Almost a hijack on 911: UA 23 and something very strange on 913

[John Doe II]

As shown in the thread “911: Have there been more” several planes that didn’t take off on 911 gave reason to the suspicion that more hijacks had been intended. One of theses is the following case:

United Airlines Flight 23, bound from New York to Los Angeles:
“After the plane was boarded, United Airlines officials told passengers that had been cancelled.
Three males travelling refused to disembark.
The argument with a member of the flight crew became so heated that the crew member called airport security.
But before security arrived, the men had vanished, said the source,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity.“
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/14/national/main311250.shtml

When on September 13 the airport were reopened the following story happened:

Authorities detained two armed groups at New York airports yesterday, fearing they intended to hijack a pair of jetliners and mount another suicidal terrorist strike on a U.S. target, government officials said.
Both groups carried knives, false identification and open tickets to U.S. destinations dated Tuesday -- the day of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, sources said. They also had certificates from a Florida flight training school attended by some members of the previous hijacking teams, who were similarly armed when they commandeered four aircraft..
Jim Hunter, a passenger on an American Airlines flight scheduled to leave John F. Kennedy International Airport for Los Angeles yesterday, said officers with guns drawn stormed the flight from the front and rear at about 8 p.m. They handcuffed and removed three people after ordering all passengers to the floor. The flight was canceled.
(Washington Post, 9/14/01)
http://911digitalarchive.org/crr/documents/1105.pdf

And it is précised:
ABC reported that four of them had open tickets to various U.S. cities dated Sept. 11 one was arrested for posing as a United Airlines pilot.
(Plain Dealer, 9/14/01)

A few hours after this incident happens another:
Hours later, at LaGuardia Airport , police detained five men who also had open flight tickets, knives, fake pilot licenses and identification.
(Palm Beach Post, 9/14/01)

Starts looking like a pattern, doesn’t it?
But what’s the report between UA 23 almost being hijacked on 911 and theses two incidents on September 13? Very simple at least three persons were involved in both stories!

Law enforcement sources said three of the detained people are believed to be the same ones who quarrelled with airline workers Tuesday after being ordered off a flight to Los Angeles that had been cancelled. In that incident, the men at first refused to leave the plane, sources said. They began quarrelling with the airline workers, who called security officers. The men fled before security officers could arrive.
(Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9/14/01)

And here comes the big question :
Does this behaviour have clear parallels to 911?
Yes.
Was anybody involved in this incident put on trial?
No.

[Wilms]

1. I'm mixed about these stories.

It seems possible that these guys were there to do nothing but what they did...make a scene, make the newspaper, help legitamize the idea that it was a foriegn based attack and that there could be more to come.

:shrug:

[spooked911]

2. These guys were probably even more clueless patsies than the 9/11

hijackers. They HAD to have been to do something so stupid right after 9/11.

[John Doe II]

6. What might be interesting

Some of theses guys who were part of the stories on 911 and 913 were from Vero Beach. Maybe check out the new "Vero Beach" thread.

[JackRiddler]

3. taking a stab at this...

First I've ever heard of the Sept. 13 incidents. Very interesting, good catch.

My guess, in tune with what others are saying: an exercise or a propaganda move, by government agents (not "patsies" actually out to hijack). Got out directly after detention.

Other possibility, possible but unlikely: "real" patsies out to do a repeat of 9/11. Who may still be in detention. But how could they be so stupid?

[medienanalyse]

4. it was written. This is different from "it happened".

After 9/11 we had hundreds of stories like that. Remember the threats in San Francisco - obviously placed to camouflage the pre-9/11 knowledge of Mr. Brown who was warned not to take a flight that day. remember Anthrax. remember Arans here and "middle-eastern looking" guys there.

Here we have stories set up days after.

We have strange situations like Passengers who "vanish". Did you ever try to vanish in an airport? Expecially after 9/11?

Passengers carrying knives, open tickets edited on 9/11 - excuse me this is BULLSHIT.

If this would really have happened these guys were in jail, on trial, whatever. But not just vanished.


Dear John DoeUU: I must tell you again: be carefull with your sources. Nobody will criticise your efforts in finding old storeis around 9/11. But if you and we do not sort out the media as part of the plan, the media stuffed with stories told by unnamed "Pentagon officials" or handed out by "the FBI" or "some CIA officials under condition of anonymity" and so on

if we do not understand that 9/11 was not directed to destroy buildings but to win the American hearts for the coming wars (and the "international community" too)

if we do not see the media as MEDIA that is Latin and means "being in the midle", being "soldiers" in the information war

Than we will never convince anybody.

[John Doe II]

5. Incident on 913

There are numerous media accounts on this incident. So I consider it a possibility that iy happened (even if it happened only to achieve a Terror of Fear) because indeed it is highly strange that the media didn't follow up this story. Contrary to the San Antonio Flight from September 22 (Al-Hazmi) and the story of Subash Gurung who got six month in jail and was then sent back to Nepal.

You're certainly right that we have to be careful with the sources. Though I believe that the accounts of the first days after 911 are very interesting because the journalists still didn't knew what was "expected" to be written what the official story was (that's why we do have the Bukhari story).