It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Were the Cockpits Taken ? Examining the Logistics

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I have for a long time believed that the biggest smoking gun proof of remote control highjacking, and therefore an inside job, is the FACT that not ONE of EIGHT pilots, and over a dozen crew members, were able to activate the ' Highjack ' alert, which according to professional pilots here on ATS is as simple as flipping a switch. It takes just a second to do, yet not ONE pilot or other crew member managed to do so.

Let's take a look at the ODDS involved in accepting the fable that : All four airplanes either had their cockpit doors standing wide open, against all rules, or the ' highjackers ' managed to either intimidate the pilots into opening them up, thus jeopardizing the entire aircraft, or somehow managed to slash their way into the cockpits with a boxcutter or otherwise break the doors down. Are we to believe that not ONE pilot was able to notice someone breaking the doors down in time to flip the switch?

Are we to believe that in ALL four cases, access to the cockpits was instant and overwhelming? Also, look at the logistics of hauling EIGHT grown men, many military veterans and tough guys, out of the cockpits before the alert could be sent? Those pilots would have fought for their lives and their aircraft, and to imagine that they would all, without exception, turn into meek and humble cowards and obey boxcutter wielding Arabs is beyond reason.

Take a listen to the audio of Flight 93, wherein Cleveland Tower talks to the pilot of 93, and within SECONDS atempts another transmission, only to find dead air. Are we to believe that in the space of 3-4 seconds the ' highjackers ' managed to : Break down the cockpit door, wrestle two ( in each plane ) pilots from their seats, take over the seats and deactivate the autopilot and then turn off the transponders, all before even ONE pilot or other crew member could flip the switch? What are the odds?

The logistics of taking the planes has not, in my looking, been thoroughly covered and examined, and I hope that we can take a close lok at the facts and the timelines to show that there is NO possible rational explanation for what is seen, other than remote highjacking. To believe otherwise is beyond the pale of realistic application of the facts to the likley actions on the planes.

So, if anyone has anything to contribute, please do so. If you believe the official story, please tell us HOW, rationally and in a LIKELY manner, the ' highjackers ' managed to take four planes away from eight pilots and many other crew members before ANY of them could take a second to do the most critical act they were trained to do in case of emergency. Given that there is no evidence of the ' highjackers ' having any weapons other than boxcutters, how could they invade and occupy FOUR cockpits with 100% success rates without one alarm being given.

Perhaps some pilots would weigh in here and tell us how the cockpits are arranged and defended, and how likley it is that not ONE alert could have been sent within the few seconds that the intruders allegedly had to pull off their takeovers. As for me, this is proof positive of remote control highjacking, lets hear from others!!




posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
I have for a long time believed that the biggest smoking gun proof of remote control highjacking, and therefore an inside job, is the FACT that not ONE of EIGHT pilots, and over a dozen crew members, were able to activate the ' Highjack ' alert, which according to professional pilots here on ATS is as simple as flipping a switch. It takes just a second to do, yet not ONE pilot or other crew member managed to do so.


Yes, thats 1 of the first things that i thought was a little odd. It only takes a second or 2 to set the code on the transponder. Also seems hard to believe they could not get off a verbal call since they were in communications with Air Traffc Control before hijackings.

Also you had at least Flight 93 that had 2 warnings sent.

1. Secure cockpit door warning.

2. A message about the other hijackings.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Excellent work OP!

This was something I never actually thought of, but I think it could really prove to be a major factor. I don't know the mechanics of a plane, but I would imagine that the cockpit door is heavily guarded, and virtually impenitrable. As you say, it would take a second to press the hijacking button, then that would certainly make the "official story" seem a bit farfetched, even more so than it is now. The only thing that makes me really wonder is that what happened to all the passengers? But I totally agree with you and would love to hear from Mr Lear to see if he could shed some light.
T.O



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   
OK. Let me take Flight 77, the Pentagon flight as an example. Flown by Naval officer Chick Burlingame who participated in the original games simulating a hijacked airplane being flown into the Pentagon.

I have examined all 156 (approx) parameters of the digital data readout for the entire flight of #77 and there is not one single control wheel bump or unusual data point that would lead me or anyone else to believe that the cockpit crew was forced to do anything that they didn’t want to do.

You think Chick Burlingame would get out of his seat willingly or under threat or fly the airplane into the Pentagon? That’s beyond ridiculous.

I invite anyone to show me anywhere on the Flight #77 FDR digital readout any instance, however brief, of any altercation in the cockpit.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Im linking to the 9/11 Coincidences documentary in this thread as well, just to add another 50 or so reasons why the official story makes for a nice laugh.


ATS thread here



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Also you had at least Flight 93 that had 2 warnings sent.

1. Secure cockpit door warning.

2. A message about the other hijackings.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Nothing was heard from 93 until the faked tapes about ' take your seats, we have control " type nonsense..as if the ' highjackers ' could do superhuman feats and then didn't know how to use the radio and ' mistakenly ' hit the intercom button!! Yeah, right. The transmission were a set up, as were the phone calls ( or at least the vast majority )..just listen to the Betty Ong tape and hear her read from a script calmly, although hesitatingly, as if someone were coaching her..what she says makes no sense either: Tales of not being able to breath in the front of a plane but being able to at the read!! As if the sections of the plane were hermetically sealed!! nonsense.

If the cockpit takeovers were examined closely, I believe that no on could believe the official story; it is beyond ludicrous to believe that in all four cases, not one alert could be sent. What really amazes me is that not more people are commenting about this: This is smoking gun material.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Originally posted by eyewitness86



Nothing was heard from 93 until the faked tapes about ' take your seats, we have control " type nonsense..as if the ' highjackers ' could do superhuman feats and then didn't know how to use the radio and ' mistakenly ' hit the intercom button!! Yeah, right.



Let me say a few words about the hijacker’s allegedly mistakenly transmitting announcement to the passengers to air traffic control.

Very early on in the operation of passenger airplanes it was painfully evident that pilots were incapable of pressing the correct button at the correct time to switch the microphone from ATC to passenger address system. It was something they could not teach pilots to do. He was always either giving position reports to the passengers in back or flowery descriptions of the Grand Canyon to ATC.

So about the time that jet aircraft were introduced in the late 1950’s ALL or MOST airliners had, in the cockpit a completely separate and independent system to talk to the passengers.

It was located on the extreme aft end of the pedestal on which the throttles, autopilot, trim, tabs and other controls were located.

This diagram is from the Boeing 727.



In order to talk to the passengers the pilot has to reach to reach with his right hand to the back of the center pedestal, pick up a normal telephone shaped handset (totally unlike the microphone that you talk to ATC with) then press the button on the inner side of the telephone like handset (unlike the microphone that you talk to ATC with.

I have not flown the Boeing 767 but I imagine that it is similar to all the rest of the Boeing airliners that preceeded it particularly in view of the fact that the pilot species on our planet certainly did not get any smarter in the intervening years of airliner production. Or if they did, they weren't showing it.

Now if the hijackers were trained in the Boeing 767 simulator that Art Bell said Saddam Hussein liberated from Kuwait, trucked to Bagdad and shipped to Pakistan where they were allegedly trained, then they certainly knew the difference between the round microphone located on the left hand side of the cockpit with which you talk to ATC from the telephone shaped handset on the aft of the center pedestal with which you talk to the passengers.

Even if they didn't train in the alleged stolen simulators in Pakistan, if the hijacker knew how to switch off the transponder then he certainly knew which microphone to use to talk to ATC or the passengers.

Or heck, maybe not. Maybe he just used all of his luck and ability lining up that Boeing 767, at 500 mph, 700 feet from the ground, to hit the World Trade Center towers, both towers dead center. Now thats what I call lucky.

(I shouldn't have to remind you that both towers are 208 feet wide. As the wingspan of the Boeing 767 is about 156 feet that leaves 26 feet on each side.) At 500 miles per hour? Both airplanes? Both pilots? Both dead center? I'm impressed. I sure as heck couldn't do (the first time) and I flew more than either of those guys.

Whoever planned this 911 hoax certainly did not have all the details worked out.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
John,

A little off subject, but did you know that several companies are making missile detection and warning systems for airliners due to terrorist using shoulder fired missiles.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1




John,

A little off subject, but did you know that several companies are making missile detection and warning systems for airliners due to terrorist using shoulder fired missiles.



No I didn't but I think that DHL would be their first customer.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
No I didn't but I think that DHL would be their first customer.


Yes, basically because of aircraft like the DHL plane being hit and a plane from Isreal being shot at.

FLIGHT GUARD
Country of Origin Israel
System Names FLIGHT GUARD, FLIGHTGUARD
System Functions Dispenser
Missile Warning Receiver

Intended Targets Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs)
Information Cut-Off Date October 2003
UNCLASSIFIED


Assembled in response to a perceived urgent requirement for civilian airliner self-protection in Israel [1], FLIGHT GUARD is an integrated pulse-Doppler radar missile warning system (MWS) and decoy dispensing system. Currently in the latter stages of testing with Israeli government licensing expected during early 2004, the system is under joint development by Israel Aircraft Industries’ subsidiary Elta Electronic Systems Ltd and the Re’em Electronic Systems Division of Israel Military Industries (IMI). The MWS component is Elta’s EL/M-2160 (or variant), a pulse-Doppler radar system operationally deployed on military aircraft within Israel and elsewhere. The dispensing system is IMI’s SAMP, which would almost certainly use flares produced by IMI’s Rocket Systems Division (e.g., the FG-6).

FLIGHT GUARD competes primarily with an infrared-jamming system called BRITENING within Israel’s commercial airliner market, although there are applicable US and Russian systems also. BRITENING, produced by Israel’s Rafael Armament Authority, is an integrated ultraviolet MWS and lamp-based directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM) system. The appeal of FLIGHT GUARD rests primarily in that it is significantly less expensive than BRITENING and it is fully-developed, utilizing mature, battle-tested subsystems. Applicable US systems include Northrop Grumman’s (N-G) AN/AAQ-24(V) Nemesis, an integrated UV MWS and lamp-based DIRCM, that is in production and operationally deployed, N-G’s LAIRCM (a laser-based adaptation of Nemesis), and the SAFEFLIGHT system, an integrated pulse-Doppler radar MWS and decoy dispenser produced jointly by the Raytheon Company of the US and Israel’s Elta. It is not clear, however, whether Nemesis, LAIRCM, or SAFEFLIGHT would be granted license by the US Government for installation on foreign commercial aircraft. The Airborne Laser Jamming System (ALJS), produced and marketed by Russia’s NPO AS, also competes for sales to commercial airliners.


Country: United Kingdom, United States
Topic: TECHNOLOGY, TERRORISM
Source-Date: 01/08/2003

UK's BAe Systems To Research Anti-Missile Lasers for US Commercial Aircraft


British Airways has held talks with the defence company BAe Systems about arming its fleet of 300 aircraft with lasers to deflect terrorist missiles.

The national flag carrier's interest emerged as BAe Systems announced that it was among three companies to win $2m (1.1m pounds) US government contracts to work on anti-missile systems for American commercial airliners. Airlines have become increasingly concerned about the threat of missiles since an Israeli charter flight came under attack from shoulder-launched rockets while taking off from Mombasa in 2002.

BAe Systems' technology detects incoming rockets and fires a laser beam to act as a decoy. The equipment has been deployed on 6,000 military aircraft worldwide and is being adapted for civilian use.

A BA spokesman said BAe Systems was "one of a number" of companies which the airline had spoken to. Other potential suppliers are believed to include Boeing and Airbus. The spokesman said it was "still early days", adding: "The issue is whether the cur rent technology can be adapted for civilian aircraft."

The US Department of Homeland Security wants to begin fitting anti-missile systems to commercial jets in America by 2006. It said yesterday that BAe Systems, Northrop Grumman and United Airlines were to carry out feasibility studies.


Region: Near East/South Asia
Sub-Region: Near East
Country: Israel
Topic: TERRORISM, PROLIFERATION
Source-Date: 06/14/2004

Israel: Civilian Planes To Get New Elbit-Rafael Antimissile System End of 2005

Elbit Systems subsidiary Elop Electro-Optics Industries and Rafael Armament Development Authority, which is government-owned, have formed a team to complete the development, manufacture, and marketing of a system to protect aircraft from Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS), also known as shoulder-launched missiles. The combined system is based on Rafael's Britening Directed Infra-Red Counter-Measures (DIRCM) suite and on El-Op's MUSIC (Multi-Spectral Infrared Countermeasure ) system.

The companies said they had agreed that Rafael would lead the activities in the civil aviation markets, while El-Op would lead the activities in the military markets. The Israeli Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Defense have already selected the Rafael-Elbit Systems protection suite as the long-term solution for the Civil Aviation Protection Plan, which calls for a long-term, robust DIRCM solution for all Israeli commercial aircraft.

Elbit Systems corporate VP Hayim Russo, who is general manager of El-Op, said: "As the major electro-optics (EO) supplier to the IDF, we have accumulated vast experience with lasers and other EO systems. Our Multi-Spectral Fiber-Laser is eye-safe and provides an outstanding IR countermeasure source. Its maturity and design constitutes a pioneering solution in airborne lasers."







[edit on 30-9-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 



Good topic EW 86. Let's start with the cockpit doors and how the hijackers breached the cockpit. According to this designnews.com article, the cockpit doors were considered weak enough to be able to be breached.

The airlines began installing short-term reinforcements—such as metal locking bars— soon after the attacks. But the long term goal of making cockpit doors impenetrable to would-be attackers will require much more engineering work. Doors that once served primarily as privacy screens for the flight crew will have to be redesigned, according to a report from the U.S. Secretary of Transportation's Rapid Response Team.


I'm going to assume that the above quote is irrelevant. As it seems that the air crews were surprised and didn't have time to enter the hijack code into the transponder. If the hijackers had to break the door down, the flight crew surely would've heard some kind of noises. This leaves me with three questions. Are the cockpit doors always locked during flight? Can you unlock them from the outside? If so, who has a key?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Until a pilot or Mr. Lear answers this, allow me to guess: Cockpit doors in 2001 were not ' privacy screens, but as I recall seeing them from flying a lot during that period were about 1/2 to 3/4' thick and seemed to be made of the melamine type board used in walls and lavatorie doors, etc. Cockpit doors, since at least the 60's, HAVE to be shut and locked unless a good reason exists for opening it, such as a pilot going aft or some other reason. It is obvious: Why would any flight take a risk of some deranged passenger just popping into the cockpit and caausing trouble when locking it keeps them out?

Sure, the cockpit doors COULD be breached, maybe by a few hard kicks at the lock level, but then you have the pilots to fight off or kill, and then having to haul their bodies out of the cramped cockpit area, then crawl in and take over. And to believe that they ALL knew exactly how to turn the transponders off but could not get the right mike for the job is ridiculous, as Mr. Lear points out. It only takes a SECOND to do: Is it possible or LIKELY that in all FOUR cases the doors could have been breached and the pilots over whelmed before even ONE of them could get off the alert? No way on earth.

When the doors were being kicked or otherwise breached, and there are not many alternatives with a boxcutter as your only tools, the pilot would have alerted. When the door was opening and the ' highjackers ' were entering and assaulting, one pilot would have tripped the alert. Some other crew member, from loocations known to them, could have , but did not, send the alert. What are the odds? Betty Ong could get a cell phone to work and spend time reading a script, but could not trip the alert?

The ONLY logical answer if remote highjacking. That is the ONLY alternative that makes any sense at all. No person with critical thinking abilities could possibly accept odds like that needed to believe that in all four cases, with eight pilots and many more crew members, not ONE of them was able to send the alert. No way. Once the commotion of the breaching of the doors started, there is MORE than sufficient time for ONE of the crew members to alert. There is time, opportunity and motive, but no action, according to the Official Lie. Why? Why would all of the elements of a required and necessary action be ignored with all of the elements of it intact and present? It makes no sense.

So the cockpit doors were most likely closed and locked, and they could have been opened with either several hard kicks or a tool like a crowbar, perhaps, which the alleged highjackers did not have according to the official story; the pilots were both naaturally unwilling to relinquish control of the plane to anyone, for any reason, unless physically disabled or killed, which would have taken some time even by the most trained and skilled assassin, and by all accounts there were no heavyweights on the list of culprits. So TIME was pentiful, and MOTIVATION was plentiful, and OPPORTUNITY was plentiful, so are we to believe that the pilots and crew simply forgot or decided that what was happening was no big deal?

Anyone who can give us a scenario with all available evidence that shows how a few highjackers could accomplish such overwhelming feats in less than a second or two please do so; otherwise I think it is safe to assume that the planes were remotely taken, and flown to their destinations, wherever that may have been: Either a switch at some airfields and all passengers loaded onto one flight and then ditched at sea as some believe, or perhaps some other scenario; for sure none was sent to Washington, and great evidence suggests that the original craft were NOT what hit the Towers, if in fact anything at all did.

But the sure bet is that remote highjacking was the real deal that day. The fact that all flights were level and showed NO jerks or bumps or deviations that can be attributed to a highjacking seals the deal. If this isn't proof, then something is wrong somewhere.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Good topic EW 86. Let's start with the cockpit doors and how the hijackers breached the cockpit. According to this designnews.com article, the cockpit doors were considered weak enough to be able to be breached.


So were they feeble enough to be breached faster than the panic button could be activated? if they were made out of anything stronger than open air I would guess the answer to be 'no'.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Nice catch OP. I had not even considered that red flag before. The lack of hijack warnings. Definitely appears over the top on believability. I thought the C 137's already had shoulder fired missile deflection capabilities with aft mounted flare cannisters such that saved all those senators recently.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   


originally posted by jprophet420
So were they feeble enough to be breached faster than the panic button could be activated? if they were made out of anything stronger than open air I would guess the answer to be 'no'.


They may not have had to been kicked down or broken into. According to FAA rules all cockpit doors had to be locked before takeoff. But, in 1997 the NTSB required that all flight attendants must have keys to the cockpit door on them during the flight. Apparently some airlines were concerned by the amount of keys that would require and also, that those keys may be possessed by people who should not have them. So the NTSB gave them another option by allowing a cockpit door key to be placed strategically on board the aircraft in the passenger cabin that could be easily accessible to flight attendants.

These rules came about after flight attendants could not make contact with the flight crew during an in-flight fire.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Wow, that is nuts to have accessible keyed door. You would think they would have one of those 5 button numeral punch coded doors like they have a my work.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by eyewitness86




Until a pilot or Mr. Lear answers this, allow me to guess: Cockpit doors in 2001 were not ' privacy screens, but as I recall seeing them from flying a lot during that period were about 1/2 to 3/4' thick and seemed to be made of the melamine type board used in walls and lavatorie doors, etc. Cockpit doors, since at least the 60's, HAVE to be shut and locked unless a good reason exists for opening it, such as a pilot going aft or some other reason. It is obvious: Why would any flight take a risk of some deranged passenger just popping into the cockpit and caausing trouble when locking it keeps them out?



Eyewitness86 is correct. That the pilots of all 4 airplanes were overwhelmed is nonsense. Of all the pilots I have talked to since 911, without exception they have all said the same thing: if any hijacker broke into the cockpit te first thing they would do is roll the airplane inverted and push back and forth. This would bang the hijacker from ceiling to floor and either knock him unconscious or severely limit his capacity to respond.

Forget this pilots 'overwhelmed' nonsense. It did not happen. It could not happen. Its sheer, total nonsense.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Here is the NTSB document(PDF) that I referred to in my previous post. Page 8. It seems to be a summary of the accident.

It is known that some of the pilots had done ''reconnaissance'' flights prior to 9/11. On any one of these flights, it is possible that the hijackers could have witnessed the location of the hidden key or that the flight attendants had keys on them. Is it not possible that the hijackers could have just used a key to get access to the flight deck?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 

So ....What about all of the passengers? Wouldn't they fly around the cabin too?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join