Ch 4 de plane, boss
I am not sure how to write this part, so please just follow along and trust that what I am trying to express will make sense at some point. [As we shall see in a later chapter, what I am asking you to do is part of the problem, and part of the solution. OK, that's Zen enough.]
Welcome to this session of the Understanding 9/11 Committee. Today our primary focus will be on American Airlines Flight 11 bound for Los Angeles. I see you all have your fact packs. I will remind you once again that the information you have in your packs has all been documented back to an original source. This does not guarantee its accuracy, it just means that each item of information is presented just as we found it. To our best abilities, all extrinsic judgements about a particular item of fact have been deleted, and you must determine for yourself how well a particular item fits into the picture you are forming. A couple of you have indicated you might be uncomfortable making a decision about a fact that is different than the decision expressed by someone in authority. That should not be a problem, juries pretend to do that all the time. If you are all ready, let's pass through security and enter the mock up of Flight 11. Oops, security buzzer went off. Someone carrying a preconceived notion? Ms. Black ?
"It's not a preconceived notion--- it is simply irrefutable fact that the people who did this are evil cowards. You can't expect us to pretend otherwise."
No'mam, I am not asking you to pretend anything. But I will remind you that this is a session for profiler recruits. The facts that you already know will be just fine by themselves for a while. It may well be that the facts in our final report will be exactly the same as those we left behind, but that can't be established unless our notions, irrespective of their truth, are left behind. If you can't do that, you might want to join up with one of the other groups. Nothing may be assumed except those assumptions that develop after we enter the mock up, and that includes the assumption that I know what I am talking about. Are you in or out?
"I'm in, but I don't like it."
Good. Then let's proceed. End of metaphorical context.
"It's not a preconceived notion--- it is simply irrefutable fact that the people who did this are evil cowards. You can't expect us to pretend otherwise."
No'mam, I am not asking you to pretend anything. But I will remind you that this is a session for profiler recruits. The facts that you already know will be just fine by themselves for a while. It may well be that the facts in our final report will be exactly the same as those we left behind, but that can't be established unless our notions, irrespective of their truth, are left behind. If you can't do that, you might want to join up with one of the other groups. Nothing may be assumed except those assumptions that develop after we enter the mock up, and that includes the assumption that I know what I am talking about. Are you in or out?
"I'm in, but I don't like it."
Good. Then let's proceed. End of metaphorical context.
Back to Through the Cockpit Doors Table of Contents
The first two seats in the first class section were occupied by Wail Alsheri and Waleed Alsheri. They are believed to have been brothers, to have combat training, and to have served as the groups first strike. Clearly they had the least obstructed access to the cockpit, and it would make sense for their role to be to gain access to the controls by removing or disabling the pilots. The next wave of the attack seems to have been Mohamed Atta, listed in seat 8D, whose role would have been to take over the controls of the plane under cover of the first wave. Next behind Atta would have been Abdul Alomaari, who was in position to serve as co-pilot or to relieve one of the first wave of attackers to join in control of the plane. His role might also have been to serve as part of the rear guard along with Satam al Sugami, listed in seat 10B.
There is much speculation and conflicting information about the exact seating positions at the time of attack, as well as the true identity of the hijackers. These speculations are unimportant in terms of our task. The manifest shows four unoccupied seats in front of Atta, and seven in front of Alomaari. Once the outside doors are closed, it is not unusual for passengers to move to a vacant seat other than the one to which they were assigned. Likewise, it is pretty much standard practice for covert operatives in hostile territory to assume fake or cover identities, both to prevent discovery and also to provide denyability to
support elements. For our purposes, we simply need to know that the apparent seating arrangement of the hijackers shows sound tactical planning. The seating arrangements, or equally effective ones, could not have been a result of random or last minute seating reservations. To have prearranged tactically effective seating arrangements on four planes at the same time clearly demonstrates that the attack was the result of intelligent, rational, coordinated efforts over a period of time by a well organized and competent group.
Most of the information about events in the plane after the attack started were supplied in phone calls from two flight attendants, Amy Sweeny and Betty Ong. Betty Ong reported one incident that might serve as a tiny tangy tidbit for the conspiracy theories folks. She reported that the passenger seated in 9B was killed by the hijacker seated in 10B. The hijacker was Satam al Sugami, and the passenger was Daniel Lewin. Lewin was reportedly almost-a-billionaire who made his fortune as cofounder of internet company Akamai Technologies. However, Lewin had also served four years in the Israel Defense Force Sayeret Matkal, a top-secret counter-terrorist unit. Whether Lewin, a 'la Chuck Barris, had a continuing underground connection with Sayeret Matkal and was known to Sugami might be fair game for grasping-at-straws conjecture, but I think it more likely that Lewin simply tried to interfere in the hijacking as a reasonable response of his military training.
If I were but Laurel and Hardy, I could flip my tie and say "this is another fine mess you have gotten us into". I am not experiencing writer's block. I am experiencing purpose block. I find it interesting that I had to recognize that in myself by first observing something similar in the writing of two of my oldest and brightest friends. Here's what they had to say.
NOTICE:
First it was just, by long Colorado tradition, our Republican legislators and CU regents, and the CU ath-uh-letic department, then the whole damned university, now the entire state seems to have gone bat-shit crazy, along with most of the world. Absurdity has reached toxic levels....Clearly, terminal grumpiness threatens. But unlike Hunter T., Mondo Boulder is not going to shoot itself.
We're going skiing!
NOTICE:
First it was just, by long Colorado tradition, our Republican legislators and CU regents, and the CU ath-uh-letic department, then the whole damned university, now the entire state seems to have gone bat-shit crazy, along with most of the world. Absurdity has reached toxic levels....Clearly, terminal grumpiness threatens. But unlike Hunter T., Mondo Boulder is not going to shoot itself.
We're going skiing!
I [was], born the first year of World War II in the middle of America. I am sick at heart about the state of my country and need to rant. Join in.
John Morris: Location: Dallas, Texas, United States
John Morris: Location: Dallas, Texas, United States
True to form, I managed to convince myself that if I worked hard enough, if I worded it just right, if I could just draw the picture clearly enough, I would make a difference--- we would see that 9/11 did not really change the world, it just changed us. The heroism we exhibited just after 9/11 was not really just some magnificent manifestation of our great American spirit; some unique strength and grace hewn from our brave new frontier spirit; the end result of freedom and democracy--- it is just a characteristic of our species to respond that way in massive trauma situations. The same characteristic was most recently demonstrated by the coastal residents and visitors of the Indian Ocean island seashores. Make no mistake about it, it was a good thing, it was just not uniquely good. Nor did it last. Sadly, the effect of 9/11 was not make us stronger, or better. Rather than gloat and be proud, we should be ashamed of ourselves. Perhaps, to lean on the words of my friend, it just drove us bat-shit crazy. How things like that come about is my true subject of interest, and I will abandon this Quixotean triviality to pursue subjects more to my liking and aptitudes. Not without, however, briefly delivering my own foaming-at-the-mouth 9/11 tirade.
The dumbest thing we did immediately subsequent to the 9/11 was to look for which country to blame. We did that because we were locked into the concept that wars take place between nations. We treated a few hundred years of war as though it were some universal constant--- nation against nation, that's what war was. And so we eagerly grasped on the hot term of the day: State Sponsored Terrorism. One clue to the fact that "state sponsored terrorism" is a euphemism is that the verbal logic of the term would lead us to Saudi Arabia, since most of the hijackers, and perhaps much of the money came from that state. But why settle for mere verbal logic when we can open Pandora's box?
The greatest danger from state sponsored terrorism, we sillyly surmised, was that rogue nations would develop nuclear and/or biological weapons and supply them to whatever terrorist group(s) they sponsored. That didn't have a goddamn thing to do with 9/11. What happened was that a group of people decided to attack us. They did not need highly sophisticated R&D sections with trillion dollar budgets supported by a national economy. Why not just use the weapons they found laying around, or in this case flying around loaded with thousands of gallons of high explosives? "And wait 'till you get a load of this" their chief tactician chortled, "they don't even lock the cockpit doors". Piece of cake, or rather baklava. [Yes, dear reader, that last sentence is politically incorrect. So sue me.]
Rather than realize how careless we had been and set about securing all the other potential weapons lying around --- nuclear power plants, chemical factories with unlocked gates, unguarded dams, tunnels, propane trucks, water supplies, food supplies, radioactive wastes, and on and on--- we chose to ignore the practical. We have enough poorly guarded potential weapons lying about to supply the attackers for years to come.
[ Flunky A: Mr. President, this war on terror means that we need to treble our efforts to develop a missile defense system.
Mr. President: I believe your are right. Give those research sectors that are our biggest contributors all the money they can spend. Hmmm, wonder what that propane truck is doing backing across the white house lawn?]
The efforts to design, build, and install cockpit doors that could not be breached did not evolve from the reality of the attack. Misses the point entirely. There is not one iota of evidence that the attackers spent any effort at all in developing plans to break through hardened and secured cockpit doors. A close ally of Atta's, Ramzi Binalshibh , claims that Atta did not have a firm contingency plan in case the cockpit door was locked, did not consider breaking the doors down a viable idea, and fully expected access to the cockpit would not be a problem. Since the hijackers got access to all four cockpits, events proved Atta's expectations were correct. The successful plan to utilize jet aircraft as smart bombs and crash them into buildings was not the brilliant creation of an evil genius. It was just one example of the simple principle taught by martial arts instructors and sports coaches the world over. Take what the enemy gives you, and use it against him. The greatest continuing danger from terrorist attacks is not hijacked airliners. They been there, done that. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of easy to use loaded weapons in our midst. All they need is a trigger finger.
Here are some other stupid and/or irrational assumptions we made post 9/11 that derived directly from our antiquated concept of war. For the most part, I am just making a record of them without giving conceptual justification or documentation. This is not my preferred way of presenting information, but the level of proof and the level of truth don't seem to have much impact on public opinion or political action at the present time. Then, I will toss in a few of my countervailing opinions and thoughts, again without support. I think it is way too late for another perspective on 9/11 to make any difference, so I am going to swallow my regret for not jumping in sooner and exercise a skill critical to our continuing survival. I am going to change direction. I think I will start with language. But first of course, I will try to sneak in a few tag you're its...
1. We need to secure our borders.
The concept of geographical borders ceased to have meaning in terms of warfare when extension of borders post victory became passe'. We will never again have a fight with Mexico over a piece of Texas. Physical borders have largely gone the way of the Berlin Wall. Physical border disputes still exist but they are ancient disputes with little practical value, serving little functional purpose beyond establishing where one pays, or avoids paying, taxes, and keeping Rand McNally solvent. I Recently relaxed by playing a game of Internet Hearts. The other three players were in Finland, China, and Brazil. Or maybe not. Maybe they were just artificial entities created by my browser. I have no way of knowing. Nor do I care. I won.
2. The hijackers were insane, evil cowards.
There is no rational definition of cowardice that will even come close to describing the hijackers actions. One of the hijackers was heard shouting in the background "Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest". Since when can doing the will of god be evil? [Ignoring the apoplectic gasps of disbelief and rage rising from the God Fearing Masses, I press onward into the darkness, hoping against hope that I can outrun the torch bearing righteous indignation of the lynch mob.] Rather than insanity, the hijackers actions were clearly rational, organized, and focused.
3. The armies of the new age of warfare are not great masses of warriors pledging allegiance to a single country and leader. They come in small, innovative groups joined not by government, but by principles.
4. Our verbal language has become obsolete.
5. Neither we, or our enemies have the option of surrendering.
6. Beetlebom in the sixth is a sure bet.
7. Our nation is suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome.
8, What if we give an Armageddon and nobody comes?
The greatest danger from state sponsored terrorism, we sillyly surmised, was that rogue nations would develop nuclear and/or biological weapons and supply them to whatever terrorist group(s) they sponsored. That didn't have a goddamn thing to do with 9/11. What happened was that a group of people decided to attack us. They did not need highly sophisticated R&D sections with trillion dollar budgets supported by a national economy. Why not just use the weapons they found laying around, or in this case flying around loaded with thousands of gallons of high explosives? "And wait 'till you get a load of this" their chief tactician chortled, "they don't even lock the cockpit doors". Piece of cake, or rather baklava. [Yes, dear reader, that last sentence is politically incorrect. So sue me.]
Rather than realize how careless we had been and set about securing all the other potential weapons lying around --- nuclear power plants, chemical factories with unlocked gates, unguarded dams, tunnels, propane trucks, water supplies, food supplies, radioactive wastes, and on and on--- we chose to ignore the practical. We have enough poorly guarded potential weapons lying about to supply the attackers for years to come.
[ Flunky A: Mr. President, this war on terror means that we need to treble our efforts to develop a missile defense system.
Mr. President: I believe your are right. Give those research sectors that are our biggest contributors all the money they can spend. Hmmm, wonder what that propane truck is doing backing across the white house lawn?]
The efforts to design, build, and install cockpit doors that could not be breached did not evolve from the reality of the attack. Misses the point entirely. There is not one iota of evidence that the attackers spent any effort at all in developing plans to break through hardened and secured cockpit doors. A close ally of Atta's, Ramzi Binalshibh , claims that Atta did not have a firm contingency plan in case the cockpit door was locked, did not consider breaking the doors down a viable idea, and fully expected access to the cockpit would not be a problem. Since the hijackers got access to all four cockpits, events proved Atta's expectations were correct. The successful plan to utilize jet aircraft as smart bombs and crash them into buildings was not the brilliant creation of an evil genius. It was just one example of the simple principle taught by martial arts instructors and sports coaches the world over. Take what the enemy gives you, and use it against him. The greatest continuing danger from terrorist attacks is not hijacked airliners. They been there, done that. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of easy to use loaded weapons in our midst. All they need is a trigger finger.
Here are some other stupid and/or irrational assumptions we made post 9/11 that derived directly from our antiquated concept of war. For the most part, I am just making a record of them without giving conceptual justification or documentation. This is not my preferred way of presenting information, but the level of proof and the level of truth don't seem to have much impact on public opinion or political action at the present time. Then, I will toss in a few of my countervailing opinions and thoughts, again without support. I think it is way too late for another perspective on 9/11 to make any difference, so I am going to swallow my regret for not jumping in sooner and exercise a skill critical to our continuing survival. I am going to change direction. I think I will start with language. But first of course, I will try to sneak in a few tag you're its...
1. We need to secure our borders.
The concept of geographical borders ceased to have meaning in terms of warfare when extension of borders post victory became passe'. We will never again have a fight with Mexico over a piece of Texas. Physical borders have largely gone the way of the Berlin Wall. Physical border disputes still exist but they are ancient disputes with little practical value, serving little functional purpose beyond establishing where one pays, or avoids paying, taxes, and keeping Rand McNally solvent. I Recently relaxed by playing a game of Internet Hearts. The other three players were in Finland, China, and Brazil. Or maybe not. Maybe they were just artificial entities created by my browser. I have no way of knowing. Nor do I care. I won.
2. The hijackers were insane, evil cowards.
There is no rational definition of cowardice that will even come close to describing the hijackers actions. One of the hijackers was heard shouting in the background "Allah is the greatest, Allah is the greatest". Since when can doing the will of god be evil? [Ignoring the apoplectic gasps of disbelief and rage rising from the God Fearing Masses, I press onward into the darkness, hoping against hope that I can outrun the torch bearing righteous indignation of the lynch mob.] Rather than insanity, the hijackers actions were clearly rational, organized, and focused.
3. The armies of the new age of warfare are not great masses of warriors pledging allegiance to a single country and leader. They come in small, innovative groups joined not by government, but by principles.
4. Our verbal language has become obsolete.
5. Neither we, or our enemies have the option of surrendering.
6. Beetlebom in the sixth is a sure bet.
7. Our nation is suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome.
8, What if we give an Armageddon and nobody comes?
Abandonment of Part One. Part Two will deal with how come.
Back to Through the Cockpit Doors Table of Contents
