WAR: Hub Terror Suspects ID'd

September 11, 2001 10:50 PM

WAR: Hub Terror Suspects ID'd - as found in the Boston Herald. Two brothers mentioned, as well as some more detailed information about calls from the airplanes.
posted by Bernreuther (23 comments total)

The Los Angeles-bound plane requested a flight path for John F. Kennedy Airport, but then its tracking transponder was shut off and it veered toward the Manhattan skyline. (bold mine)

Somebody give me one good reason why, outside of hijackings, turning off a "tracking transponder" would EVER be a good idea. This better be easier than just flipping a toggle switch.
posted by kevspace at 11:11 PM on September 11, 2001

This is interesting. I knew there'd have to be some trace of these guys.

The chances that you can successfully hijack four planes at once, on the very same day, then successfully fly them to very specific places, then go so far as to destroy them and any evidence that would allow investigators to trace them?

It's astonishing. If just one hijack was botched, at least one team would have been apprehended and used to figure out who sent them.

The bin laden link still seems fishy, I'm waiting for more concrete evidence before thinking it was anyone from outside this country.
posted by mathowie at 11:11 PM on September 11, 2001

Somebody give me one good reason why, outside of hijackings, turning off a "tracking transponder" would EVER be a good idea.

If your radio fails, you may need to turn it on/off to let the tower know you can still hear them.

If you're out of the tower's air space, or on the ground, you may want to turn it off so you don't distract the tower from the planes they need to worry about.
posted by willnot at 11:19 PM on September 11, 2001

Military planes are scrambling out of South Florida. I've enjoyed an unusually quiet night with no noise from our municipal airport 5 miles away or Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International 15 miles away. About 1:30 EST high flying, fast jets started coming from the south flying north. One passed overhead every five minutes for almost an hour, so far. It could be Coast Guard jets, but there aren't that many so I'm guessing Navy out of NAS Key West.

I'd think the military would have to have been informed of a target or given a plan based on information to warrant a move like this. I wonder where they're going? Anyone else notice military traffic?
posted by stevis at 11:20 PM on September 11, 2001

Why would you do something like this and NOT want anyone to know who you were? Or why would you?
posted by thebigpoop at 11:20 PM on September 11, 2001

(No front page posting rights, someone please pass these links on...)

HEROIC ACT. FATHER AND HUSBAND TAKES ACTION ON FLIGHT, ULTIMATELY SAVES MORE LIVES.

"The Miami Herald reported in Wednesday’s editions that a passenger on Flight 93, Tom Burnett, 38, the vice president of a Pleasanton, Calif., medical devices company and father of three children, called his wife and indicated that he and other passengers were about to try to overpower the hijackers.

Burnett told his wife that somebody on the plane had been stabbed, said the Rev. Frank Colacicco, of St. Isidore’s Church in Danville, Fla. “We’re all gonna die, but three of us are going to do something,” Burnett told his wife, according to Colacicco. He added: “I love you, honey,” before the call ended."

Miami Herald

MSNBC

Proud to be see human bravery in the midst of such acts.
posted by nix at 11:52 PM on September 11, 2001

One of the biggest questions everyone is asking is "How did these terrorists manage to board the planes?"

Check out this job listing from the Sea-Tac airport for the Pre-Board Screener position.

These people are only paid $8.05 per hour.
posted by popvulture at 11:54 PM on September 11, 2001

I'm in LA and have heard about 5 helicopters and a plane pass over. Don't know significance.
posted by owillis at 11:55 PM on September 11, 2001

nix, here's the company page the guy (VP, second one down) who made the phone call from that plane.
posted by mathowie at 12:00 AM on September 12, 2001

actually, he was the COO, and here's their press release about it.
posted by mathowie at 12:06 AM on September 12, 2001

Thanks Matt. That led me to the company's official press release.

Do you know of a more complete story anywhere?
posted by nix at 12:06 AM on September 12, 2001

Where's the story coming from about the passengers taking on the hijackers?
posted by megnut at 12:07 AM on September 12, 2001

No amount of airport security can stop professional terrorists. No matter if they made 5 dollars an hour or 50 dollars an hour. American airport security is just to lazy, not the fault of airports, its the fault of Americans wanting convience over security.
posted by andryeevna at 12:08 AM on September 12, 2001

MSNBC (under heading "Fourth Attempt Fails") is quoting the Miami Herald (About 1/3 way down article).

Unable to track any other sources yet. Still searching...
posted by nix at 12:10 AM on September 12, 2001

my father works for massport (massachusetts port authority) at logan airport. a few interesting pieces of information he relayed to me last night, which may or may not turn out to have any bearing on yesterday's events:

the two planes that crashed into the WTC were likely sitting on the tarmac or at the gate overnight at logan. flights scheduled for early morning flights typically arrive the night before.

while the area surrounding the tarmac at logan is fenced and guarded where it borders land, there is no fence where the tarmac/runway borders the ocean. you can literally row up to it.

up until about three months ago, people with criminal records could get jobs on ground crew at logan, which is an all-access position. now you have to go through an FBI background check, but there's no grandfather clause in the new regulation requiring current employees to go through the check.

also ...

one of the cell-phone calls that's not being disclosed on the news is one that was made from one of the flight attendants to a local priest. out of respect for the priest's privacy, i'm not going to disclose his name. but my dad knows the man and spoke to him personally during the mayhem that was going on at the airport hilton yesterday, so it's not one of those friend-of-a-friend urban legend stories.

i don't think the call to the priest had anything to do with the attack; i just think it's an interesting bit of unreported information.

and it's beginning to sound more and more like the terrorists were able to smuggle everything they needed through the normal security checkpoints, so the other details may not be relevant, either. though i'm still finding it hard to believe that all this was done with box cutters and makeshift knives. it's hard to kill with a box cutter, at least quickly. you'd think it would have given passengers the opportunity to overpower the terrorists? i have to wonder if there were more substantial weapons on board, or more operatives than just 3 or 4 per plane.
posted by damn yankee at 1:11 AM on September 12, 2001

yeah, I've been thinking about that, Damn Yankee. I think using knives was one way the terrorists kept the passengers in the dark. If somebody took over my plane using knives, I'd assume they were a) poorly organized b) not going to kill everybody on board and c) I'll probably live. It's a slight of hand -- we're gonna threaten and kill some of you, but our weapons are too puny to do you all in... unless we happen to drive the plane into a building.

Apparently in some of the cases they did tell at least the pilots that they had more planes, but also You won't die or you won't be hurt. (info from MSNBC, but I am not quoting directly). Hmmm....
posted by daver at 6:28 AM on September 12, 2001

American airport security is just to lazy, not the fault of airports, its the fault of Americans wanting convience over security.

What do you propose? Full strip and body cavity searches for everyone wishing to board a plane?
posted by rushmc at 8:23 AM on September 12, 2001

Salon: There's a terrorist cell operating out of Boston," Fitzpatrick said. "They had to have support, they had to have people on the ground, in Boston, supporting them.'

Ack! I live in Boston!
posted by Johannahh at 8:38 AM on September 12, 2001

Two things bother me about these posts:
That "guards" get but 8.50 per hour makes them incompetent, seems to be an implied complaint. This is not skilled labor; and airlines want people moved fast. Irf the pay were 50 bucks per hour, would that change things?

2nd. One poster noted that unless there was concrete evidenceof some foreign group he would be suspicious of an "inside job." Why? This was clearly well planned and carried out. Does the poster think only Americns can do this sort of thing?
posted by Postroad at 10:28 AM on September 12, 2001

Two things bother me about these posts:
That "guards" get but 8.50 per hour makes them incompetent, seems to be an implied complaint. This is not skilled labor; and airlines want people moved fast. Irf the pay were 50 bucks per hour, would that change things?

2nd. One poster noted that unless there was concrete evidenceof some foreign group he would be suspicious of an "inside job." Why? This was clearly well planned and carried out. Does the poster think only Americns can do this sort of thing?
posted by Postroad at 10:28 AM on September 12, 2001

Two things bother me about these posts:
That "guards" get but 8.50 per hour makes them incompetent, seems to be an implied complaint. This is not skilled labor; and airlines want people moved fast. Irf the pay were 50 bucks per hour, would that change things?

2nd. One poster noted that unless there was concrete evidenceof some foreign group he would be suspicious of an "inside job." Why? This was clearly well planned and carried out. Does the poster think only Americns can do this sort of thing?
posted by Postroad at 10:28 AM on September 12, 2001

Two things bother me about these posts:
That "guards" get but 8.50 per hour makes them incompetent, seems to be an implied complaint. This is not skilled labor; and airlines want people moved fast. Irf the pay were 50 bucks per hour, would that change things?

2nd. One poster noted that unless there was concrete evidenceof some foreign group he would be suspicious of an "inside job." Why? This was clearly well planned and carried out. Does the poster think only Americns can do this sort of thing?
posted by Postroad at 10:28 AM on September 12, 2001

When I posted my original comment about the Pre-Board Screeners earning only $8.05, I wasn't implying they were incompetent people.

What I was saying is -- how many other jobs are there where we trust the people performing them to ensure thousands of people's safety on a daily basis, who are only compensated $8.05 per hour?

Doctors? Policemen? Air Traffic Controllers?

Unfortunately, the respect for the importance of the position is usually linked to the dollar ammount they are paid.
posted by popvulture at 1:20 PM on September 12, 2001