Don't lose sight of who's saying that it was a complex maneuver. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the conpiracists alone - this "complex maneuver" rubbish wasn't started by any former/current civilian or military pilots. Rather it was started soon after the events of 9/11 on one of the web's many conspiracy theory websites/forums.

Mistkes are likely to happen in any covert operation - but at the end of the day, the small ****-ups prior to the 9/11 plan being executed did not effect the outcome of the operation. It was largely a success.

Plans never survive first contact with the enemy - but in this case, unfortunately for the thousands of innocent people who died on that day, the professionalism of the planners/operators ensured that all of the targeted planes were hijacked and taken over and that three of the four planes hit their ground-targets. It also helped that the US intelligence community was largely none the wiser in the years and months leading up to 9/11.

And i think you give them people far too much credit.

I meant specifically that the FAA or NORAD probably could not have reacted quickly enough to intercept Flight 11. However, the entire operation could have been foiled beforehand through sloppy operational planning and execution. Once it had swung into action, there were even more opportunities to stop it, which the FAA and NORAD botched in unforseeable ways.


The worst outcome fro the alleged terrorists is that the plane is shot down over water. Next, that it comes down over a sparsely populated area; then over a more populated one, and so on. I have trouble believeing that a shoot down over a populated area would have caused the deaths of around 1,500 people (one tower's worth), though of course, they probably would have been a number of civilian fatalities. And when you bear in mind that news reports suggested up to 10,000 per tower might have been killed, a shoot down seems well worth taking a chance with.

Well, maybe we have pilots here who can address this. To my mind, the execution of a near perfectly consistent 330 degree turn whilst simultaneously descening in near perfect linear fashion to low altitude, at speed and in a large passenger plane is complex. And that's for an experienced pilot.

No I think your whole interpretation is horribly misguided. You seem to believe that this whole thing played out like a plot from 'Mission Impossible' when in fact all it needed was a certain eliment of suprise & daring. I think perhaps you have watched one too many chuck norris films.

The vast majority probably weren't.

So you disgree with Lanton about the alleged hijackers' skill and experience and about their likely being counter-intelligence trained?

It's piss easy on a flight sim, so I can't imagine it's a lot more difficult doing the real thing - especially when it comes to relatively modern commerical aircraft like the 757s and 767s (and especially if you've actually done any real-life flight training).

This is the opposite of what I think. There was no 'Mission Impossible' style plan in place here - it was a mess from alleged start to alleged finish. Anyone looking to execute a plan with a certain amount of 'surprise and daring' would not have romped around the US using their own names, nor would they have:

• Stuck to the same plan after Moussaoui's capture;
• Walked around (including taking a connecting flight) with a bag containing documents relating to the operation; and
• Hijacked Flight 93 after it was delayed by 40 minutes.

If what you suggest is true, then an eliment of daring is exactly what was needed.

The 9/11 planners and operators knew how the US intelligence community went about collecting intelligence and how long it took the various agencies to process that intelligence. Why make the operation a whole lot more complicated by coming up with aliases, legends for those aliases and false documentation for those aliases?

And yet 14 of the 19 were in possession of fraudulently manipulated passports. That sounds like the sort of added complication you're now suggesting they should have avoided.

Please explain how you believe the hijackers knew "how the US intelligence community went about collecting intelligence and how long it took the various agencies to process that intelligence."

And what about the other things I listed? Does Atta carrying a bag containing documents with operationally sensitive details fit with the profile of the hijackers you've been painting?

Are you working with Lanton to try to pull me in different directions?

The planners of this operation would, in my opinion, have been risk averse in the execution of their plan. If it had been planned in the way we are led to believe, then nothing would have been left to chance. It's simply ridiculous to suggest that one of the lead perpetrators (and Abdulaziz Alomari, another alleged hijacker - let's not forget him) caught a connecting flight on the morning of the operation, carrying a bag containing operation details. Particularly the alleged pilot of the first plane Flight 11. If he had been stopped then the whole operation could have been foiled. Think about it. It just wouldn't happen. We have to assume he carried this bag (which also contained his will) planning to take it aboard two planes. What if his bag had been searched? Others were when the alarms went off at airport security points. What if he had set an alarm off or had been stopped as an associate of someone who had? It's so inconceiveably sloppy and absolutely unnecessary for the guy to be carrying this information.

Now you may put this down to them not being very professional, in which case you need to take that up with Lanton who is arguing the opposite. But in my view, even the most incompetent fool would have realised that walking around with a bag full of operational details and attempting to carry them aboard two planes was plain dumb.

The FBI and CIA have yet to uncover any evidence that Atta, for example, held any fraudulent passports. In fact, KSM apparently told potential hijackers to acquire new "clean" passports in their home countries before applying for a U.S. visa. This was to avoid raising suspicion about previous travel to countries where al Qaeda operated. Fourteen of the 19 hijackers, including nine Saudi muscle hijackers, obtained new passports. Some of these passports were then likely doctored by the al Qaeda passport division in Kandahar, which would add or erase entry and exit stamps to create "false trails" in the passports.

There's a difference between the editing of originally legit passports (there's only so much editing you can do with legit documents) and generating false documentation from the ground up.



As George Friedman puts it, in "America's Secret War", Al Qaeda, which had extensive experience with US intelligence during the Afghan war, knew about these weaknesses. It knew how the visa system worked. It knew how NSA intercepted phone calls and how to keep the CIA from planting people in its cells. It knew these things because the US had shown them the book - a book that did not evolve much in the 1990s. The same things they had learned in Afghanistan in the 1980s were still operant in 2001. If anything, it was all looser, since the Cold War was over, the US had no real enemies and its guard was down.



Screw-ups happen in any covert operation.

they sure do.....especially when you have help...atta made 2 trips while in florida...one to the tampa area..the other too the knoxville,TN area...both to meet with his handlers.. the real masterminds behind 9/11...hkh

You can prove this, how?

It's of FBI record...

That he met with his, as you said it, "real handlers"?

Which is what I said. The term 'fraudulently manipulated' comes from the 9/11 Commission report. I did not use it do suggest anything other than fraudulent manipulation.


Indeed those accused did have a cosy relationship with the US intelligence community and therein lies the heart of this matter - that never really broke down.

Do you consider Atta travelling with operational details a 'screw-up'? I don't - I think it's evidence that this whole operation did not unfold according to originalist's claims.

the official report is..they dont know why he traveled to tampa and knoxville..

You asked how the 9/11 planners/operaters would've been so familiar with how the US intelligence community collected and processed intelligence and I gave you the answer.



Yes, I would consider it a screw-up.

And that's evidence that he was meeting with his "real handlers"?

You gave me an answer based on a relationship that lasted throughout the 1980's (by the way, did you know the CIA denies a relationship with bin Laden or the Arab mujahideen?); you have somehow made the leap of logic that this knowledge would have held them in good stead during an operation more than a decade later, during which time, numerous alleged al Qaeda plots had been carried out against US interests.

As for being a screw up, again, no way. You've now pointed out how much trouble they went to to cleanse their passports and yet you think these skilled, experienced counter-intelligence experts planned to use a connecting flight brandishing documentary evidence of the operation they were just about to implement. Seriously, you're beginning to counter your own arguments.

Understanding the links between US intelligence and the group of foreign fighters, led by Bin Laden, that eventually became Al Qaeda, requires knowledge (that you clearly do not have) of what the CIA actually did in Afghanistan in the 70s and 80s. The Pakistanis were the ones who dealt with the various insurgent groups and at no time did CIA officers or assets deal directly with, for example, Bin Laden's band of foreign fighters or any of the other more fundamenatlist groups that the Pakistanis took a liking too. But the CIA was pretty liberal in the way it demonstrated how it collected and processed intel - and, anyway, Al Qaeda's connections to many of the regions domestic and foreign intelligence services meant that Al Qaeda had access to the wealth of information those agencies had collected on the way the US intelligence community went about it's business.



You're putting words in my mouth now - at no point did I say they'd gone to great lengths to "cleanse their passports". They didn't have to - they knew they weren't being watched.

but they were being watched by the army.. the fbi kept cancelling the meetings to discuss atta...

Where's the evidence they were being "watched by the army"?

Totally agree, 1,000 dead compared to 10,000 dead is the logical choice. But if they did shoot down an airliner then the US military is directly responsible for the deaths of the innocent people on the plane and on the ground. I'm sure the terrorists would love that. Also politically and legally that would kick up a huge storm. The fact that 10,000/1,000 is logical still would not stop the press going wild, a political backlash and no doubt a huge amount of lawsuits. It would be a brave person to make that shoot down call - I'm not saying they wouldn't do it, just they would take a while to think hard about it.


That's fine. All I've been debating is the FAA/NORAD part of it and hopefully I've been able to get you to see that the terrorists could be confident that even if the FAA and NORAD were absolutely perfect on the day they would still be able to have some success in their attacks.

As for the other intelligence failures you have been mentioning, apologies for not replying to you on those but I've limited time and I wanted to focus on your FAA/NORAD claims. Following the other discussions that you've been having I can't really add more than Lanton has been saying so I'll not jump in and repeat those arguments

Whilst agreeing with what Lanton has said I don't feel the intelligence were as stupid / terrorist were as perfect as him, but that's just personal opinion. Intelligent, well-planned people do make stupid mistakes. Atta could have brought all his plans onto the plane because he forgot to leave them in the car. He could have not moved the attacks forward after Moussaoui's arrest due to Moussaoui not knowing enough or arrogance or not enough time to change things. You can think of loads of reasons. When you look after the event do they sound like good reasons? No. Do I think any reasons like that will convince you? No. But does that mean they couldn't have actually been the reasons and that they prove a conspiracy? No.

I think of the number of occasions where British intelligence personnel have left laptops containing highly secret information lying in their cars that have then been broken into and stolen. They are intelligent, trusted people who have done a really stupid thing. The Labour conference last year where all the security plans to protect the prime minister and delegate were left in a hotel room. Even though that information could have allowed terrorists to attack and kill people it was still forgotten and left (and, like Atta's plan, wasn't changed after it was found to be potentially compromised).

Edit - typos.

I'm well-aware of what the CIA did in Afghanistan. If you want to read a summary of it, you can do so here. As you will see, I understand that the CIA funnelled its support through the ISI and then to the mujahideen via the MAK. I'm also aware that Tim Osman was well-known to the CIA (the article shows a picture of him standing alonside Carter's NSA, Brzezinski). But this isn't the point I was making. Knowledge of the US intelligence community during the 1980's does not translate into knowledge of the US intelligence community in the 21st century. Particularly since al Qaeda are alleged to have attacked US interests during the intervening period.

They knew they were being watched but they nonetheless cleansed their passports. Why?

I don't think, in a real-world scenario, that anyone charged with the responsibility of issuing a shoot down order would vascilate. But that's a personal opinion.

Not at all, with the exception of Flight 11, the peformance of the FAA and NORAD was far worse that could realistically have been predicted in my view. And it still doesn't address Flight 93, which took off 40 minutes late. It was all but un-hijackable given what had already transpired.

you need to do some research sir...look at any 9/11 timeline..

Oh, but it does - George Friedman certainly seems to think so and he's the head of one of the largest private intelligence agencies (Stratfor). Btw, if you want the most impartial and authoritative account of the links between the CIA, Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, try "Ghost War", by Steve Coll.

Any chance you could post that pic here?



I'm not going to over this again, because no doubt if it was the case that they hadn't "cleansed" their passports, you'd be pointing to that as prime evidence of a government hand in the operation. After all, if this was a covert operation, why wouldn't they "cleanse" their passports?



If the proof's all over the place, why not post it here?

There is a cover-up in place here...so dont think your getting the whole story...I've questioned the FBI about attas travels while in Fl...I'ts considered classified...why? why would the activities of 15 terrorists be classified?...remember...."the throat of the bird has been slit"....the atta gang were covert operators.. working with the CIA,FBI and secret service to get the bird ..thats why it's classified...they wanted the bird so bad they hired terrorists to get him...

I'm still waiting for proof on that army-surv. claim.

Could you expand upon this? Why does he think so? Is he suggesting the US intelligence community maintained its relationship with al Qaeda throughout the intervening period (as I believe they did)?


It was on the link but, okay.




No, I'm aware they are said to have cleansed their passports. And this all fits in with the image you are creating of a group of skilled, experienced counter-intelligence operatives. All of which brings us back to where we started: why didn't they plan and execute an operation like a group of skilled, experienced counter-intelligence operatives?

Sorry, I'll clarify that I don't think someone would be sitting about uming and ahing for hours or anything. Just that it's a big decision that would have to be made by someone pretty senior and that would take a while to get sorted. Anyway, as you say, personal opinion and it doesn't change the principle of a shoot down still not being a bad thing for the terrorists.


I agree that the performance of the FAA and NORAD was far worse that could realistically have been predicted. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Why does that change anything? I've given an example of what could have happened if FAA and NORAD acted perfectly on that day and you've agreed that nothing could have been done about Flight11.
Given all four flights were meant to take off, be hijacked and crash at about the same time that means all four have as good a chance.
Even if the terrorists assumed that one plane could possibly get to it's destination way before the others and the other would get shot down that's still a huge victory.
Even if FAA and NORAD worked magic and all four planes got shot down that's still a victory for them.

So, again, why do the terrorists need the FAA/NORAD to make mistakes?

Again, this is what he said:- Al Qaeda's planners and operatives had extensive experience with US intelligence during the Afghan war and knew about these weaknesses. It knew how the visa system worked. It knew how NSA intercepted phone calls and how to keep the CIA from planting people in its cells. It knew these things because the US had shown them the book - a book that did not evolve much in the 1990s. The same things they had learned in Afghanistan in the 1980s were still operant in 2001. If anything, it was all looser, since the Cold War was over, the US had no real enemies and its guard was down.



And who says that that's Osama Bin Laden?

The four planes were not scheduled to take off at the same time; nor were they hijacked at the same time.

Scheduled take off in normal text. Actual take off in brackets. Times of hijacking in bold. NORAD notified in Red. Crash in blue.

Flight 11 - 7:45 (7:59) - 8:14 - 8:38 - 8:46
Flight 175 - 8:00 (8:14) - 8:42 - After crash - 9:03
Flight 77 - 8:10 (8:20) - 8:51 - After crash - 9:37
Flight 93 - 8:00 (8:42) - 9:24 - After crash - 10:03

(all according to the official story)

Is this the sort of incompetence the hijackers were banking on?

ETA to get colours right

Whether the US intelligence community changed its procedures throughout the intervening period or not is largely irrelevant (although totally improbable). Let's assume this improbable scenario for now - how did al Qaeda know nothing had changed?

Who says its Brzezinski? The source of the original photo identified both. Are you saying you don't believe it's bin Laden?

Al Qaeda's had long-standing relationships with various intelligence and security services in the region (not just the ISI) that have dealt, on a regular basis, with the CIA and FBI.



And who's the source?

I didn't say that. What I said was:
Given all four flights were meant to take off, be hijacked and crash at about the same time that means all four have as good a chance.
So if it went according to plan three planes are all doing the same thing within 15miutes of each other and another 25 minutes of the first plane. That's a pretty close window.

Your figures show that the take offs etc didn't go exactly on time. I then took into account that that could happen by saying:
Even if the terrorists assumed that one plane could possibly get to it's destination way before the others and the other would get shot down that's still a huge victory.
You've said that you don't think anything could be done about Flight11. You are insinuating the terrorists would have not bothered with their attack because only one plane slamming into a building isn't a good enough outcome for them!

I even gave more leeway for more things going wrong by saying:
Even if FAA and NORAD worked magic and all four planes got shot down that's still a victory for them.

You've not shown any way the terrorists could lose even if the FAA/NORAD acted perfectly that day and yet you continue to state the terrorists needed the FAA/NORAD to make mistakes.

Did al Qaeda maintained a relationship with US intelligence services between the end of the Afghan-Soviet War and 2001?

I'm looking for the original source. The image I posted here is ultimately from my computer (via my blog).

Didnt the CIA fund and arm binladen and alqueda in the war against the soviets?...I think yes...theres your ties to alqueda?

Well there's no verifiable evidence to suggest they did.

and theres no verifiable evidence they didnt...they play both sides...

All four planes were scheduled to take off within a 25 minute window. Putting Flight 93 to one side, let's assume that a 25 minute window satisfies the need for planning synchronicity - albeit rather loosely. Why did the window between hijackings increase to 37 minutes? This is more puzzling that it first looks since the window covering the actual take offs was only 21 minutes. Further, Flight 175 was only hijacked 4 minutes before Flight 11 crashed and Flight 77 was actually hijacked afterwards. Now if synchronicity were required in order to extract the maximum time from the FAA and NORAD, they did a pretty poor job at executing it.

And then we return to Flight 93. There was simply no way the hijackers could possibly have expected to succeed with this one given the delay.

I don't really get the point you're trying to make here. Are you trying to argue that 19 guys boarded four planes thinking, 'oh well, even if only one makes it we'll have scored a major success'? I don't agree with that assessment at all.

As for your other observations, you're assuming the alleged hijackers knew what to expect from the FAA, but how could they? And, whilst I did accept that there was probably not a lot that could have been done about Flight 11, I was being generous. A look at the detail shows why. It took fighters 28 minutes to get airborne after the FAA became aware of the hijacking, which is far too long and certainly unforseeable. Then they were sent east over the Atlantic instead of the NYC, which was another unforeseeable blunder. In reality, had they been scrambled at 8:25, when Boston was aware of the hijacking, and had they been sent to NYC, they would have had ample time to intercept. I cut some slack on this however to allow for initial FAA/NORAD coordination failures which should have tightened as the events unfolded.

As for the remaining three planes, they should all have been intercerpted and there's a pretty good line of inquiry that says Cheney ordered a stand down re: Flight 77.

I think they probably did, but we'll run with your belief for now. If al Qaeda broke ranks with US intelligence after the Afghan-Soviet War, then how do you suppose al Qaeda knew what the US intelligence service protocols were a decade later and whether they had changed? Bearing in mind that, in the intervening period, al Qaeda is said to have carried out attacks against US interests. On that basis, and given the previously 'close' relationship, even a complete muppet within the US intelligence community would realise that they needed to do something about their procedures. It's like knowing a burglar has your front door key - the first thing you do is change your lock - it doesn't require insight.

I'll clarify my point. You are saying the terrorists would had to have relied on the FAA/NORAD failures that happened that day for their plan to be worthwhile. I'm saying that they didn't have to rely on any failures - even if they planned for FAA/NORAD to act perfectly that day they still perform a major terrorist success.
I didn't say they would attempt to hijack four planes thinking only one would succeed*. I said that was the worst case, assuming FAA/NORAD acted perfectly. So even with a perfect response you've got one flight which is pretty much guaranteed to work and three which could be intercepted, but still have a good chance or reaching their targets, and at worst case the US military have to kill civilians for you, which is still a great outcome. And you're saying they would look at that and not bother attacking because that's not good enough as a worst case scenario.

*(although actually, performing four attacks increased the chance that one of those attacks would succeed. Perhaps they planned four operations for the contingency that one of the attacks could have been stopped by not getting knives through security or an air marshal being on board and stopping a hijacking, or other unknowns?)

So saying that the terrorists wouldn't have attacked because they would have known that too many FAA/NORAD failures would have to occur for them to be successful. But you're also saying they wouldn't have known what to expect from the FAA/NORAD. That's contradictory.
My comments about being shot down are not based on knowing what FAA/NORAD would have done. It's just logical based on what impact there would be if the planes were shot down. And even then I've stated that even if the planes were shot down it's still a victory.

I am saying that the plan succeeded because the US intelligence services failed pre-9/11; and the FAA and NORAD failed on the day. It did not succeed because it was a sophisticated or well-executed plan. Any carefully planned operation would have anticipated defence successes, perhaps even maximum defence success. They would have synchronised their hijacking better assuming a proper response. A perfect response by NORAD would have led to a 100% intercept rate with time for a cup of coffee.

We've already seen that, had Boston notified NEADS/NORAD the moment it knew of the hijacking of Flight 11, the fighters would have had 21 minutes to intercept. This was more than enough time. I said they probably could do nothing about Flight 11 only because it was the first 9/11 problem, but I was being generous. And it is a retrospective assessment. Had I been planning such an operation, I would not have anticipated a 21 minute delay, however little credit I gave the US defence establishment.

We've also seen that, had the fighters, which were unforeseeably sent off of Long Island, been sent to NYC once the first impact had occurred, then they would have intercepted Flight 175.

I can make a pretty good case that Cheney gave a stand down order re: Flight 77 and not a shoot down order. What's more, the official account would have us believe that the fighters weren't even chasing Flight 77, but a phantom Flight 11, which was said by the FAA not to have crashed but to have been Washington-bound. The official notification to NORAD about Flight 77 (according to the 9/11 Commission) was after impact. At the time of impact, the fighter were just 12 minutes away. And they hadn't even been scambled from the very nearby Andrews AFB. Who could possibly have expected such extraordinary incompetence? And yet they got close to intercepting despite cocking up so comprehensively because Hani Hanjour chose to execute an unneccessary 330 degree turn/descent on the approach to the Pentagon - adding time onto and already endangered hijacking. He must have known he had a bit of free time on his hands.

And as for Flight 93, even the most optimistic hijacker would have known he didn't have a chance of making his target, given the 40 minute delay in take off.

I do not buy any of your arguments about partial success being a success, by the way - that is not the mindset of the people that are alleged to have carried out these attacks. A shoot down over a residential area would have been a failure.

I want to pick up on this seperately.

It's not contradictory at all. My point is that they would have planned around a perfect FAA/NORAD response. They would have assumed that the very moment the FAA were aware of the hijacking, then NORAD would be made aware, and fighters would be immediately scrambled and airborne. They would have assessed the absolute minimum time for the US defence establishment to accomplish this and then built a plan around it.

They would not have disrupted the synchronictity (25 mins window covering four planned take offs and 37 mins covering three actual hijackings); they would not have waited for so long before hijacking the planes, taking them further from their intended targets and giving the defence response more time to intercept; they would not have executed an unneccessary manoeuvre with time running out; and they would not have bothered hijacking a plane that was 40 minutes late departing.