Airplanes as weapons: a well-known concept

Apart from the specific intelligence that this sort of attack was coming imminently, there's the issue of the administration's claims that it never could have and never did envision the use of hijacked airplanes as weapons. It's part of their explanation as to why no defense was mounted. Condi Rice, for example: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would...use a hijacked airplane as a missile." Ari Fleisher: "Until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility."

But the possibility was envisioned, many times, rather specifically.

• In 1993 a panel of experts commissioned by the Pentagon envisioned airplanes as missiles used against national landmarks -- and the Department of Defense told them not to put it in their report.


• In 1994, three airplanes actually were hijacked with the intent to use them as weapons, famously including one by Al Qaeda that was supposed to hit the Eiffel Tower.


• Senator Sam Nunn describes in a 1995 Time magazine cover story a terrorist attack scenario involving a remote-controlled airplane hitting the Capitol building.


• Also in 1995, Philippine police discover an Al Qaeda computer containing a plan called Project Bojinka -- a plan to hijack planes and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House. And yeah, they told us.


• A 1999 National Intelligence Council report on terrorism warned of the possibility of al Qaeda using airplanes packed with explosives on buildings in Washington.


• In 1976 the US Army concocted a scenario in which the WTC was attacked by terrorists using commercial airliners hijacked by using plastic box cutters to bypass security! Timothy McNiven, who helped develop the plan, says that after initially being ordered never to speak about it, he was ordered, in the event such an attack were ever to take place in real life, he was to do everything in his power to bring the story to the public.

Source: Griffin, p. 67-69 and Marrs, p. 16-17

Sounds like the concept was pretty well thought through to me. Since this is mainly evidence that the government is full of shit, rather than evidence of facilitation or complicity, let's just say it's somewhat suspicious.

Bottom line, me, I give it: