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: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wsamplet
You are still discounting the fact that most peoples initial reaction to something startling is confusion and to freeze up, followed up by the flight response. Very few people are instantly and without hesitation aggressive. Human nature is enough for me to believe that the pilots on the WTC planes and the Pentagon plane could be subdued rather quickly. These pilots expected a normal day, not a cockpit intrusion by slashing jihadists.



But pilots go through tons of training to handle emergency situations. They would not freeze up like most people. Also what man is going to be that afraid of a boxcutter to just let a guy come in and cut him?

If you were the pilot fighting for your life and responsible for the poeple on the plane are you just going to stand and let the hijackers take you down, or you going to fight back?



[edit on 15-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Good points. I am slightly overwhelmed by the evidence collected against Ziad. However, I have to wonder how he came to be in posession of documents concerning Hanjour's pilot training.

Worth noting is Hani Hanjour was rejected when he tried to rent a Cessna aircraft, due to his difficulties controlling and landing the plane. But his log book showed 600 hours? There is again no evidence showing he had any real experience flying a jet aircraft.

Flight 77, which he apparantly hijacked and piloted, was noted by air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien as being flown like a fighter jet, due to "the speed, the maneouverability, the way that he turned".

I'd say before learning to fly anything into the Pentagon, he'd learn to fly the aircraft first - and judging his Cessna performance, and the witness testimony, I'd say it contradicts his logbook as noted by Marcel Bernard, the chief instructor who refused him rental on the very same grounds 1 month earlier.

Link

Re: John Lear, of course he can be questioned and investigated. However, claiming that a terrorist is a better trained pilot than John Lear is ridiculous, and displays ignorance to the extreme. People make wild claims here all the time, but John can back his aviation claims up with solid evidence - where's the solid evidence supporting the amazing flying skills of these terrorist pilots?

So where is the evidence of plastic knives and boxcutters?



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by adjay
Good points. I am slightly overwhelmed by the evidence collected against Ziad. However, I have to wonder how he came to be in posession of documents concerning Hanjour's pilot training.


The documents of Hani's logbook come from JetTech. Apparently they photocopied his logbook when he was there for the simulator training.


Worth noting is Hani Hanjour was rejected when he tried to rent a Cessna aircraft, due to his difficulties controlling and landing the plane. But his log book showed 600 hours? There is again no evidence showing he had any real experience flying a jet aircraft.


This is a good point. It seems a little odd to me also. Worth noting is that you cannot get the most basic pilot's license without flying solo. There is no way around it. The flight instructor that refused to rent him the aircraft seems to think that he had difficulties due to the fact that he had just finished up simulator time in a commercial jet and he may have been missing the approaches because of that.



Flight 77, which he apparantly hijacked and piloted, was noted by air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien as being flown like a fighter jet, due to "the speed, the maneouverability, the way that he turned".


Maybe she said this because she is used to watching aircraft come in to land at 200 mph. It is FAA regulation that nonmilitary aircraft cannot exceed 250 knots below 10,000 feet. Flight 77 never went slower than that once it was hijacked.

Marcel Bernard, the flight instructor who refused to rent him a Cessna, also said that he had no doubt that Hani could hit the Pentagon once it got going.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Maybe she said this because she is used to watching aircraft come in to land at 200 mph. It is FAA regulation that nonmilitary aircraft cannot exceed 250 knots below 10,000 feet. Flight 77 never went slower than that once it was hijacked.


Or maybe she said it because her and the rest of the experienced controllers knew what a airliner flys like and what a military plane flys like.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
He he "The box cutters".

Here's a picture of the box cutter found in Mohamed Atta's luggage at Logan Airport. Link

Here are pictures from the Zacharias Moussaoui trial. I'm not familiar enough with the trial to say for sure what these images imply. Whether it be evidence from the hijackers were just pictures of the types of knives that they had purchased before the hijackings.
Here
Here
Here
Here

I'm having a hard time finding the picture of the knife from flight 93, but here is a link to a worldnetdaily article talking about the FBI finding a knife at the crash scene. I don't know anything about worldnetdaily, so take it as you will.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by Ultima 1

Or maybe she said it because her and the rest of the experienced controllers knew what a airliner flys like and what a military plane flys like.



What is your point Ultima 1? Do you believe it was a military aircraft? Do you think that a 757 cannot fly in that manner?

I'll be more than happy to post videos of large airliners doing lot more than flight 77 did.

[edit on 15-10-2007 by Boone 870]



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Maybe the point is that a guy that couldn't rent a Cessna and had never flown a heavy jet before was supposed to have impresses the ATYC's so much that they thought that it was a military pilot, which would normally be the ones doing radical turns and descents,huh? Ya reckon?

How come the people who accept the official story never manage to answer the really tough questions and find ways to slip by with the side issues as well? There are HUNDREDS of ' inexplicable anomalies ' associated with this one series of events happening on one day, events that defy the odds over and over again to the extreme. Once you hear a lame and unlikley alternative from a believer, they move to another without having addressed the first thoroughly.

There are too many anomalies, far too many, for anyone to accept the official story. There should be lots of things that are not there, and there should not be things there that are, and that happens over and over until the mind reels trying to imagine all that as coincidence and happenstance...no way. You cannot get 1/ 100th of the way thru this story without running into fact after fact that screams out for attention, but is swept aside by the official story crowd as unimportant or ' unproven ' despite reams of evidence.

Too many weird things. Too many anomalies, too many questions not answered. The official story is a lie and we are seeing the taking of a nation right in front of us, eyes wide open, and doing basically nothing . Our leaders are doing nothing and we do not get rid of them,. Shame on US, and shame on them as well. Get thru the first hundred anomalies and then I will maybe begin to see things differently; until ALL of the hundreds of them are dealt with, it is an inside job without a doubt and nothing could convince me otherwise. Too much too late; no evidence offered now could undo the trachery seen heretofore.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
What is your point Ultima 1? Do you believe it was a military aircraft? Do you think that a 757 cannot fly in that manner?

I'll be more than happy to post videos of large airliners doing lot more than flight 77 did.



Oh i have been to plenty of airshows, and have seen what airliners can do. The problem is we are still not sure about flight 77 since it was off radar for several minuets. Plus the way the 1 witness described certain things like putting down the gear and trying to fight the plane, alomsot like the pilot was not in contol just along for the ride.

We still have no vidoes or photos released, harldy any of the 40,000 photos that the FBI took of the crime scenes.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Ok, this would be the same luggage that included a list of the 19 hijackers, some (7+?) of which are still alive today? What the hell would Atta carry that for again? Did he intend to do a roll call or something mid flight?

It also containted plans, backgrounds, and motives. How convenient. It's almost like Atta felt a touch guilty about being given this oppurtunity on a plate, and decided he would give up a chance to be caught. Seriously, where do we draw the line?

Are they highly intelligent, fit, agile, stealthy, sneaky, formidable, well trained, deceptive and ruthless terrorists, or insanely stupid idiots that got so terribly lucky that day?

Neither fits with the evidence.

There was even a passport and international driving licence in that bag. And a VHS cassette for a 757 simulator. What the hell would they want that on their final plane journey?


That piece of luggage was said to contain Arab-language papers amounting to Atta's last will and testament, along with instructions to the other hijackers to prepare themselves physically and spiritually for death. The papers also admonished them: "Check all of your items -- your bag, your clothes, knives, your will, your IDs, your passport, your papers. ... Make sure that nobody is following you." Similar papers were also found in the wreckage of another crashed airliner.


So Atta bought his will along too. Safe in the knowledge that it wouldn't be loaded on the plane (no reason given for either bag not being loaded, seem to be the only two bags not loaded). Also, he included some instructions written by himself, for himself, but again knowing they would be left behind in the airport.

In any real court, this would be the most stinking piece of framed evidence ever, but without any defendants to be prosecuted, what does it matter? It's been reported now, with all the meaty "good" bits included, and the stinking majority of "crap" conveniently left out.

No evidence of boxcutters or plastic knives, on any plane still.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 


Why do you imply that the luggage was left behind intentionally? Have you ever heard of misplaced luggage? It happens every day at airports all around the world.

Did you ever consider that the hijackers could have been thinking a. for the possibility that the operation may not have been able to be pulled off that day? You know, delayed flight or canceled flight. Maybe that's why he brought those things along.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Think about it! Why make a will if you are just going to incinerate it along with your suicide bomb 767? Why take a passport if again, you are on a continental flight and its going to blow anyway?

I do apokogise - it's hard to put over the feeling of wanting to bang my . into a concrete wall when I read about stupendously ridiculous things like Atta's "luggage", or the passport found with slightly singed edges in the streets of NYC, or any other seemingly blatant and fabricated tales that people seem to accept without a second thought, so I resort to a form of sarcasm.


I know you're a good guy Boone, but it's difficult to see you make statements like your last there. You have every right to, of course, but in all seriousness, like I said earlier, you can't have it both ways. Either these guys were zealots and worked up in a drug-like frenzy ready to take control or they weren't. They were hardly "playing it safe" and just taking a ride with the possibility of "not going a. with it". It couldn't be stopped once started, due to timing issues of the flights/locations/communications.

PS. I'm not implying it was left behind intentionally, but I am saying it defies all logic to place most of those items in that bag, even more so with the risk of it being checked, to the point where it shoots the entire official story down like a lead weight full of holes.

The only possible use for these things would be to get caught and ruin the entire mission before it even started.

[edit on 16-10-2007 by adjay]



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


Eyewitness86

I response to your post from 10/15:

1. Pilots are not always "on the edge" or "ramped up". They are human beings like the rest of us. When faced with the same routine every day, they too are lulled into a false sense of security and can be lax with their job. Some pilots do suffer stress, but most reports show the stress is caused by insomnia and scheduling more than anything else.

As far being highly trained, yes they are for flying aircraft. They get simulator time to practice emergencies like mechanical and electronic failure, dealing with weather conditions, etc. They aren't placed in a simulator so someone can come through the door wielding a knife and defend themselves. I can bet (and would bet your resident expert John Lear would confirm) that for hijacking, they are taught to comply with the hijackers demands and get that aircraft on the ground so the pro's can deal with the hijackers. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that hijack training is nothing more than reading a manual and what the airline's policy is.

2. You keep playing a numbers game about it being four cockpits and eight pilots being overwhelmed by the hijackers. The odds that the hijackers faced were not something like 1-4 or 1-8. Worst case scenario for them is 1-2 or 50% because each team were only faced with one cockpit and two pilots. Taking into account the planning, practice, and surprise; the odds were better than that. They planned to take that cockpit and prevent the pilots from sending out a call to ATC. Your numbers only work if they pilots are either in contact with each other or can see what is happening on each aircraft, which was not the case.

3. Thank you for bringing up their hands and what they would be doing into response of being attacked. Again, you state that they are going to put up their hands when being attacked, but wrongly assume in the same movement they are going to key the mike and call ATC while someone is slashing at you with, essentially, a razor blade in a cramped space. For one, with a cramped space, even one attacker can overwhelm two people because of that same space. Both pilots are there in arms reach, strapped to a chair they can't just hop out of. The pilots are going to have to twist around in those same chairs to try and defend themselves. Putting their hands in front of them only removes their hands from the yoke and the button.

4. Why would I, as an attacker need to haul bodies? Do we know the pilots were killed where they sat? We don't. As an attacker, all I need to really do is gain control. Then I can either order you out of the seat or pull you out. If they did indeed kill them and get blood everywhere, I'm sure they could find something to wipe it up. I highly doubt that it is unheard of a passenger spilling a drink and the airplane doesn't have something on board to deal with it.

5. Getting the ax and defending your buddy so he can send out the mayday? So, when were these pilots warned something was up so they could plan a defense? The facts of that day prove that three aircraft were hijacked before any warning was ever sent. Only flight 93 had been warned, but it sounds like they "couldn't believe their ears". That hesitation and waiting for confirmation cost them preparation time.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheetrockerr
5. Getting the ax and defending your buddy so he can send out the mayday? So, when were these pilots warned something was up so they could plan a defense? The facts of that day prove that three aircraft were hijacked before any warning was ever sent. Only flight 93 had been warned, but it sounds like they "couldn't believe their ears". That hesitation and waiting for confirmation cost them preparation time.


"Couldn't believe their ears" ? Does that mean they didn't get a warning then?

The fact that no plane could key a mic (split second, involves moving a finger a quarter of an inch), indicates that the hijackers took control of the planes in some amazingly short timescale.

Did the hijackers teleport into the cockpit? Or did they charge the aisles, herding people away from themselves, making lots of noise and threats to passengers and crew, then break through the cockpit doors to find the pilots had been listening to their ipods and completely taken by surprise?

Would you hand your plane to somebody that couldnt fly? After they threatened they had a bomb? What way out of that could there possibly be? (Consider that Flight 93 tried to "re-take" the cockpit after hearing about the WTC collisions - something the pilots KNEW when they gave up control)



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
[Did the hijackers teleport into the cockpit? Or did they charge the aisles, herding people away from themselves, making lots of noise and threats to passengers and crew, then break through the cockpit doors to find the pilots had been listening to their ipods and completely taken by surprise?


I think the hijackers must have been super ninjas.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by adjay
 



Adjay,

Considering we have a 2 minute lapse between the time the warning was sent and the request to confirm it, I can guess that they couldn't believe what they were hearing. I mean, heck, you get a message saying the two aircraft have just crashed into the WTC via hijacking, I can imagine they turned to each other and ask "What the .....", "Is this a prank?", "Are you sure that came from ATC?". If they understood the message, why call back at 9:26 a.m. asking for confirmation?

The other possibility as that ATC was not talking to the pilots. As I pointed out in another post, NORAD's timeline states they were notified by the FAA at 9:16 a.m. that Flight 93 may have been hijacked.

So, the pilots either spent two minutes in disbelief (again, why ask for confirmation if you understood the message the first time?) or they weren't the pilots at all. I tend to believe the hijacking took place on ATC's timeline and not NORADS because of when the aircraft changed course and the transponder was shut off.

As for your other comments, I've already presented what could have happened in previous posts in serious discussion, but what the hay. We already have "remote taking", holograms, and space weapons being presented. I guess either the Enterpise or the Death Star were lurking about that day without anything better to do...



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheetrockerr
So, the pilots either spent two minutes in disbelief (again, why ask for confirmation if you understood the message the first time?) or they weren't the pilots at all. I tend to believe the hijacking took place on ATC's timeline and not NORADS because of when the aircraft changed course and the transponder was shut off.


I believe they were asking for information on the message not to confirm it.. I think experienced pilots would know what a cockpit intrusion and hijacking is.



[edit on 17-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sheetrockerr
 


I'm sorry, but commercial jet pilots aren't "noobs" by any standard. The way you describe them is like some random guy off the street has found himself behind the wheel of a 767.

Do you know any commercial pilots? I know a couple through the limited flying time I have under my belt, and it's impossible to imagine these guys, or anyone else I've met at an airfield (ATC etc), buffooning about in a cockpit. The training and experience they have, generally means they are very confident when controlling their vehicle. Commercial jet pilots are the most experienced of them all, check up on what it takes to be one - and check out all the pilots that want to do it but can't get the work.

Come on! Wondering "Is this a prank?" I can see how it fits your agenda but its not realistic by any means. They would be well aware, even if it was a prank, there is a chance it could be real. And when asking for confirmation on radio, the common practice is to assume the worst, for very obvious reasons.

Maybe they weren't the pilots, who really knows. What is undeniable, is that there is no possible way you could herd up passengers on a plane, and "take" the pilots out of their seats, without the pilots being aware something was going on and sending at least one message. Even if they had no warning.

Remember, the hijackers could hold off the passenger "uprising" by using closed doors and wondering whether to use the fireaxe or cut oxygen to the passenger compartment. How then, did the plane get taken in 120 seconds? Obviously, if you cannot accept they were warned despite the evidence, it's pointless to ask yourself this question.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Originally posted by adjay

Think about it! Why make a will if you are just going to incinerate it along with your suicide bomb 767? Why take a passport if again, you are on a continental flight and its going to blow anyway?


I'm trying, but the hijackers have a different mindset and they are of a different religion, country, and culture. Why not make a will if you knew you're going to die. Do you know that Atta had sent a package back to the Middle East less than one week before the attacks? Maybe he sent a copy of that will back to his family. Who knows!

You posted a quote above of the list that Atta had in his checked luggage. Since he was the ringleader of the operation in America and he stayed in a different city than some of the hijackers the night before, maybe that was a reminder for him to read off to all the other hijackers before the attacks.

If you were a foreign national in a foreign land on a student/tourism visa, why wouldn't you carry your passport? The items were found in checked luggage, that means they were checked in before you go to security and they are x-rayed for bombs and such. Extremely low chance of being searched if nothing suspicious is noticed.


I do apokogise - it's hard to put over the feeling of wanting to bang my . into a concrete wall when I read about stupendously ridiculous things like Atta's "luggage", or the passport found with slightly singed edges in the streets of NYC, or any other seemingly blatant and fabricated tales that people seem to accept without a second thought, so I resort to a form of sarcasm.


Sarcasm doesn't bother me. Neither does being direct.

Just as an aside, Atta's luggage was lost on the Portland to Logan flight. If it was going to be planted, why not plant it at Logan?

There were four hijacker passports found after the attacks. Two at the flight 93 crash site, the one in the luggage, and the one on the streets of New York.

What other things were found on the streets of New York that day? Money, wallets, driver's licenses, body parts, and cell phones? I would say definitely, but none of them made the news because they were not passports that belong to the hijackers. If it wasn't a passport that belonged to the hijacker and it was a passenger's driver's license, do you think you would know about it? Do you think that it would be newsworthy? If you did know about it, would you be on this web site questioning the validity and possibility of a passenger's driver's license surviving the impact?


I know you're a good guy Boone, but it's difficult to see you make statements like your last there. You have every right to, of course, but in all seriousness, like I said earlier, you can't have it both ways.


Why not? Why would one assume that everything had to be perfect? That's one of the things that bothers me about conspiracy theorist. If I can't present 100% facts and reasons, then I'm wrong. Why the double standard?

Example: There is no way that all four aircraft could be taken over without any of the pilots getting off a radio call? (Flight 93 did by the way.)

I have given two examples, not including the 9/11 hijackings, of hijackings that occurred before 9/11 of pilots not getting off radio calls within "seconds" of the hijackers entering the cockpit.

Where are your examples of your theory? Can you show me any examples?



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I have no theory - hence the reason I wonder the answers, and also wonder why these answers weren't investigated, on this terrible, terrible crime.

I do not believe the Official Version of "how it was", but I put forward no "Conspiracy Theory", and to label me one is to label me wrongly.

There are too many things we are expected to take for granted, and not question. When we do question them, we have to accept vague, puffy suggestions and theories in place of evidence anf fact. I don't believe there has been a crime in the history of man so great, and yet so uninvestigated.

I accept the passport may have been an item carried under those circumstance, and do not know how things work in the US with regard to this. In my country, you wouldn't be asked for it unless under suspicsion of criminal activity.

This however does not explain how it survived the huge fireballs we saw on that day as the planes hit. And yes, I would question a passengers driving licence being found too; was there one? Nothing made of anything less than metal would have survived the 800C flash fire and burning, in my opinion. I'd like to see somebody test it under controlled conditions, something I would assume might happen if a real investigation was carried out.

Maybe it is common practice also for suicide bombers to carry their wills on them for whatever reason, but I'd need to see a link to confirm that. I think anybody would agree, when comitting suicide, the one place you would never have a will is on your person, moreso if you were dying in such a spectacular and destructive way.

I also doubt Atta would have spoken to them over the phone about this on the morning. There may be another reason why he'd have those instructions, but I doubt it.

With regards the Flight 93 crash - again I find it difficult to swallow two passports were found in a readable state, ploughing a flimsy jet at god knows what speed into the ground, leaving behind just a crater, half a turbofan engine (1 ft down), and 2 black boxes (15ft + 23ft down).

BTW, I wasn't saying you were wrong, only that you had to pick. Terrorists can't be two opposing things at once - they cannot be ruthless and caring at the same time for example. Nor crap at flying but militaristically precise simultaneously.

Also, you did give examples, but they weren't entirely conclusive - given the small scale of the news in comparison to this, the investigations had no air of conspiracy about them, and many many things added up in the reported situations.

Unfortunately, I cannot give many examples, as most of what I say is based on the fact that many of these things have never happened in history before, ever. So, these would now appear to be my primary sources.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by adjay
With regards the Flight 93 crash - again I find it difficult to swallow two passports were found in a readable state, ploughing a flimsy jet at god knows what speed into the ground, leaving behind just a crater, half a turbofan engine (1 ft down), and 2 black boxes (15ft + 23ft down).



Flight attendant possessions from flight 93.americanhistory.si.edu

Hijacker IDs from flight 93. Link.

Both links found at wtc7lies.googlepages.com




top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join