Osama: Planes Operation Should Have Been Faster

[KJF]

Some sceptics express puzzlement at the timing of the Planes Operation, which lasted for around 1 hour and 50 minutes, from 8:14, when American 11 was hijacked, to 10:03 or 10:06, when United 93 crashed. It is argued that proper terrorists would try to get the operation over with as quickly as possible for fear of being shot down by rapidly scrambled fighters - how would they know the country's leadership would be hobbled by its desire to finish a story about a really interesting goat? It is further claimed that this poor planning is evidence that the hijackers were not real, but just patsies, or even holograms.

However, Al Qaeda's leadership seems to partially agree with the sceptics on this point - they say that the Planes Operation should not have taken so long.
Osama said it should have taken 20 minutes, not an hour and 50 minutes:
"And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Atta, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration notice."

"It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him."

"But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers, we were given three times the period required to execute the operations - all praise is due to Allah."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

9/11 co-ordinator Ramzi Bin Al Shibh said:
"The first quarter of an hour from takeoff is the golden opportunity to seize the aircraft and take control and steer it toward the targets. The entire process must be completed in six minutes at the most, because there are other aircraft still in the air as well."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_24_54/ai_95056788/pg_6

Setting aside the idea that they might be leading us up the garden path, this seems to indicate that something in the operation went wrong and that this caused a delay. Two things spring to mind:
(1) Atta booked himself and Al Omari on the wrong connecting flight from Portland to Boston (he should have flown with an American Airlines feeder, not a US Airways feeder), meaning that he almost missed American 11.
(2) United 93 was delayed for a long time on the runway, not just the usual 10 minutes or so like the other flights. It took off 41 minutes late at 8:42.

However, I don't quite see how what went wrong caused the delays that occurred; even if the hijackers on American 77 were waiting for United 93 to get airbourne before hijacking their plane, why did the United 93 hijackers then wait until nearly half past nine to attack the cockpit? Anybody got any ideas?

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Ultimately, those who could answer this question died that day

...so any answer is speculation.

To get a better picture, we would need to know:

What information about Flight 93 was available to the hijackers of 77 before they boarded?
Was there pre-hijack communication between the hijackers of both planes, how was this carried out, and what was decided?

I'd assume that the 77 hijackers could have found out about a delay before they boarded, and that could account for their delay. While on the ground, they could have gotten in touch with the 93 hijackers and discussed delaying taking over the planes. If the 93 hijackers had mistaken who should take the delay, then that could account for their delay.

Anyway, guessing about these delays is all speculation, and will all be informed based on what you think happened that day.

[Americus]

4. No proof that "those who could answer this question" died that day.

OCT'ers have yet to provide any proof that there were any hijackers aboard any planes anywhere on September 11, 2001, much less that any they have claimed were aboard any planes that day are deceased.

Prove the above, then maybe there will be something to discuss. Claims of coincidence, incompetence, negligence, magic, intelligence failures, and limited modified hangouts ("might be LIHOP...and if absolutely necessary we'll agree it WAS LIHOP") aren't acceptable as proof for OCT claims.

[KJF]

5. Well, the hijackers died...

... but maybe some additional information or analysis can be used to come to a better conclusion than "Who knows?".

For example, there was some talk that the hijackers intended to buy some special sort of phones so they could communicate between the planes in the air. I'd like to know what happened to that story. PT posted it here a few months back, but I don't remember seeing any definite conclusion.

Also, there were two "mystery" calls from American 11. Ted Olsen says he only received two, but the 9/11 Commission assumes his wife called his office four times (but that only two were put through to Mr. Olsen). I have issues with some of the 9/11 Commission's assumptions and I'd like to see more on this.

Maybe it'll lead somewhere, maybe it won't.

[Americus]

2. Too many assumptions & unproven premises. n/t

n/t

[seatnineb]

3. Osama and Ramzi probably get to read lines from their Saudi GID/CIA

........paymasters.

I would not trust a word either of them say.

[mirandapriestly]

6. absolutely not

The connections to how these organizations began are clear, you can't believe what they are or what they say.