Project Vigilant

[Happy Face 29]

A semi-secret government contractor that calls itself Project Vigilant surfaced at the Defcon security conference Sunday with a series of revelations: that it monitors the traffic of 12 regional Internet service providers and hands much of that information to federal agencies.

 

The 600-person "volunteer" organization functions as a government contractor bridging public and private sector security efforts. Its mission: to use a variety of intelligence-gathering efforts to help the government attribute hacking incidents. "Bad actors do bad things and you have to prove that they did them," says Uber [Chet Uber, the director of Fort Pierce, Fl.-based Project Vigilant]. "Attribution is the hardest problem in computer security."

 

According to Uber, one of Project Vigilant's manifold methods for gathering intelligence includes collecting information from a dozen regional U.S. Internet service providers (ISPs). Uber declined to name those ISPs, but said that because the companies included a provision allowing them to share users' Internet activities with third parties in their end user license agreements (EULAs), Vigilant was able to legally gather data from those Internet carriers and use it to craft reports for federal agencies. A Vigilant press release says that the organization tracks more than 250 million IP addresses a day and can "develop portfolios on any name, screen name or IP address."

 

"We don't do anything illegal," says Uber. "If an ISP has a EULA to let us monitor traffic, we can work with them. If they don't, we can't."

 

And whether that massive data gathering violates privacy? The organization says it never looks at personally identifying information, though just how it defines that information isn't clear, nor is how it scrubs its data mining for sensitive details.

 

ISP monitoring is just one form of intelligence that Vigilant employs, says Uber. It also gathers a variety of open source intelligence and employs numerous agents around the world. In Iran, for instance, Uber says Vigilant created an anonymous Internet proxy service that allowed it to receive information from local dissidents prior to last year's election, including early information indicating that the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was skewed by fraud.

 

Uber, who formerly founded a private sector group called Infragard that worked closely with the FBI, compares the organization's techniques with Ghostnet, the Chinese cyber espionage campaign revealed last year that planted spyware on computers of many governments and NGOs. "We've developed a network for obfuscation that allows us to view bad actors," he says.

 

Uber says he's speaking publicly about Vigilant at Defcon because he wants to recruit the conference's breed of young, skilled hackers. By July 2011, the organization hopes to have more than 1,300 new employees.

 

The organization already has a few big names on its roster. According to a San Francisco Examiner article last month, its volunteer staff includes former NSA official Ira Winkler and Suzanne Gorman, former security chief for the New York Stock Exchange.

 

http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/2010/08/0...eaks-informant/

 

What's really going on here is that the ability to construct dossiers on citizens' Internet activities has increased dramatically over the last several years, as increasing parts of citizens' private lives take place online. Put another way -- and this isn't news -- online privacy has all but evaporated. Virtually every step anyone takes online -- from the websites they visit to the transactions they engage in -- are not only now stored and tracked by multiple companies, but are then compiled and made available to a wide variety of groups. As a Wall St. Journal article from this weekend documents, the original impetus for this comprehensive tracking was a commercial one: the more websites and advertisers know about you, the more they can make use of that knowledge, from auctioning you to various advertisers, selling the data about you, and catering messages and ads to your profile.

 

But it's the re-packaging and transfer of this data to the U.S. Government -- combined with the ability to link it not only to your online identity (IP address), but also your offline identity (name) -- that has made this industry particularly pernicious. There are serious obstacles that impede the Government's ability to create these electronic dossiers themselves. It requires both huge resources and expertise. Various statutes enacted in the mid-1970s -- such as the Privacy Act of 1974 -- impose transparency requirements and other forms of accountability on programs whereby the Government collects data on citizens. And the fact that much of the data about you ends up in the hands of private corporations can create further obstacles, because the tools which the Government has to compel private companies to turn over this information is limited (the fact that the FBI is sometimes unable to obtain your "transactional" Internet data without a court order -- i.e., whom you email, who emails you, what Google searches you enter, and what websites you visit --is what has caused the Obama administration to demand that Congress amend the Patriot Act to vest them with the power to obtain all of that with no judicial supervision).

 

But the emergence of a private market that sells this data to the Government (or, in the case of Project Vigilance, is funded in order to hand it over voluntarily) has eliminated those obstacles. As a result, the Government is able to circumvent the legal and logistical restrictions on maintaining vast dossiers on citizens, and is doing exactly that. While advertisers really only care about your online profile (IP address) in order to assess what you do and who you are, the Government wants your online activities linked to your actual name and other identifying information. As Calabrese put it: "it's becoming incredibly easy for these companies to link your IP information to who you really are, by, for example, tracing it to your Facebook page or other footprints you leave with your identifying information." As but one example, The Washington Post recently began automatically linking any visitors -- without their knowledge or consent -- to their logged-in Facebook page. The information turned over to the Government is now easily linkable -- and usually linked -- to the citizens' actual identity.

 

two early Bush era surveillance programs were killed by Congress for overreaching: one -- the Total Information Awareness project from John Poindexter -- which would have data mined virtually all online data to detect individuals of interest to the Government, and a second -- the Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS) -- which was designed to recruit 1 million private citizens to inform the Government of suspicious acts. But as the ACLU Report warned, both projects ended up being developed in alternative forms. Indeed, a wide array of government agencies have created countless programs to encourage and formally train various private workers (such as cable installers, utilities workers and others who enter people's homes) to act as government informants and report any "suspicious" activity. Meanwhile, TIA has been replicated, and even surpassed, as a result of private industries' willingness to do the snooping work on American citizens which the Government cannot do.

 

Many people are indifferent to the disappearance of privacy -- even with regard to government officials -- because they don't perceive any real value to it. The ways in which the loss of privacy destroys a society are somewhat abstract and difficult to articulate, though very real. A society in which people know they are constantly being monitored is one that breeds conformism and submission, and which squashes innovation, deviation, and real dissent.

 

The old cliché is often mocked though basically true: there's no reason to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide. That mindset creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it's in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them. That's accomplished by never stepping out of line. Those willing to live their lives that way will be indifferent to the loss of privacy because they feel that they lose nothing from it. Above all else, that's what a Surveillance State does: it breeds fear of doing anything out of the ordinary by creating a class of meek citizens who know they are being constantly watched.

 

The loss of privacy is entirely one-way. Government and corporate authorities have destroyed most vestiges of privacy for you, while ensuring that they have more and more for themselves. The extent to which you're monitored grows in direct proportion to the secrecy with which they operate. Sir Francis Bacon's now platitudinous observation that "knowledge itself is power" is as true as ever. That's why this severe and always-growing imbalance is so dangerous, even to those who are otherwise content to have themselves subjected to constant monitoring.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...vacy/index.html

 

The Stasi are watching you.

[Guest Tuco Ramirez]

Who gives a fuck about America?

[Happy Face 29]

It also gathers a variety of open source intelligence and employs numerous agents around the world.

[Park Life 71]

"...i.e., whom you email, who emails you, what Google searches you enter, and what websites you visit --is what has caused the Obama administration to demand that Congress amend the Patriot Act to vest them with the power to obtain all of that with no judicial supervision)."

 

 

[Happy Face 29]

As a group, the top 50 US sites place 3,180 tracking files in total on a test computer. Nearly a third of these are innocuous, deployed to remember the password to a favorite site or tally most-popular articles.

 

But over two-thirds—2,224—were installed by 131 companies, many of which are in the business of tracking Web users to create rich databases of consumer profiles that can be sold.

 

http://www.salon.com/life/internet_culture...veillance_grows

 

[ewerk 31596]

Aye but those profile are anonymous, aren't they?

[Happy Face 29]

Aye but those profile are anonymous, aren't they?

 

Nope. Advertisers don't give a toss and pay for the anonymous data. The government are interested in linking your IP to a name and monitoring use which Project Vigilant are happy to do for them to circumvent privacy law.

 

The emergence of a private market that sells this data to the Government (or, in the case of Project Vigilance, is funded in order to hand it over voluntarily) has eliminated those obstacles [The Law]. As a result, the Government is able to circumvent the legal and logistical restrictions on maintaining vast dossiers on citizens, and is doing exactly that. While advertisers really only care about your online profile (IP address) in order to assess what you do and who you are, the Government wants your online activities linked to your actual name and other identifying information. As Calabrese put it: "it's becoming incredibly easy for these companies to link your IP information to who you really are, by, for example, tracing it to your Facebook page or other footprints you leave with your identifying information." As but one example, The Washington Post recently began automatically linking any visitors -- without their knowledge or consent -- to their logged-in Facebook page. The information turned over to the Government is now easily linkable -- and usually linked -- to the citizens' actual identity.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Happy Face

[ewerk 31596]

Just as well I don't do social networking then.

 

From a personal point of view I'm not too arsed about it tbh, they'll not find anything particularly interesting on me. From an anti-terrorism pov, if whatever they find can assist their investigations then I'm all for it, however, I've no doubt that the information gathered will, in certain cases, be mis-used and mis-interpreted.

[Happy Face 29]

From a personal point of view I'm not too arsed about it tbh, they'll not find anything particularly interesting on me.

 

That's the worry.

 

Many people are indifferent to the disappearance of privacy -- even with regard to government officials -- because they don't perceive any real value to it. The ways in which the loss of privacy destroys a society are somewhat abstract and difficult to articulate, though very real. A society in which people know they are constantly being monitored is one that breeds conformism and submission, and which squashes innovation, deviation, and real dissent.

 

The old cliché is often mocked though basically true: there's no reason to worry about surveillance if you have nothing to hide. That mindset creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it's in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them. That's accomplished by never stepping out of line. Those willing to live their lives that way will be indifferent to the loss of privacy because they feel that they lose nothing from it. Above all else, that's what a Surveillance State does: it breeds fear of doing anything out of the ordinary by creating a class of meek citizens who know they are being constantly watched.

[ewerk 31596]

That mindset creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it's in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them. That's accomplished by never stepping out of line. Those willing to live their lives that way will be indifferent to the loss of privacy because they feel that they lose nothing from it. Above all else, that's what a Surveillance State does: it breeds fear of doing anything out of the ordinary by creating a class of meek citizens who know they are being constantly watched.

 

I think that's bollocks tbh, I'm just not affected by any of this snooping. Essentially what are the police/intelligence services looking for on the internet? Terrorists and kiddy porn users, neither of which apply to me.

 

I wrote my dissertation on privacy/civil liberties in post-9/11 USA and found most of the concerns were blown out of proportion (though I obviously didn't say that), so while I'm far from an expert on the matter I am semi-well informed and I still don't think that privacy is something to be majorily worried about.

Edited August 3, 2010 by ewerk

[Happy Face 29]

That mindset creates the incentive to be as compliant and inconspicuous as possible: those who think that way decide it's in their best interests to provide authorities with as little reason as possible to care about them. That's accomplished by never stepping out of line. Those willing to live their lives that way will be indifferent to the loss of privacy because they feel that they lose nothing from it. Above all else, that's what a Surveillance State does: it breeds fear of doing anything out of the ordinary by creating a class of meek citizens who know they are being constantly watched.

 

I think that's bollocks tbh, I'm just not affected by any of this snooping. Essentially what are the police/intelligence services looking for on the internet? Terrorists and kiddy porn users, neither of which apply to me.

 

I wrote my dissertation on privacy/civil liberties in post-9/11 USA and found most of the concerns were blown out of proportion (though I obviously didn't say that), so while I'm far from an expert on the matter I am semi-well informed and I still don't think that privacy is something to be majorily worried about.

 

Recommended....

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405094/

 

Edited August 3, 2010 by Happy Face

[Cid_MCDP 0]

The problem I have with all this kind of thing is this: the FBI and CIA already had files on all of the 9/11 hijackers. The problem isn't this government's ability to not know what's going on, the problem is they don't play nicely with each other and don't know what to do with this information once they have it.

 

Locks on the cockpit doors and building those doors out of something a little more sturdy could have prevented 9/11. I'm just saying.

[Park Life 71]

The problem I have with all this kind of thing is this: the FBI and CIA already had files on all of the 9/11 hijackers. The problem isn't this government's ability to not know what's going on, the problem is they don't play nicely with each other and don't know what to do with this information once they have it.

 

Locks on the cockpit doors and building those doors out of something a little more sturdy could have prevented 9/11. I'm just saying.

 

What hijackers!!? Half of them are alive and well and living in various places like Dubai, Saudi and Hamburg.

[Cid_MCDP 0]

The problem I have with all this kind of thing is this: the FBI and CIA already had files on all of the 9/11 hijackers. The problem isn't this government's ability to not know what's going on, the problem is they don't play nicely with each other and don't know what to do with this information once they have it.

 

Locks on the cockpit doors and building those doors out of something a little more sturdy could have prevented 9/11. I'm just saying.

 

What hijackers!!? Half of them are alive and well and living in various places like Dubai, Saudi and Hamburg.

 

Huh? I think this is going over my head. I mean the guys that took over the planes on 9/11. All of them were on watch lists of some kind or another and it resulted in diddly shit from the US government was my point.

[Park Life 71]

The problem I have with all this kind of thing is this: the FBI and CIA already had files on all of the 9/11 hijackers. The problem isn't this government's ability to not know what's going on, the problem is they don't play nicely with each other and don't know what to do with this information once they have it.

 

Locks on the cockpit doors and building those doors out of something a little more sturdy could have prevented 9/11. I'm just saying.

 

What hijackers!!? Half of them are alive and well and living in various places like Dubai, Saudi and Hamburg.

 

Huh? I think this is going over my head. I mean the guys that took over the planes on 9/11. All of them were on watch lists of some kind or another and it resulted in diddly shit from the US government was my point.

 

News to me mate. Pretty sure it's proved beyond doubt to be all made up.

 

YOu get news and shit where you live yeah?

 

 

Beeb

 

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

 

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

 

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

 

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

 

 

 

 

The FBI press release of September 27th, 2001 containing names, photographs, aliases and other information is seriously flawed. They have used these peoples names and made claims based on the fact they were pilots and other supposedly incriminating evidence and yet they were not involved. Places of birth, birthdays and other personal details were displayed on news throughout the world.

 

The FBI still lists these men as suspected hijackers who were killed during the terrorist assault, this is absurd. If this is the quality of the evidence they can present it is no wonder the public cannot see the rest.

 

7 of the 19 believed hijackers named are still alive.

 

Saeed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Abdul aziz Alomari, Salem Alhazmi

"It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened." - Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal told the Arabic Press after meeting with President George W. Bush on Sept. 20th

 

Saudi officials at the embassy were unable to verify the whereabouts of the fifth accused hijacker, Khalid Al-Mihdhar. However, Arab newspapers say Al-Mihdhar is still alive.

 

Saeed Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Abdul aziz Alomari and Salem Alhazmi "are not dead and had nothing to do with the heinous terror attacks in New York and Washington." The Saudi Arabian embassy told The Orlando Sentinel.

 

Saudi officials at the embassy were unable to verify the whereabouts of the fifth accused hijacker, Khalid Al-Mihdhar. However, Arab newspapers say Al-Mihdhar is still alive.

 

"..there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive. " - BBC 23rd September 2001

 

Waleed Alshehri (Flight 11) (Trained Pilot)

 

A sixth person on the FBI's list, Saudi national Waleed Alshehri, is living in Casablanca, according to an official with the Royal Air Moroc, the Moroccan commercial airline. According to the unnamed official, Alshehri lived in Dayton Beach, Fla., where he took flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Now he works for a Moroccan airline. On Sept. 22, Associated Press reported that Alshehri had spoken to the U.S. embassy in Morocco.

 

"His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world. That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack. " - Daily Trust 24th September 2001

 

"He was reported to have been in Hollywood, Florida, for a month earlier this year but his father, Ahmed, said that Waleed was alive and well and living in Morocco." - Telegraph

 

"Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well." - BBC 23rd September 2001

 

Abdul aziz Alomari (Flight 11) (Trained Pilot) 2 men with same name cobbled together into terrorist

 

Omari Number 1

Mr. Al-Omari, a pilot with Saudi Airlines, walked into the US embassy in Jeddah to demand why he was being reported as a dead hijacker in the American media.

 

"a pilot with Saudi Airlines, was astonished to find himself accused of hijacking ­ as well as being dead ­ and has visited the US consulate in Jeddah to demand an explanation." - Independent 17th September 2001

Edited August 3, 2010 by Park Life

[Cid_MCDP 0]

Wow. Color me misinformed! Don't know how I managed to miss that one... must have been all the flag-waving and ribbon tying everyone was doing around then.

 

Anyhizzle- still supports my point, just from a different angle. We don't need the government compiling terabytes and terabytes of data on us only to get us innocents mixed up with would-be hijackers.

[ewerk 31596]

The likes of this worries me much more:

 

Web attack knows where you live

 

One visit to a booby-trapped website could direct attackers to a person's home, a security expert has shown.

 

The attack, thought up by hacker Samy Kamkar, exploits shortcomings in many routers to find out a key identification number.

 

It uses this number and widely available net tools to find out where a router is located.

 

Demonstrating the attack, Mr Kamkar located one router to within nine metres of its real world position.

 

'Creepy' attack

Many people go online via a router and typically only the computer directly connected to the device can interrogate it for ID information.

 

However, Mr Kamkar found a way to booby-trap a webpage via a browser so the request for the ID information looks like it is coming from the PC on which that page is being viewed.

 

He then coupled the ID information, known as a MAC address, with a geo-location feature of the Firefox web browser. This interrogates a Google database created when its cars were carrying out surveys for its Street View service.

 

The attack uses data gathered by Google's Street View cars This database links Mac addresses of routers with GPS co-ordinates to help locate them. During the demonstration, Mr Kamkar showed how straightforward it was to use the attack to identify someone's location to within a few metres.

 

"This is geo-location gone terrible," said Mr Kamkar during his presentation. "Privacy is dead people. I'm sorry."

 

Mikko Hypponen, senior researcher at security firm F Secure attended the presentation and said it was "very interesting research".

 

"The thought that someone, somewhere on the net can find where you are is pretty creepy," he said.

 

"Scenarios where an attack like this would be used would be stalking or targeted attacks against an individual," he added.

 

"The fact that databases like Google Streetview's Mac-to-Location database or the Skyhook database can be used in these attacks just underlines how much responsibility companies that collect such data have to safeguard it correctly," said Mr Hypponen.

 

Mr Kamkar detailed the attack during a presentation at the Black Hat hacker conference. In 2005, Mr Kamkar created a worm that exploited security failings in web browsers to garner more than one million "friends" on the MySpace social network in one day.

 

Prosecuted for the hack, Mr Kamkar was given three years probation, did 90 days of community service and paid damages. He was also banned from using the net for personal purposes for an undisclosed amount of time.

[Park Life 71]

Wow. Color me misinformed! Don't know how I managed to miss that one... must have been all the flag-waving and ribbon tying everyone was doing around then.

 

Anyhizzle- still supports my point, just from a different angle. We don't need the government compiling terabytes and terabytes of data on us only to get us innocents mixed up with would-be hijackers.

 

I'm sorry I think you misunderstood. Your Govt and for that matter my GOvt don't give a flying fuck what any of us think.

[Park Life 71]

The likes of this worries me much more:

 

Web attack knows where you live

 

One visit to a booby-trapped website could direct attackers to a person's home, a security expert has shown.

 

The attack, thought up by hacker Samy Kamkar, exploits shortcomings in many routers to find out a key identification number.

 

It uses this number and widely available net tools to find out where a router is located.

 

Demonstrating the attack, Mr Kamkar located one router to within nine metres of its real world position.

 

'Creepy' attack

Many people go online via a router and typically only the computer directly connected to the device can interrogate it for ID information.

 

However, Mr Kamkar found a way to booby-trap a webpage via a browser so the request for the ID information looks like it is coming from the PC on which that page is being viewed.

 

He then coupled the ID information, known as a MAC address, with a geo-location feature of the Firefox web browser. This interrogates a Google database created when its cars were carrying out surveys for its Street View service.

 

The attack uses data gathered by Google's Street View cars This database links Mac addresses of routers with GPS co-ordinates to help locate them. During the demonstration, Mr Kamkar showed how straightforward it was to use the attack to identify someone's location to within a few metres.

 

"This is geo-location gone terrible," said Mr Kamkar during his presentation. "Privacy is dead people. I'm sorry."

 

Mikko Hypponen, senior researcher at security firm F Secure attended the presentation and said it was "very interesting research".

 

"The thought that someone, somewhere on the net can find where you are is pretty creepy," he said.

 

"Scenarios where an attack like this would be used would be stalking or targeted attacks against an individual," he added.

 

"The fact that databases like Google Streetview's Mac-to-Location database or the Skyhook database can be used in these attacks just underlines how much responsibility companies that collect such data have to safeguard it correctly," said Mr Hypponen.

 

Mr Kamkar detailed the attack during a presentation at the Black Hat hacker conference. In 2005, Mr Kamkar created a worm that exploited security failings in web browsers to garner more than one million "friends" on the MySpace social network in one day.

 

Prosecuted for the hack, Mr Kamkar was given three years probation, did 90 days of community service and paid damages. He was also banned from using the net for personal purposes for an undisclosed amount of time.

 

It's probably cause people mistook the whole google vans driving round with full spectrum cameras as some kind of entertainment.

[Happy Face 29]

Don't listen to Parky man Cid. His BBC link is from 12 days after the attack. There was confusion at the time, but in the 9 years since that case of mistaken identity has been cleared up.

 

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

 

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

 

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

 

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

 

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

 

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006...y_theory_1.html

[Park Life 71]

It beggers belief that to this day people believe that for instance flight 77 was taken over within 18 min of the boarding of the plane, the cockpit overrun, the transponder turned off and the plane redirected by people fresh out of Microsoft flying club. This is even without getting into the demolotion speed collapses of the buildings and building 7 which only had a fire and wasn't hit by anything.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

It beggers belief that to this day people believe that for instance flight 77 was taken over within 18 min of the boarding of the plane, the cockpit overrun, the transponder turned off and the plane redirected by people fresh out of Microsoft flying club. This is even without getting into the demolotion speed collapses of the buildings and building 7 which only had a fire and wasn't hit by anything.

 

Surely it would be important to take control of the plane as quickly as possible.

 

18 minutes would be an eternity to struggle for control.

[Park Life 71]

It beggers belief that to this day people believe that for instance flight 77 was taken over within 18 min of the boarding of the plane, the cockpit overrun, the transponder turned off and the plane redirected by people fresh out of Microsoft flying club. This is even without getting into the demolotion speed collapses of the buildings and building 7 which only had a fire and wasn't hit by anything.

 

Surely it would be important to take control of the plane as quickly as possible.

 

18 minutes would be an eternity to struggle for control.

 

Fantasy land.

[Happy Face 29]

[Guest alex]

Had to be done really.