United planes were told to secure cockpit

Originally posted by forestlady
I agree with Zaphod, fighthing in the cockpit would have been the worst thing to do. Ultima, don't you think the pilots were smart enough to make the best decision they could, based on their experience and knowledge?
I mean, don't you think they wanted to live, as well, why would they endanger thier own lives?

Ultima is a Truff Movementer, so he does not believe that there were pilots on the plane to begin with. He believes that the pilots were government trained kamikaze’s, that the plane was under remote control, was a big hologram, or a missile painted to look like a plane. No amount of real truth told to them by folks that have worked in aviation is acceptable, as they are not interested in real truth anyway but rather an agenda...
An agenda to sell books, website advertising, and videos to folks that have no aviation knowledge and take their stories as truth as they sound good. As a matter of fact, their favorite pastime is calling folks with any real airline knowledge debunkers or government agents, since they tend to hurt book sales. They even have like one real commercial pilot from defunct Pan Am that they have obviously cut in on the deal to make it sound all nice and official. You would think that folks would realize that there are thousands of other commercial pilots that would be stepping forward if there was any truth to these fantasies.

Anyway that is why I pretty much have stopped posting to 911 threads. Why zaph chooses to continue to abuse himself by doing so confounds me...

[edit on 4/8/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Zaphod58
which would have been the DUMBEST choice they could have made.

Oh really, I for one beleive if they would not have turned over control a couple thousand people might be alive.

And i still cannot figure out why they could not have gotten off a call or signal, specially the ones who had been talking to ATC at the times when the hijackers supposidly came into the cockpit.

Well aparently, thousands of pilots there disagree with you, and it's against protocol. Heck, even 95% of normal people disagree with you.

Zaph backs up his posts and Defcon is a extremely knowledgable person when it comes to planes, why argue? Sounds to me like you're on a Agenda or a paid Governemnt disinfo agent.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by PisTonZOR]

[edit on 8-4-2007 by PisTonZOR]

Originally posted by forestlady
I agree with Zaphod, fighthing in the cockpit would have been the worst thing to do. Ultima, don't you think the pilots were smart enough to make the best decision they could, based on their experience and knowledge?
I mean, don't you think they wanted to live, as well, why would they endanger thier own lives?
Zaphod, are you a commercial airline pilot? Just wondering, you sound like one.

But the problem i have is for the planes that were warned, how did the terrorist surprise them if that had warnings and in the case of flight 93 they had 2 warnings.

Zaphod has already sufficiently explain this to you, but lets ignore that and rehash the same things over and over.

1) The old doors were for crap, and I know this because I accidentally locked one, walked outside the cockpit, pulled the ground power off, looked up, and saw that I forgot to turn the battery power off, and the pilot had the keys with him at the hotel. Which gave me the grand option of either A) figuring out how to get back in, or B) letting the battery die, loosing my job, and allowing the morning flight out be cancelled.
You guess which of those two things ended up happening…
Why do you think reinforcing the doors was the first thing done after 911?

2) Once they were in the cockpit they had the advantageous position because there is empty space behind the pilots seats, and the pilots movement was restricted by the controls.

3) Because you don’t fight in a cockpit, it tends to mess up important switches, buttons, and trim settings.

4) The pilots job is to protect the passengers, and if they are threatening to kill folks then eventually the pilots are going to comply with their demands as per normal procedure in that situation.

5) It has been stated somewhere that they supposedly had one of their folks wearing something that looked like an IED.

Now if I can make it any simpler, or plainer for you, then by all means ask the same question again.

[edit on 4/9/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5
Zaphod has already sufficiently explain this to you, but lets ignore that and rehash the same things over and over.
[edit on 4/9/2007 by defcon5]

I will ask the question untill i get a good explanation. First time in history planes warned of hijackings get surprised by hijackers and can not get off a call or signal and then just turn over control of thier plane to hijackers.

Flight 93 had ONE warning. They received the warning at 9:24am, replied with "Please confirm" at 9:26, and hijackers attacked at 9:28. They hadn't even received the confirmation when the attack occurred.

As for why they turned over the plane, they were trying to keep the crew and passengers alive, as has been stated MANY times. The hijackers had a flight attendant in the cockpit, that they later either killed or somehow silenced her. What part of "they were trying to keep everyone alive" is SO hard for you to understand?!

"the first 46 minutes of Flight 93’s cross-country trip proceeded routinely. Radio communications from the plane were normal. Heading, speed, and altitude ran according to plan. At 9:24, Ballinger’s warning to United 93 was received in the cockpit. Within two minutes, at 9:26, the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: “Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason.”70 The hijackers attacked at 9:28. While traveling 35,000 feet above eastern Ohio, United 93 suddenly dropped 700 feet. Eleven seconds into the descent, the FAA’s air traffic control center in Cleveland received the first of two radio transmissions from the aircraft...."

The flight data recorder (also recovered) indicates that Jarrah then instructed the plane’s autopilot to turn the aircraft around and head east. The cockpit voice recorder data indicate that a woman, most likely a flight attendant, was being held captive in the cockpit. She struggled with one of the hijackers who killed or otherwise silenced her.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Flight 93 had ONE warning. They received the warning at 9:24am, replied with "Please confirm" at 9:26, and hijackers attacked at 9:28. They hadn't even received the confirmation when the attack occurred.

Actually they had 2 warnings. They had a lock cockpit message and the message of the other hijackings. So they should have been on alert.

www.globalsecurity.org...

At 9:21 United dispatchers are told to advise their flights to secure cockpit doors;
At 9:24 a United dispatcher sends a “Beware of cockpit intrusion . . . Two aircraft in NY hit Trade Center Builds” message to Flight 93. Flight 93 responds to this message at 9:26 , requesting that the dispatcher confirm the latest message.

So what is the explanation as to why they couldn't even get off a call or signal?

Probably because the hijackers broke into the cockpit and killed them almost immediately.

As for the first warning, a "Lock cockpit doors" is going to be blown off by most flight crews, because it's a nonspecific warning. They're going to think that some passenger on another plane tried to open the door or something like that, and they're not going to consider it any sort of warning about hijackings.

You think they killed both pilots at once?

Even if they didn't, the shock factor would have frozen the other pilot long enough for them to turn and attack him. They'd both be frozen for a few seconds, probably thinking something along the lines of "Oh my god this isn't happening." and that would give the hijackers an advantage.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Probably because the hijackers broke into the cockpit and killed them almost immediately.

As for the first warning, a "Lock cockpit doors" is going to be blown off by most flight crews, because it's a nonspecific warning. They're going to think that some passenger on another plane tried to open the door or something like that, and they're not going to consider it any sort of warning about hijackings.

As already stated by the call from the flight attenedent on flight 77 the aircrew was not killed. The pilots and crew were taken back to the back of the plane.

Its too bad since the trerrorist only had boxcutters all the pilots had to do was rock the plane and knock them off thier feet and they probly could have bea the terrorist.



[edit on 10-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

1. The terrorists did NOT have "only box cutters".

She told her husband, Theodore Olsen, on a cell phone that the hijackers who herded her and other the passengers into the back of the plane had two kind of weapons: knives and cardboard cutters (presumably box cutters). She did not say anything about the other hijackers in the cockpit and she apparently did not even know that they were piloting the plane.

On flight 93, the Boeing 757 which crashed near Pittsburgh, the flight attendant reported over a cell phone that a hijacker in her plane had a "bomb strapped on." Some unidentified person also said over the loud speaker that there was a "bomb" aboard the plane. A passenger, Todd Beamer, talked over a cell phone about the "terrorist with a bomb." Another passenger, Tom Burnett, told his wife over a cell phone that he had heard that a pilot had been "knifed." No passenger or crew member described either box cutters or plastic knives as weapons and, as far as is known, no box cutters of plastic knives been recovered from the wreckage.

www.edwardjayepstein.com...
Interesting how she didn't report seeing the flight crew moved to the back of the plane

2. If the pilots thought that they had bombs, or other significant weapons, then "rocking the plane to knock them off their feet" could have caused them to detonate them, thereby killing the entire planeload of passengers and crew.

3. "Rocking the plane to knock them off their feet" didn't work on Flight 93, so why would you assume that it would work on Flight 77? We know that the people in control of Flight 93 were performing some pretty radical maneuvers to try to knock the passengers off their feet, but they were still assaulting the cockpit during them.



[edit on 4/10/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
3. "Rocking the plane to knock them off their feet" didn't work on Flight 93, so why would you assume that it would work on Flight 77? We know that the people in control of Flight 93 were performing some pretty radical maneuvers to try to knock the passengers off their feet, but they were still assaulting the cockpit during them.
[edit on 4/10/2007 by Zaphod58]

Well for 1 the people asaulting the plane were ready for it. We also have a call from flight 93 about a exposion and smoke, wonder if it could have been the people were storming the cockpit because the believed they were going to be shot down ????

I still say the pilots did not do enough. Other pilots hgave gotten off calls and signals. Other pilots have knocked attackers off thier feet (FED EX Flight) so i am still saying the pilots did not do enough to help the people they are supposed to protect.

And that's your OPINION, which you are entitled to. In MY opinion, and the opinion of many in the industry, they did exactly what they were trained to do, with the knowledge they had AT THE TIME.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And that's your OPINION, which you are entitled to. In MY opinion, and the opinion of many in the industry, they did exactly what they were trained to do, with the knowledge they had AT THE TIME.

Oh and you might want to do a little more research. Thier was no bomb threat on Flight 77.

The Four Flights

Staff Statement No. 4

The hijackers used the threat of bombs. This was reported for all but Flight 77. They also used announcements (reported for Flights 11, 77, and 93) to control the passengers, as the aircraft supposedly flew to an airport destination.

[edit on 11-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

I didn't say that there was a bomb threat. I said "IF" the pilots were told there was a bomb. Although I have to say that not being reported isn't quite the same as there wasn't one.

[edit on 4/11/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Although I have to say that not being reported isn't quite the same as there wasn't one.

[edit on 4/11/2007 by Zaphod58]

Yes, i guess the flight attendents on flight 77 left that part out when the called even though the flight attendents on the other planes reported it.

Or the hijackers told the pilots, and didn't threaten the other passengers with it. It would be simple to threaten the pilots with blowing the plane up. Although again, I never said there was a bomb threat on Flight 77. I was only speculating on IF there was one.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Or the hijackers told the pilots, and didn't threaten the other passengers with it. It would be simple to threaten the pilots with blowing the plane up. Although again, I never said there was a bomb threat on Flight 77. I was only speculating on IF there was one.

I still want to know the odds on 4 planes not getting off a call or signal, specially when thier were warnings.

On the Fed Ex flight a former pilot attacked the pilot, co-pilot and engineer with a hammer, hitting them in the head. The pilot was still able to pull the plane into a steep climb and knock the attacker out of the cockpit. He kept the plane rocking to keep the attacker off his feet while the co-pilot and engineer tried to subdue him even though they were injured.