Why weren't the attacks on 9/11 synchronized?

Originally posted by budaruskie
PC took an interesting tact and maybe he is correct. Many times, opinions are based upon perspective and if for instance you are comfortable with being 30-60 minutes late for work then someone showing up 5 minutes late could be perceived as on-time or even early. But how about this perspective. Didn't the same organization plan and execute the 7/7 attacks in London? Didn't the first 3 buses blow up almost simultaneously (within a minute)? That does give some insight into the level of attention paid to timing, does it not?

Only one bus blew up on 7/7, and it was about an hour after the first tube explosion.

It goes without saying that tube trains don't wait an uncertain amount of time on the tarmac, and bombs can be detonated without the variable of having to hijack the train. So it's easier to synchronise.

Airplanes are frequently intercepted in the U.S.

Are they? How often?

It took an hour and a half to intercept Payne Stewart's plane, and that was just because they had a plane in the area. It took over three hours to get scrambled jets to it.

and although there is no way to accomodate every possible scenario, I think its safe to say that it does typically occur within 45 minutes.

I'd love to see some examples of this.

So, how would the planners account for this if they knew it would take more time to hi-jack and fly their bombs into the targets than it does to scramble fighter jets? The simplest answer is that they were not worried about being intercepted, so they did not plan for it.

I think they understood that once they had turned off the transponders it would take a while to find them. I also don't think they expected to be successful in every case. And indeed they weren't.

As far as the kryptonite box-cutter thing goes, you can say what you want but if you took my plane or bus or train over and all you had was a box-cutter, I'd stomp your ass. I can't truly say without being there...

I think it's probable that you would now. I think I would. Which goes some way to answering your other question about why there have been no repeat attacks: the terrorists can't rely on submissive passengers.

But in 2001 it's wildly unlikely that you would have done. Because up until then hijackers had comandeered planes and generally not tried to kill themselves or the passengers. And that's what the 9/11 hijackers told their victims. "Sit tight and you'll be okay, we have a bomb." To mak people take notice they killed at least one stewardess.

Now unless you're completely bullet proof, imagine yourself there. A woman bleeding horribly to death, screaming all around you, a man with a bomb ready to set it off. You don't know if they have guns or knives or what. You really think that if you thought they were probably going to land the plane - as most passengers must have - you would have risked storming them?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by zimishey
Now is it or is it not true that the claimed phonecall from the plane that gave the info about terrorists with boxcutters has been proven to be false?
If you say the phone call DID happen then please provide evidencial sources that prove it is fact please?

edit on 22-2-2011 by zimishey because: (no reason given)

Barbara Olson on flight AA 77 told her husband that the hi-jackers had box-cutters. The calls were taken in the first instance by a Dept of Justice secretary Lori Keyton before being transferred to Ted Olson. She gave this statement to the FBI on 9/11 itself :-

intelfiles.egoplex.com...

Three Official Denials

Originally posted by zimishey

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by zimishey
Now is it or is it not true that the claimed phonecall from the plane that gave the info about terrorists with boxcutters has been proven to be false?
If you say the phone call DID happen then please provide evidencial sources that prove it is fact please?

edit on 22-2-2011 by zimishey because: (no reason given)

Barbara Olson on flight AA 77 told her husband that the hi-jackers had box-cutters. The calls were taken in the first instance by a Dept of Justice secretary Lori Keyton before being transferred to Ted Olson. She gave this statement to the FBI on 9/11 itself :-

intelfiles.egoplex.com...

Three Official Denials

That old piece by David R Griffin has now been completely discredited by truthers themselves. Have you seen this critique on 9/11 Blogger ?

911blogger.com...

Originally posted by budaruskie
Airplanes are frequently intercepted in the U.S. and although there is no way to accomodate every possible scenario, I think its safe to say that it does typically occur within 45 minutes. So, how would the planners account for this if they knew it would take more time to hi-jack and fly their bombs into the targets than it does to scramble fighter jets? The simplest answer is that they were not worried about being intercepted, so they did not plan for it.

Well are you referring to intercepts after 9/11/01 or before? Before 9/11, it happened much more rarely. After 9/11, it seemed like it was happening everyday. Most involved smaller craft straying into newly formed "no fly zones" or new "restricted" airspaces, like around DC, NYC, Chicago, and other areas. I guess many pilots didnt get the memo, But seriously, after 9/11, any "threat" was treated as such, even if it was a noobie pilot that wasnt paying attention, and blundered into a restricted airspace. If an airliner wasnt responding on a certain frequency, that too ordered an intercept. I recall many instances of fighters intercepting passenger jets when communication was lost, or accidental activation of the hijack frequency signal. But then again, we had 24/7 fighter cover for months after 9/11. We didnt before!

Prior to 9/11, it was a rare occurance!