confident in the safety of its citizens and its mainland. Citizens enjoyed increasing freedoms, and were less and less happy to deal with restrictions that they felt were unecessary. Look at the complaints that were made about the banning of liquids in carry on luggage...

American citizens have long enjoyed a very free and open society. They welcome foreigners with open arms.

On 9/11 they paid for that openess, trust, and freedom.

In blood.

-Andrew

[The Atheist]

On 9/11 they paid for that openess, trust, and freedom. In blood.
-Andrew
I certainly appreciate your sentiment, but I think that may be going just a little too far. USA had many enemies prior to 11/9/01 - remember bin Laden had tried to bring the towers down long beforehand. There were plenty of insane redneck racists prior to that and the term, "sand-n*****" had long since entered the everyday lexicon.

Complacency; all those years of no hijackings, and those within memory were international and in Europe.

Arrogance; that the system works to the extent that attempted terrorist attacks will be thwarted, while in reality, Uncle Frank and his torch were all that stood between the hijackers and the plane.

Surprise; hijackings of commercial airliners hadn't been attempted in USA previously and hijackers had usually used automatic weapons in the past rather than box-cutters. Many people, me included, have flown with knives and things more dangerous than a box-cutter in our pockets. Pity nobody else was that day. Surprise that something on this scale could ever happen.

Innovation; as already noted, hijackings in the past had been primarily arranged to enable extortion rather than a suicide mission and nobody had ever attempted to deliberately crash a hijacked airliner before as a terrorist act. Innovation in choice of weapons and taking over the flying - which is why pilots usually survived previous hijackings.

These are all reasons why reaction to the attack was so violent, the ease with which it was achieved rubbed salt into the open national wound caused by the attack itself. (Also why there are so many CTs about it. "Someone MUST have seen or known something", "we can't be that dumb, these people we elect and pay can't have missed something so obvious"...)

All the inside help these guys needed was advertised on NBC.

[Graham2001]

Innovation; as already noted, hijackings in the past had been primarily arranged to enable extortion rather than a suicide mission and nobody had ever attempted to deliberately crash a hijacked airliner before as a terrorist act.

You're probably right there, with the exception of FedEx705(see my earlier post), the planes-as-missiles concept was only aired through the medium of popular fiction (Tom Clancy "Debt of Honor", Dale Brown "Storming Heaven", Richard Cox "Sam 7", etc) .

However as I've noted earlier the FedEx705 incident was, firstly, a failed hijack/suicide plot and secondly, a suicide-for-insurance scam, most earlier schemes of this nature involved bombs of various kinds, including one case (as I remember it) where the bomber used liquid chemicals dumped into the aircraft toilet to cause the explosion.

In fact I'm surprised that FedEx705 has not turned up more often in 11/09/01 discussion on either side of the debate, as it was the closest thing to what happened that day prior to the event.

[Gravy]

I used to travel with pocket full of stuff that'd cause all kinds of aggravation these days:
At least one pocket knife, a screwdriver, a pair of pliers, a pair of folding scissors, and assorted nuts and screws that tend to accumulate in my pockets. Then one day I carried a plastic spud cannon in my backpack and boarded a flight from Chicago to Germany. No problems at all - and I had a can of hair spray and a box of rubber balls for the spud gun along with me.
Greetings, MortGuyver. And stop playing with the nuts in your pockets.

Like MortFurd, I routinely travled with potential weapons: my treasured Swiss Army knife, a compact computer-tool kit with screwdrivers, forceps, and other metal implements, and so on.
Salutations, SpektaGuyver. Your mission: to keep a close watch on "Spuds" MortGuyver.

[gumboot]

I certainly appreciate your sentiment, but I think that may be going just a little too far. USA had many enemies prior to 11/9/01 - remember bin Laden had tried to bring the towers down long beforehand. There were plenty of insane redneck racists prior to that and the term, "sand-n*****" had long since entered the everyday lexicon.


Of course. But I'm not sure how that relates to my claim. "Redneck racists" didn't determine US immigration policy, or allocate funding to law enforcement agencies. "Redneck racists" didn't determine what levels of airline security would be implemented.

"The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance."

The problem is, pre 9/11, Americans wanted freedom, but they didn't want their government to be vigilant.

-Andrew

[MortFurd]

Greetings, MortGuyver. And stop playing with the nuts in your pockets.
I'll take "MortGuyver" as a compliment. Thank you very much.


The spud cannon with the one inch diameter barrel that fires rubber balls is very much a product of the town I used to live in. The particular combination of produce and factories there results in there being a good many gazzillion (slightly used) rubber balls that just fit inside a piece of 1 inch pipe.


I've stopped carrying nuts in my pockets. They tend to rub holes in the cloth. There's nothing quite as embarassing as having your nuts fall on the floor because your pockets are worn through.:)

[gambling_cruiser]

Post 9/11 illegal immigrants were found working for airport security!

Every time I board an aircraft I must ignore the possibility that the cleaning crew (which has surely security clearance of about a driving lincense level) has hidden weapons for hijackers onboard, otherwise I couldn't travel any more.

[gambling_cruiser]

I remember 9/11; coming home from work (GMT +1 here) my wife showed me on tv the pictures of the burning twin towers. My first thoughts were: what a wonderfull weather, that cant be real, that must be a hollywood product; then realising the horrible truth, I feared many more victims had died at the crashing towers (I guessed more than ten thousand).
I was very angry about this attack!
Those people who left the burning towers had really good luck on a really bad luck day (and the help of many heroes, many now dead themselves).
Today I feel sorrow for the victims of this cruesome crime.
This day changed the world for ever for the whole civilisation.

[mamapajamas]

I've spent quite a bit of time reading the two main conspiracy theories. The Gov't's that 19 men from the Middle East were behind it and the theory that the hijacked planes were diversionary tactics so that planted explosives could bring the buildings down.

What I'm wondering is this...

The hijackers were able to thwart our many levels of defense, not once, but essentially 4 times.

What might have happened if the 19 hijackers had had help from within our own country?

The film United 93 is now available on DVD and, as a minute-by-minute (from the takeoff of Flight 93 till it crashed) realtime recreation of of events as deduced from flight recorders, phone conversations, tower transcripts, military records, witness accounts, etc etc etc, it shows how events unfolded in the airliner situations.

I saw the film in the theater, but it all seemed such chaos that I couldn't absorb it at all until it came out on DVD and I could see it and replay sections that seemed hazy and replay from the beginning to try to make some sense of it.

It never did make logical sense except as terrorist attacks. The film was chaos because the events were chaos. The airports, the FAA, the military, and everyone else involved with the airliners were in chaos from the moment Flight 11 hit Tower 1. There were simply no rules of engagement to cover the situation. Everyone had to make up "policy" as they went along.

As others here have said, until 9/11, SOP was to cooperate with a terrorist hijacker to get the plane back on the ground. Before Tower 1 was hit, as far as anyone knew, two planes were suspected hijackings, Flight 11 and Flight 175, and effort was spent trying to contact the planes to try to verify the hijackings until Flight 11 went into the Tower. After it became clear that the first plane that hit was one of the suspected hijackings they were tracking (which took some doing because the plane dropped below radar coverage long before it hit), the SOP had to be thrown out.

The thing that clinched it for me for this film was that it was produced by a Brit who does not have a dog in the 9/11 "theories" fight. He simply pieced the records together to create a realtime account as best as it could be surmised. The actors involved made contact with the families of the Flight 93people they portrayed and got a feel for the character of each as best as could be done. The film does not offer political opinions or theories... it simply recreated the events as well as could be figured out.

[Infinite]

I've spent quite a bit of time reading the two main conspiracy theories. The Gov't's that 19 men from the Middle East were behind it and the theory that the hijacked planes were diversionary tactics so that planted explosives could bring the buildings down.

What I'm wondering is this...

The hijackers were able to thwart our many levels of defense, not once, but essentially 4 times.

What might have happened if the 19 hijackers had had help from within our own country?

I agree with the the diversionary tactics, one of the firefighters inside the buildings said that he had heard explosions going off one after the other.....that may have been the floors colapsing above him but...???

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I agree with the the diversionary tactics, one of the firefighters inside the buildings said that he had heard explosions going off one after the other.....that may have been the floors colapsing above him but...???

There can be explosions without the presence of demolition explosives.

[MortFurd]

I agree with the the diversionary tactics, one of the firefighters inside the buildings said that he had heard explosions going off one after the other.....that may have been the floors colapsing above him but...???
Right. And has been asked here many a time:
When and where were the explosives planted and how was it done without being noticed?

[mamapajamas]

I agree with the the diversionary tactics, one of the firefighters inside the buildings said that he had heard explosions going off one after the other.....that may have been the floors colapsing above him but...???


My house burned down on March 1. I got out OK (there was no one else there and no pets), and while watching the fire department, I heard explosions and explosions and explosions.

According to the fire inspector I talked to afterward, these things make big booms when when they catch fire: Canned goods, computer monitors (I had 4) and TV's (I had 2) implode but make a loud bang when they do, bags of fertilizer (I had 2 in the utility room... it was early spring), some appliances (such as microwave ovens), power transformers, switch boxes, cans of paint, thinner, and certain other chemicals commonly found in the house, bottles of propane used for barbeque grills, furniture with glass tops (I had a glass top dining table that "blew" and shattered all over the room) and literally hundreds of other things. All of these things go "bang!" when they get too hot.

So explosions occurring during a fire aren't what I'd call a "hot" piece of evidence for explosives. There's entirely too much stuff that would have been in those buildings (just think of the number of computers alone) that BELONGED there that could have been making "explosion" noises.