WTC7 again.

[fred]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here Fred, but why do you accept that they only had Box Cutters - but very little else.........or are you intimating that they had MORE than just box cutters?

I'm not intimating anything except the shortage of standard hijacking tools would make the job a lot more difficult. A hand grenade would make the job easy, an AK47 I think would ensure compliance but I don't think a Stanley Knife would strike terror into the hearts of hundreds of people.

[MadPict]

First you have to get onto the plane, as a known terrorist that shouldn't be easy.

Then you have to manage to hijack the plane armed with nothing more than box cutters.

If you manage to get that far then you have to fly the plane to New York without picking up a fighter escort, that is near impossible. The standard procedure whenever a plane is hijacked is to scramble a few jets to keep it company, in the case of the WTC the jets would have been flying to meet the hijacked planes not chasing them so should have been there in plenty of time.

The "box cutter" is similar to a Stanley Knife - if you have ever seen the mess a Stanley knife can do to someone you might think twice about tackling 5 determined hijackers, all fit young men, some of whom are trained in martial arts in the confines of an aircraft.

But then have you ever had to try and disarm someone with a knife fred?

If the answer to that is "no" then may I suggest you drop this line of argument as you are not in any position to say how hard or easy it might be.

[Rheghead]

That was pre 9/11.

No it wasn't, security was beefed up only after 9/11 or at least it was effect more efficiently, can you not remember all the queues in the airports? America was just caught napping like in 1941.

[Rheghead]

A hand grenade would make the job easy.

A hand grenade would jeopodise the main purpose of the mission if it was set off. Even by pre 9/11 security standards, an AK47 would be a tad hard to smuggle on to a plane without fear of detection and jeopody of the mission.

[fred]

The "box cutter" is similar to a Stanley Knife - if you have ever seen the mess a Stanley knife can do to someone you might think twice about tackling 5 determined hijackers, all fit young men, some of whom are trained in martial arts in the confines of an aircraft.

But then have you ever had to try and disarm someone with a knife fred?

If the answer to that is "no" then may I suggest you drop this line of argument as you are not in any position to say how hard or easy it might be.

Oh a Stanly Knife can do some damage but I wouldn't bank on it compensating for being outnumbered 50 to 1.

[Rheghead]

Oh a Stanly Knife can do some damage but I wouldn't bank on it compensating for being outnumbered 50 to 1.

You are correct because Flight 93 didn't make its target. But the boxcutters/knives were used as a weapon of fear. Once the passengers saw that there was reason/logic in resisting en masse via info recieved from phones then they did so. The passengers on the other 2 flights didn't have that opportunity as they didn't know that the plane was going to be used as a bomb. They were told that there was a bomb on board.

[fred]

No it wasn't, security was beefed up only after 9/11 or at least it was effect more efficiently, can you not remember all the queues in the airports? America was just caught napping like in 1941.

In the year 2000 fighter jets were scrambled in America 129 times to intercept planes which hadn't filed or had deviated from their flight path. It was standard procedure, fighters had to be capable of being in the air on 10 minutes notice.

They managed to have an E-4B circling Wasington when the Pentagon was hit how come they never managed to get an F-15 anywhere near?

[MadPict]

Oh a Stanly Knife can do some damage but I wouldn't bank on it compensating for being outnumbered 50 to 1.

fred,
One person with a knife can hijack a plane - it has happened. Now all of a sudden you are an expert on aviation security.

The hijacker has the upper hand. Only he knows what he actually has to help him accomplish his aim. The crew and passengers have no idea and by the time they do find out, the hijacker/s have taken over the flight deck. They only need to seriously injure or kill one person for the passengers to realise they are at serious risk.

There is every chance those on board the 9/11 aircraft thought they were going to be held hostage - only when they realised they were heading towards the WTC did they fully understand what was going to happen...

So, have you ever been involved in aviation security? Apart from having your bags checked as you go on holiday? Or declaring you packed your bags?
Or are you merely using your skills as a Master Googler?

As for pre 9/11 - the security at US airports was poor. I met friends at San Diego airport in 2000 and we could walk through to the airside arrivals with only a cursory check.
Compare that to post 9/11 and it is like night and day.

[Rheghead]

In the year 2000 fighter jets were scrambled in America 129 times to intercept planes which hadn't filed or had deviated from their flight path. It was standard procedure, fighters had to be capable of being in the air on 10 minutes notice.

They managed to have an E-4B circling Wasington when the Pentagon was hit how come they never managed to get an F-15 anywhere near?

I don't believe you, please prove me wrong.

[fred]

I don't believe you, please prove me wrong.

How about you proving me wrong?

Till then I'll believe the eyewitnesses, the video and the photographic evidence.

[George Brims]

In the year 2000 fighter jets were scrambled in America 129 times to intercept planes which hadn't filed or had deviated from their flight path. It was standard procedure, fighters had to be capable of being in the air on 10 minutes notice.

They managed to have an E-4B circling Wasington when the Pentagon was hit how come they never managed to get an F-15 anywhere near?

Where do you get that 129 number? Funny all those incidents never made the news at the time.

Explain the relevance - what has an E-4B got to do with fighter cover? That's like saying there must be something wrong with the bus service because the trains run on time.

And as for that picture I would be very leery of calling it "evidence". A large probably 4-engined plane, or a silhouette that looks like one, is seen over a sandstone building, somewhere, sometime. The resolution is not sufficient to determine if it's an E-4B. The fuselage looks a little too fat to me, more like a 737, except the number of engines is wrong.

[fred]

Where do you get that 129 number? Funny all those incidents never made the news at the time.

Why would they? They were false alarms.

Explain the relevance - what has an E-4B got to do with fighter cover? That's like saying there must be something wrong with the bus service because the trains run on time.

And as for that picture I would be very leery of calling it "evidence". A large probably 4-engined plane, or a silhouette that looks like one, is seen over a sandstone building, somewhere, sometime. The resolution is not sufficient to determine if it's an E-4B. The fuselage looks a little too fat to me, more like a 737, except the number of engines is wrong.

The photo was taken by Linda Brookhart who was Vice President of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois, she had just been evacuated from the Whitehouse when she took it. The plane is the shape of an E-4B, it is white like an E-4B and if you look you will see a dark spot unter the tailplane, that is where two blue stripes which run the length of the fuselage on both sides meet, it is the only place they are visible from below. It can only be an E-4B, no other plane matches. It is over the Whitehouse which is restricted airspace, planes are not allowed to be there.

If they could get an E-4B to Washington why couldn't they get fighters to Washington? Why does the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission deny the plane existed?

[North Rhins]

Why would they? They were false alarms.



The photo was taken by Linda Brookhart who was Vice President of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois, she had just been evacuated from the Whitehouse when she took it. The plane is the shape of an E-4B, it is white like an E-4B and if you look you will see a dark spot unter the tailplane, that is where two blue stripes which run the length of the fuselage on both sides meet, it is the only place they are visible from below. It can only be an E-4B, no other plane matches. It is over the Whitehouse which is restricted airspace, planes are not allowed to be there.

If they could get an E-4B to Washington why couldn't they get fighters to Washington? Why does the Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission deny the plane existed?

Your aircraft recognition abilities are outstanding, you weren’t in the Royal Observer Corps where you?
By the way I’m running a 17” super TFT screen with a resolution of 1920 x 1200 pixels, with a Nvida GeForce Go 1950 GTX graphics card. I’m afraid I can’t make out the two blue stripes running the length of the plane. Can you suggest a more up to date system that would allow me to make out these details on your photo? Or perhaps a very large magnifying glass would help along with a very vivid imagination?

[Rheghead]

How about you proving me wrong?

Till then I'll believe the eyewitnesses, the video and the photographic evidence.

I don't need to prove you wrong because you have yet to prove your case. So far you have been pulled to bits on everything which a kid out of infant school could even do.
And also, this is another image from 'graven-images', hardly evidence, more misinformation at best, lies at worse.

[fred]

Your aircraft recognition abilities are outstanding, you weren’t in the Royal Observer Corps where you?
By the way I’m running a 17” super TFT screen with a resolution of 1920 x 1200 pixels, with a Nvida GeForce Go 1950 GTX graphics card. I’m afraid I can’t make out the two blue stripes running the length of the plane. Can you suggest a more up to date system that would allow me to make out these details on your photo? Or perhaps a very large magnifying glass would help along with a very vivid imagination?

A new pair of reading glasses would probably help and then you might be able to read where I said the stripes are not visible from below except where they meet at the tail.

[fred]

I don't need to prove you wrong because you have yet to prove your case. So far you have been pulled to bits on everything which a kid out of infant school could even do.
And also, this is another image from 'graven-images', hardly evidence, more misinformation at best, lies at worse.

There is no misinformation or lies on the 'graven-images' website so I strongly recomend you retract that statement while you have the chance.

[Rheghead]

There is no misinformation or lies on the 'graven-images' website so I strongly recomend you retract that statement while you have the chance.

I stand by what I said, from what I've seen on graven images, when it is in relation to WTC etc then it does look a load of tosh/misinformation/lies.

If you want don't want to be accused of posting misinformation on your more reputable website's space then I suggest you don't combine the two subjects.

[scotsboy]

That plane looks as if its been painted on that photo

[Rheghead]

That plane looks as if its been painted on that photo

It is amazing what you can do with Paintshop Pro and Photoshop these days. Though that pic isn't a particularly convincing example btw. It is the reason why these photos have taken 6 years to come out, the tricksters have been waiting for the technology to catch up!

[fred]

That plane looks as if its been painted on that photo

I hope you're not suggesting that the Vice President of the Taxpayer Federation of Illinois would do a thing like that.

The plane also appears on quite a lot of newsreel footage, sometimes just a dot, sometimes a blur but on some of it remakably clear.