PDA

View Full Version : Flying a Plane into the WTC?



shadow7
06-16-2006, 07:44 PM
http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=396

Flying a Plane Into the World Trade Center? Why Not Fly Out of LaGuardia?

Here is a new, and so far unasked question about the badly debunked official explanation of the events of September 11th 2001. If you spend years planning a spectacular attack the World Trade Center in New York City, and you are a less than adequate pilot, and you wanted to ensure the attack would be completed without giving the U.S. air defense apparatus the chance to follow their normal procedures and intercept your plane, why would you choose to fly out of Boston? Why would you choose to risk getting lost or stopped as you try to fly 190 miles to your target when you can hijack a plane from one of three airports within sight of the target?

There are three airports that would enable a pilot or a hijacker to have visual contact with the World Trade Center within a minute or two of takeoff. With all the planning these so called hijackers must have made, how stupid would they have to have been to travel to Boston in order to attack NY? We have been told that the so-called hijackers were barely able to pilot even simple two seater aircraft, but we are supposed to believe that they felt confident enough to navigate to NY from Boston without the help of ground control. Are we to believe that i they would not have flown out an airport from which they had constant visual contact with their target? Also keep in mind that planes taking off from these NY area airports would have more fuel remaining in their tanks when they made contact. They would not have to burn off 45 minutes worth of destructive explosive fuel.

Here is why they had to fly out of Boston:

Full blog:

http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=396

AuGmENTor
06-16-2006, 09:23 PM
http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=396

Flying a Plane Into the World Trade Center? Why Not Fly Out of LaGuardia?

Here is a new, and so far unasked question about the badly debunked official explanation of the events of September 11th 2001. If you spend years planning a spectacular attack the World Trade Center in New York City, and you are a less than adequate pilot, and you wanted to ensure the attack would be completed without giving the U.S. air defense apparatus the chance to follow their normal procedures and intercept your plane, why would you choose to fly out of Boston? Why would you choose to risk getting lost or stopped as you try to fly 190 miles to your target when you can hijack a plane from one of three airports within sight of the target?

There are three airports that would enable a pilot or a hijacker to have visual contact with the World Trade Center within a minute or two of takeoff. With all the planning these so called hijackers must have made, how stupid would they have to have been to travel to Boston in order to attack NY? We have been told that the so-called hijackers were barely able to pilot even simple two seater aircraft, but we are supposed to believe that they felt confident enough to navigate to NY from Boston without the help of ground control. Are we to believe that i they would not have flown out an airport from which they had constant visual contact with their target? Also keep in mind that planes taking off from these NY area airports would have more fuel remaining in their tanks when they made contact. They would not have to burn off 45 minutes worth of destructive explosive fuel.

Here is why they had to fly out of Boston:

Full blog:

http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=396

I had heard that Boston Logan airport was selected due to beign rated as havign the worst security on the nation.. Supposedly they ahve benn tested several times since 9/11, and cia agents have gotten through with simulated explosives 48% of the time. I'll go find a link to this now.

AuGmENTor
06-16-2006, 09:25 PM
Airlines lax in asking about bags

FAA security rule isn't always followed to the letter

By Gary Stoller

USA TODAY

7/31/00

Airlines failed to properly perform a basic security procedure during a USA TODAY test at four airports.

In Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and New York, USA TODAY reporters listened as ticket agents, gate agents and skycaps of 18 U.S. airlines asked travelers baggage-security questions. The Federal Aviation Administration requires that two questions be asked of domestic passengers.

Fifteen times, however, no questions were asked, and nine times only one question was asked during 125 passenger interviews monitored by USA TODAY.

Former FAA security director Billie Vincent, who reviewed notes of all the interviews, says only two of 125 complied with federal requirements.

The FAA's requirement states: ''To make sure dangerous items aren't brought onboard U.S. aircraft by unwitting passengers, the FAA requires the airlines to ask everyone the same questions: Has anyone unknown to you asked you to carry an item on this flight? Have any of the items you are traveling with been out of your immediate control since the time you packed them?''

FAA officials say some variations are permissible, but they declined to review any of the interviews. Vincent says in his judgment, both questions were asked improperly by nearly 30% of the airline employees, and nearly all improperly asked the second question.

Dick Doubrava, managing director of security for the Air Transport Association, which represents U.S. airlines, says he can't comment on the interviews. But ''the FAA is constantly monitoring and testing air carriers,'' he says, ''and no indication has been given to us that there has been a widespread failure to ask the proper security questions.'' The baggage questions, Doubrava says, are just a part of security. Other safeguards include computer profiling of passengers and weapons detectors.

In interviews that USA TODAY monitored, airline employees were often inconsistent:

* At Boston's Logan International Airport, a ticket agent asked one traveler one question and another, none.

* A passenger checking in at Chicago's Midway Airport was talking on a cellphone and was asked no baggage questions by a gate agent. When a USA TODAY reporter asked why, the agent said: ''I know that guy.''

* An airline agent handling a group of at least 10 teenagers at La Guardia Airport called out: ''Did anyone unknowingly give you anything to carry onboard?'' Several teens shook their heads ''no,'' but others didn't respond, and no other questions were asked.

Employees need more security training, Vincent says. Bruce Butterworth, the FAA's director of civil aviation security operations, says airlines are generally doing a good job. ''These questions are being asked, by and large, in the right way,'' he says.

eTravelerGear.com - your source for travel accessories from Samsonite, American Tourister, Travel Smart, Conair, Sony, Seiko and other leading manufacturers. 30-Day Money-Back Guarantee. • VISA, MasterCard, Discover, American Express accepted. • Shipping: USPS First Class & Priority, FedEx Next-Day, 2-Day & 3-Day. • Celebrating our 8th ANNIVERSARY. • We have consistently been honored by YAHOO! as one of their top customer service merchants! Thank you to all of our valued customers who gave us an excellent rating.

Copyright © 1998-2005 iGear Stores, LLC. All Rights Reserved. • PO Box 81198, Warwick, RI 02888 (401) 615-2862 e-mail tiecaddy@yahoo.com.

http://www.etravelergear.com/airlaxinasab.html

AuGmENTor
06-16-2006, 09:27 PM
March 16, 2004

Kerry "Passed On" Vital 9/11 Information (http://sayanythingblog.com/2004/03/16/kerry_passed_on_vital_911_information/)

By rob (http://sayanythingblog.com/)on March 16, 2004 at 1:03 PM 1 Comment (http://sayanythingblog.com/2004/03/16/kerry_passed_on_vital_911_information/#comments) , 1 Ping (http://sayanythingblog.com/2004/03/16/kerry_passed_on_vital_911_information/#trackback)

Former FAA agents are claiming to have told Senator John Kerry information about lax security at Logan International months before the hijacking.

From the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/20808.htm):


SEN. John Kerry boasts how he "sounded the alarm on terrorism years before 9/ 11," referring to his 1997 book "The New War." Too bad he didn't blast it when it really counted - four months before the hijackings, when he was hand-delivered evidence of serious security breaches at Logan International Airport, with specific warnings that terrorists could exploit them. Former FAA security officials say the Massachusetts senator had the power to prevent at least the Boston hijackings and save the World Trade Center and thousands of lives, yet he failed to take effective action after they gave him a prophetic warning that his state's main airport was vulnerable to multiple hijackings. "He just did the Pontius Pilate thing and passed the buck" on back through the federal bureaucracy, said Brian Sullivan, a retired FAA special agent from the Boston area who in May 2001 personally warned Kerry that Logan was ripe for a "jihad" suicide operation possibly involving "a coordinated attack."

Rewind to May 6, 2001. That night, a Boston TV station (Fox-25) aired reporter Deborah Sherman's story on an undercover investigation at Logan that Sullivan and another retired agent helped set up. In nine of 10 tries, a crew got knives and other weapons through security checkpoints - including the very ones the 9/11 hijackers would later exploit.

The next day, Sullivan fired off a two-page letter to Kerry highlighting the systemic failures...

More than 11 weeks later, Kerry finally replied to his well-informed and anxious constituent. "I have forwarded your tape to the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General [DOT OIG]," he said in a brief July 24, 2001, letter, a copy of which I've obtained.

Yet Sullivan had made it clear in his letter that going to his old agency was a dead end. He and other agents had complained about security lapses for years and got nowhere. "The DOT OIG has become an ineffective overseer of the FAA," he told Kerry. Sullivan suggested he show the tape to peers on committees with FAA oversight. He even volunteered to testify before them.

But he never heard from Kerry again.



I'm not willing to pin the 9/11 attacks on anybody, especially not a single politician. 9/11 happened because of an overall failure in our approach to national security. What troubles me about this story, however, is that Kerry is trying to convince us that he tried to warn us all about 9/11-type scenarios before the attack but failed because nobody paid attention. It would appear as though Kerry wasn't exactly paying attention either.

My question for Kerry would be why he decided to "sound the alarm" about terrorism via a for-profit book instead of in the course of his duties as a U.S. Senator? If he was so concerned about terrorism, why was he writing a book about it instead of using his powers as a Senator to protect the country he was/is serving?

John Kerry isn't responsible for 9/11, but he shouldn't be claiming that he did anything special to stop it either.

http://sayanythingblog.com/2004/03/16/kerry_passed_on_vital_911_information/

AuGmENTor
06-16-2006, 09:30 PM
http://news.zdnet.com/5208-1009-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=19447&messageID=374859&start=-14

Ollie North never said a single word about bin Laden in his Iran Contra testimony. Back in 1987, UBA was a US-backed freedom fighter in Afganistan fighting against the Soviets. The name mentioned by LtCol North was Abu Nidal -- a fairly nasty piece of work in his own right to be sure -- but Osama bin Laden's name was never mentioned.

Any allusion to Kerry or Clinton being responsible for 9/11 is farcical at best. bin Laden's camps were bombed during the Clinton administration though they did admittedly miss an opportunity (though never fully verified) to have him handed over.

Fact is, bin Laden was on the radar screen at virtually every daily briefing in the later part of the Clinton years. However, when the Bush 2 administration took over, Attorney General Ashcroft wanted nothing to do with bin Laden. The entire Bush administration had a hard-on for Saddam Hussein from day one and AG Ashcroft banned the mention of bin Laden's name at the daily security briefings.

Another fact to keep in mind is that although the final point of departure for some of the 9/11 terrorists was Boston's Logan International Airport, they actually entered the air travel system in Portland, Maine. This was specifically chosen due to it's comparatively lax security which was very common pre-9/11. Whether or not they would have been intercepted by security at Logan will never be known but I can say from personal experience that Logan's security, even in the days before 9/11, was relatively good in comparison to smaller airports such as Portland.

And any accusations that Senator Kerry had any involvement is utter horsesh*t. That a decorated war veteran (a claim that neither Bush nor Clinton can make, both of whom legally dodged the draft and wartime service) would have anything to do with such an act is totally laughable. He garnered much negative press due to his willingness to speak the truth as he saw it AFTER returning from Vietnam. That took balls -- something sorely lacking these days.
Posted by: GeneBuettner Posted on: 03/31/06