How Were the Cockpits Taken ? Examining the Logistics

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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.

And I won't deny that they were asking for more info, a clarification, or what have you. I would certainly expect that they do know what a hijacking and cockpit intrusion is. If they didn't, they shouldn't have been where they were.

But, I can imagine that when they heard "Beware any cockpit intrusion—two a/c hit World Trade Center", that they wondered what the hell was going on. That's human nature. Does that mean that they sat there for two minutes with their jaws dropped? Nope. A few moments of disbelief? Sure. Again, it's human nature when presented with something out of the ordinary.

In my opinion, though, I don't think they mounted a defense in those two minutes. I can think of a lot of actions that they probably did take. Make sure the door is locked, call the cabin and notify the stewards, ask the stewards if they have seen anyone acting unusual, etc.

One thing I do wonder, though. Why did it take two minutes for them to confirm the message? Why didn't they call ATC back immediately with something like "ATC, repeat that last message."

Originally posted by adjay

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I'd suggest that with John Lear's claim to be the most-certified pilot in America these terrorists were probably better-trained in flying their particular aircraft than he is, given the time and expense needed to get "hours" for certification and their choice to learn only how to "fly" a particular aircraft, not "take-off", "land" etc meaning they had far less to learn. I also wonder how many of his certifications are current.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard posted on this forum. So their private pilots licence (if they had one - not all did), and a few video's and hours in a simulator make them better trained in flying than John?

No, but I'll give you plus points for deliberately misunderstanding me. I said their particular planes. I ride a motorbike (actually, I ride several, as do my friends), but I can tell you now, I ride a street bike much better than a mate who lives on his trailbike and vice-versa. On dirt, I can't catch him, and my 20-year old bike actually accelerates better than his 10-year old model. But on bitumen, when we're both on 4-cylinders, I'm always in the lead. Another example: I can get a Land Rover through mud and up hills better than another mate, he can get his WRX across gravel faster than me, yet both are 4wd. As I said, the zealots were probably at least equally skilled in piloting those particular models through the sky. ie, knowing the feel of those particular aircraft, the quirks and idiosyncracies of that model.

Seriously, you may not agree with what he says, or like him, for whatever reasons, but comments like that have zero logic and are unfounded. You even explain how you are wrong by pointing out these terrorists only chose to learn "flying", while John on the other hand has an immense amount of practical experience in almost every aspect of aviation.

That's right. They specialised in only one thing. ie they were experts in their chosen field. Who are you going to have do your heart bypass, a cardiac surgeon or a GP? Again, jack of all; master of none...They learnt only what they needed to know to carry out their specific task and no more, John has had to dilute his expertise across many aircraft types and many systems. I speculated as to the "currency" (ugh, yuck) of John's certification. Exactly which planes is he currently licenced to "solo"? For which airframes are his logbooks up-to-date? As a generalist, yes, he's an excellent source, but that doesn't make him the best source, or an expert on these aircraft, not unless he holds a current certificate. Just because my former room-mate's old man is a former Wing Commander in the RAAF who flew Hornets, doesn't mean he knows about Concorde, or Jumbo, or Airbus...

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Just because you had a Heavy Articulated truck licence 20 years ago...

Correct, but it also means that the truck driver has immense experience outweighing anybody who may be physically fit to carry out the task. Hence the reason most "teachers" of a given subject have numbered years of experience in the said field.

What?

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Again I ask you, highly trained in what? I am a highly trained professional who spent four years at university, but that is of no use in defending myself against a razor-wielding zealot.

Highly trained in carrying a 80 tonne plane that travels at ~500mph loaded with ~200 civilians, armed with a lot of highly explosive fuel. Whatever you learnt at university may or may not help in this situation, but compared to a professional commercial jet pilot, it's obvious most university graduates would be lacking.

And what does any of that have to do with overpowering armed terrorists?

There is a lot more on the route to flying commercial jets than a 4 year university course.

Yes, but we're not talking about piloting, we're talking about self-defence, or even CQB, which has nothing to do with the route to multi-engine commercial pilot's licences, exactly as does my much-discussed four years of hard drinking...er...study.

All your talk about training is meant purely to obfuscate the fact that the pilots were sitting, presumably strapped into, in armchairs with their feet on pedals and a control column between their legs, yet you would have them able to get out of their armchairs and arm themselves with axes with which to fight off terrorists mounting a surprise attack. I'm waiting for the movie starring Arnie...or maybe Seagal will be cheaper....

Unless, of course, pilots don't fly with their hands on the stick and their feet on the pedals and their harnesses engaged...

Did they have razors as well now? Any source for that?

Just the chatter about box-cutters and a box-cutter has been proven to be the equivalent of a razor and more than the minimum necessary to sever someone's carotid artery. and before you jump on that one, the chatter about box-cutters is at least as valid as your "highly-trained" pilots...After all, I'm only saying how it could have been done.

reply to post by adjay



Where I am saying these pilots are "noobs"? Is it because I'm not claiming they are not Superman, Rambo, or "insert super human here"? They are "noobs" because I am pointing out they are human beings like the rest of us on this planet? These pilots are prone to react based on their experience, training, and nature like anyone else.

Do I know any commercial pilots? Nope. I've only known ones that are trained to fly with bombs, missiles, bullets, plus some tanker drivers. Never repaired a commercial airliner, only F111, F15, A10, KC135, and KC10. Flown on a couple of C5 and C130 as well. Myself, I've only worked around Tac and Sac for 10 years. Know nothing of what it is like to have a joker at Incirlik sit outside the fence shooting at 111's while on TDY, have some nutjob from CND cut through the fence at Upper Heyford to beat on a 111 loaded with 500lbs bombs with a hammer, or having a knife stuck in my back while crossing one of the Queen's Highways (again, Upper Heyford) on my way to the barracks. Nor do I know anything about reacting to a stressful situation like these.

I know that doesn't measure up to your limited flying time, me having been just a poor ole Crew Chief certified to work around nukes and all, but I'll go with what I got.

Now, please really point out where I state that I think pilots are bunch of buffoons that do nothing but horseplay in the cockpit, or more in particular, that the pilots during 911 were doing anything other than their job. The only things I have been pointing out (I guess that's my agenda) is that pilots are human, not supermen like many posts want us to believe. That they are susceptible to human nature, just like the rest of us. Some are exceptional people, some you really wonder how the hell they got the job.

As for it being impossible to herd up the passengers and then storm the cockpit without the pilots being aware of the situation, nothing is impossible with the right amount of planning and training. I would also imagine that a pilot being taken out of his seat would have an idea that something is up.

Originally posted by sheetrockerr
I know that doesn't measure up to your limited flying time, me having been just a poor ole Crew Chief certified to work around nukes and all, but I'll go with what I got.

Hey, from a fellow Crew Chief. Who also worked in Engalnd at RAF Alconbury.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
As I said, the zealots were probably at least equally skilled in piloting those particular models through the sky. ie, knowing the feel of those particular aircraft, the quirks and idiosyncracies of that model.

You appear to be unable to read your own writings:

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIVthese terrorists were probably better-trained in flying their particular aircraft than he is

How did the zealots know the feel, quirks and idiosyncracies? By never actually flying one? By never actually flying any jet, in fact?

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIVI speculated as to the "currency" (ugh, yuck) of John's certification. Exactly which planes is he currently licenced to "solo"? For which airframes are his logbooks up-to-date? As a generalist, yes, he's an excellent source, but that doesn't make him the best source, or an expert on these aircraft, not unless he holds a current certificate. Just because my former room-mate's old man is a former Wing Commander in the RAAF who flew Hornets, doesn't mean he knows about Concorde, or Jumbo, or Airbus...

Does any of it matter? Unless you can provide real hard proof that the ones who flew those planes were more experienced than John, it's hot air. Some of his certification may be dated, but at least he has some and has plenty of experience flying many aircraft.. You might choose the terrorists for lessons, but I'd hedge my cash to let John teach me.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
What?

I'll try and make it simpler. If you had a truck licence 20 years ago, you're going to get the job over anybody who has less experience more times than not. Experience really does count, in many parts of life, and it's not as cheap a commodity you make it out to be.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
And what does any of that have to do with overpowering armed terrorists?

Who said it did? You compared your 4 years at uni not helping you defend yourself against razor wielding terrorists (evidence?) to a pilots life experience flying and being trained for the job of piloting a commercial airline and following proper procedures.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Yes, but we're not talking about piloting, we're talking about self-defence, or even CQB, which has nothing to do with the route to multi-engine commercial pilot's licences, exactly as does my much-discussed four years of hard drinking...er...study.

No, we're talking about how the cockpits were actually taken, and the discrepancies surrounding it. The experience of the pilot has everything to do with this, and your university course is completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIVAll your talk about training is meant purely to obfuscate the fact that the pilots were sitting, presumably strapped into, in armchairs with their feet on pedals and a control column between their legs, yet you would have them able to get out of their armchairs and arm themselves with axes with which to fight off terrorists mounting a surprise attack. I'm waiting for the movie starring Arnie...or maybe Seagal will be cheaper....

When did I say this? Oh, I didn't. I mentioned that it was funny the terrorists thought about using it on the uprising passengers - but there wasn't a thought to use it by the pilots, before the plane was "taken", after they had got a warning about cockpit intrusion and what happened at WTC. But of course, there will always be those that excuse these facts away, making them irrelevant to replace with their "ideas".

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIVJust the chatter about box-cutters and a box-cutter has been proven to be the equivalent of a razor and more than the minimum necessary to sever someone's carotid artery. and before you jump on that one, the chatter about box-cutters is at least as valid as your "highly-trained" pilots...After all, I'm only saying how it could have been done.

I'd like to see the science behind how a boxcutter can be a razor. Any video's on youtube of anybody shaving with a boxcutter? Of course you can hurt someone with one, you can with anything sharp. I posted a link already which shows the evidence for any weapons are flaky - but if that's good enough for people, so be it.

reply to post by sheetrockerr


Haha, seriously, if you think a commercial jet pilot would react by "What the..." "Is this a prank?" "Are you sure that came from ATC?", then I was wasting my time replying to you. It's ridiculous to even suggest that's how a professional pilot would react - they did ask for confirmation but they weren't Laurel and Hardying about while waiting for confirmation, if they were then something is very much wrong about that. I just used the word "noobs" cos that's exactly what somebody with no experience would probably say, but not a pilot with 30 years experience.

I don't know why you had to describe your work history to me, the only reason I mentioned my limited flying time was because I have been in the air with a pilot who has done a similar thing many times - and it's a common thing to ask for, even if you thought you heard something correctly. It's a critical place to make a mistake.

And I concede pilots are human, too. We all make mistakes, nobody is perfect. But it's a big coincidence, IMVHO.

Oh, boy...

Originally posted by adjay

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
As I said, the zealots were probably at least equally skilled in piloting those particular models through the sky. ie, knowing the feel of those particular aircraft, the quirks and idiosyncracies of that model.

You appear to be unable to read your own writings:

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIVthese terrorists were probably better-trained in flying their particular aircraft than he is

Um, no, no confusion there. I can read that pretty clearly. Oh, wait, you're a little baffled by the gulf of meaning between "better" and "at least equally skilled"?

How did the zealots know the feel, quirks and idiosyncracies? By never actually flying one? By never actually flying any jet, in fact?

Because the simulator is, by definition, different for different aircraft...I'm pretty sure I've seen programmes about how air forces force pilots to "convert" to new planes, which I guess means, you know, that just because you can fly a Tornado doesn't mean you can fly a Harrier, or an Eagle, or a Raptor. Just because you can fly an Airbus, doesn't mean you can fly a Boeing.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIVI speculated as to the "currency" (ugh, yuck) of John's certification. Exactly which planes is he currently licenced to "solo"? For which airframes are his logbooks up-to-date?...

Does any of it matter? Unless you can provide real hard proof that the ones who flew those planes were more experienced than John, it's hot air.

Don't be too hasty to use such idioms, after all, unless you can, how did you say it, provide real hard proof he is more experienced than them (which I guess is his call to answer, after all, neither of us can talk for him) in those particular aircraft, it's hot air...see, this is a two-way street, where my questioning is as valid as yours. You said it can't be done (questioning the official story) and I asked why not, giving a number of potential reasons it's possible. Your answers have failed to satisfy.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
What?

I'll try and make it simpler.

...Please do...

If you had a truck licence 20 years ago, you're going to get the job over anybody who has less experience more times than not.

Not if the other person's licence is brand new. That's "had 20 years ago" not "has had for 20 years"...

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
And what does any of that have to do with overpowering armed terrorists?

Who said it did?

I did. That's what I was talking about. That's why I brought the question up again.

You compared your 4 years at uni not helping you defend yourself against razor wielding terrorists (evidence?) to a pilots life experience flying and being trained for the job of piloting a commercial airline and following proper procedures.

No. I was comparing the training of a commercial pilot to be a commercial pilot with my four years study and how neither one was of any use in defending against terrorists. Or, rather, how each was equally useless. At no time was I talking about flying. That was the point I was originally making. You kept banging on about the pilots' training (in flying) and how thie made it impossible for the terrorists to take the plane. The one has nothing to do with the other.

To wit...

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Yes, but we're not talking about piloting, we're talking about self-defence, or even CQB, which has nothing to do with the route to multi-engine commercial pilot's licences, exactly as does my much-discussed four years of hard drinking...er...study.

No, we're talking about how the cockpits were actually taken, and the discrepancies surrounding it. The experience of the pilot has everything to do with this, and your university course is completely irrelevant.

We're getting bogged down in a lot of to and fro here, but...

Yes. We're talkng about self-defence and CQB, because you keep wanting to confuse stick time with the ability to thwart terrorists. Stop it. The ability to fly a multi-engine commercial jet does not automatically give you the ability to prevent a hostile takeover (skyjacking) of your aircraft. If it did there would never have been any hijackings. Ever. There would never have been three jets parked in the Jordanian desert, there would never have been a need for the Israeli Paras to fly to Entebbe and there would never have been the need for GSG9 to go to Mogadishu...Following procedures, as you put it, does not prevent the hostile take-over of aircraft, it is designed to lower agression and adrenaline levels, allow the return of some clarity in thinking and hopefully prevent loss of life. Now, I'm not a current pilot, in fact, I'm not a lapsed pilot, but as far as I know, the only people who "never negotiate with terror" are national leaders and that's a complete crock anyway. Ronnie negotiated with terror, what do you think Iran-Contra was? Law enforcement always negotiates with terror, they have specialists for it, they even make movies (usually crap) about it. Potential hostages are always advised to comply with their potential future captors demands as the best way to stay alive, which is where that link I gave you comes in. Prior to September 11, the best way out of a hi-jacking was to comply and wait for rescue (unless it was Egyptian Commandoes doing the rescue). Yet you want us to believe that the pilots were trained to defend themselves and their aircraft against the terrorists.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIVAll your talk about training is meant purely to obfuscate the fact that the pilots were sitting, presumably strapped into, in armchairs with their feet on pedals and a control column between their legs, yet you would have them able to get out of their armchairs and arm themselves with axes with which to fight off terrorists mounting a surprise attack. I'm waiting for the movie starring Arnie...or maybe Seagal will be cheaper....

When did I say this? Oh, I didn't. I mentioned that it was funny the terrorists thought about using it on the uprising passengers - but there wasn't a thought to use it by the pilots, before the plane was "taken", after they had got a warning about cockpit intrusion and what happened at WTC. But of course, there will always be those that excuse these facts away, making them irrelevant to replace with their "ideas".

Oh, right, in questioning the idea that trerrorists might use the axe as a weapon, but that cockpit crew wouldn't, you at no point raise the question as to why the cockpit crew wouldn't nor do you suggest that they could have, should have or would have...uh-huh...Again, were the pilots trained to use axes against terrorists? Or would any sane man (I stress sane) who has heard warnings about terrorists and hijackings, but who presumably hasn't been given a detailed briefing about their weapons, make the decision that picking up an axe to fight off an unknown number of assailants carrying an unknown variety of weapons is a good idea? Is that part of your "highly trained" scenario? Are you trained to fight with an axe? Is anybody who doesn't live in a castle, ride a horse and think steel looks good on him? Skyjackers traditionally use pistols, but then, to quote Blade Trinity, "of course, it doesn't have the range of a(n axe)."

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIVJust the chatter about box-cutters...

I'd like to see the science behind how a boxcutter can be a razor. Any video's on youtube of anybody shaving with a boxcutter? Of course you can hurt someone with one, you can with anything sharp. I posted a link already which shows the evidence for any weapons are flaky - but if that's good enough for people, so be it.

Um, okay. I guess literalism is a one-way street, that's cool. But again, I say could have been done. Then again, I posted a link about hijackings that resulted in no deaths, but if that's...well, you know how the next bit goes...

This clip is from an accident that occurred on a Boeing 777 that had a cockpit fire. I know it's not the same aircraft that were involved in 9/11, but it might be a good indicator of where the fire ax is located on a Boeing aircraft.

single cockpit fire extinguisher is mounted in a cabinet behind the captain's seat, along with a crash axe and gloves. At this location, the fire extinguisher was out of the reach of a seated first officer. Air France policy is that at least one pilot be seated at the controls with the restraining belts fastened during flight.

Source

We are asked to believe that all eight pilots were instantly subdued; with military training, a fire ax at the least, and an intense desire to live and save the passengers and crew there would have been intense efforts to try and fight them off with any means avaliable. The FACT that not ONE pilot was able to open the mike by pushing a button right by thgeir finger on the yoke and announce a problem says what? It says that remote highjacking is the ONLY intelligent solution to all of the factors presented in all four takings of planes.

The whole thing was a staged play to make us think that there were highjackings: think about it, it HAD to go off just right, and the stakes for Cheney and the Neocons and black ops guys are too high to screw up. They could NOT risk a takeover by passengers IF somehow all FOUR jets were successfully taken, a feat beyond belief in itself.They HAD to have four jets taken without fail, and the ONLY way to insure that is by taking them yourself: Remote taking.

The reported landings and disembarkings of the passengers of Flt. 93 means that there was no plane crash in Penn, and there is NO evidence of a jet there, just like at the Pentagon. This was a long planned and well staged operation, very black, and using foreign workers and some right wing inside military men who agree with the objectives and the sacrifice of a fdew thousand for a ' greater good ' menaing we get more oil and money and teritory and influence. Imperialism at it's best.

The only real glaring screw ups ( besides hundreds of minor ones ) were the Norman Mineta testimony and the refusal to provide the Pentagon videos, scores of them, that would surely settle once and for all what hit there. But we KNOW that no jet hit there, and they know that, they just cannot admit that. Don't you know that in high places, with career big shots in all parts of the government, there are many,many people who know the truth and are as appalled as we are by the coup that took over the nation.

If we can figure it out, they have also. No doubt all of the Senators and all the rest know damn well that this was a set up, just like the anthrax scare and murders..funny that Bush and gang were taking Cipro a week BEFORE the anthrax was sent!! just coincidence, I suppose. This gang of Bush's is so deep into this and so dirty and so crooked and so criminal that it staggers the sound mind to consider the fact that most Americans are alseep at the wheel and have no idea.Thanks to the media, controlled and manipulated to promote the illusions.

What to do? Hold on and watch as we go into a state of affairs that will chill the blood and enrage the senses...Bush and gang are just getting warmed up.

Good points, all.

I also wonder why the pilots didn't take the planes into a negative-G dive once they realized someone had broken into the cockpit, lifting them off their feet. Its what I would do... let them try to cut my throat while I toss them around the plane with maneuvers.

John Lear a few pages back says that he talked to a lot of pilots since 9-11 and ALL of them said the same thing: that they would immediately turn the plane up and over and throw the attackers off their feet until the crew could respond. During that time the pilot would surely have pressed the button right by his finger on the yoke and yelled a mayday or alert into the mike, but NONE did!! Not ONE transmission from ONE pilot until the phony set up ' call ' supposedly from an ' open mike ' with talk of a highjacking.etc. All a phony, just like Betty Ong.

I challenged everyone not long ago to listen to the Betty Ong tape and tell me that she is really a victim of some terrible highjacking and is scared stiff..she sounds like she is reading from a script, an amateur actress being told to play a role. just listen to it, there is no way anyone can imagine her comments as being real: Tear gas or something in the front of the plane..right. The front and back are closely connected and have the same air supply. Pilots being stabbed..she sounds as if she is reading some boring stock market document..she is OBVIOUSLY playing a role, and not even trying to sound genuinely scared or worried at all .

In my opinion, part of the planned operation was voice morphed and taped accounts ready to roll. I believe that the war games being played on 9-11 have EVERYTHING to do with what happened . I believe that the people were told that they were to take part in an exciting role playing event to ' keep America safe ' and be a good citizen. I have no doubt that unless the passengers were all offloaded onto one plane, and it dumped at sea, the only other answer is they were all duped into thinking that they were just part of some games and cooperating with the authorities.

That would account for the calls where the people tell their own mothers their last names..and keep saying " You believe me, don't you Mom ? " over and over. No doubt wanting an ego stroke for his supposed role playing while some federal agent stood by smiling. Then after all the agents are off and the passengers all loaded onto one plane for their ' final destination ' the plane takes off under the same remote controllers that flew all the other phony flights that day, and steered it over open ocean and blew it up into smithereens.

Remember this very important fact: At the trial of Zacharias Moussoui the FBI testified that only TWO calls were attempted on that flight and that the one to Barbara Olson was ' not connected ' and lasted ' zero minutes ', thus either Ted Olson was lying about those calls from her, or the FBI was lying at the trial. I believe the FBI was truthful and it is just an inconvenient fact that exposes yet another example of inside job proof. Another notch in the belt.If there were no calls to Ted, who was he talking to, if anyone? If the FBI is right, then why would Ted Olson lie about the calls and make up a detailed story? Is it from him or from some intel agency? At whose orders?

Those are questions I would like to see answered. So we have war games and phony calls andphony tapes and voice morphs and all that is somehow not a big deal to the official story belivers: they just seem to float over screaming proofs and keep chanting the mantra of ' trust the government, they couldn't be that bad.." over and over until they are assured that they are safe. I and others however, are not content to accept nonsense as fact and supposition as proof.

Still, not ONE poster has adequately explained HOW all FOUR jets could LIKELY be taken instantly, before any of the mikes could be keyed. We SHOULD in all four cases have sounds of a struggle and pilots yelling ' get out ' and more sounds as any fight would make noise. Yelling would be heard in all normal situations like this: this why the REMOTE taking is the ONLY logical and likley way to reconcile all of the known facts.

I see that you are still holding on to the ''before any of the mikes could be keyed'' claim eyewitness 86, what about the pilot of Flight 93?

Can you show us some examples of pilots performing wild maneuvers to prevent a hijacking pre-or post 9/11?

Originally posted by sheetrockerr
One thing I do wonder, though. Why did it take two minutes for them to confirm the message? Why didn't they call ATC back immediately with something like "ATC, repeat that last message."

Because it didn't come from ATC. It came over the company datalink from an operator that was busy trying to make sure that every other United flight in the air got the same message, and to keep up with everything going on, and get more information for other pilots, etc.

Originally posted by dionysius9
Good points, all.

I also wonder why the pilots didn't take the planes into a negative-G dive once they realized someone had broken into the cockpit, lifting them off their feet. Its what I would do... let them try to cut my throat while I toss them around the plane with maneuvers.

Really? Are you a pilot then? Have experience flying a multi-engine commercial?

Originally posted by eyewitness86
John Lear a few pages back says that he talked to a lot of pilots since 9-11 and ALL of them said the same thing: that they would immediately turn the plane up and over and throw the attackers off their feet until the crew could respond.

Uh-huh. Now we really are in the realm of fantasy. Talk about wishful, 20/20 hindsight BS.

Again, I ask you, since 1945, how many hijackings have ended with the terrorists taking direct control of the plane and using it in a kamikaze attack?

4 have. Guess which 4.

How many hijackings have ended peacefully with the hostages (or a majority of them) released?
How many have ended with successful intervention by law enforcement/military personnel and a majority of hostage released?

Why, given the fact that never before in history had skyjackings ended in kamikaze attacks, would pilots suddenly decide to "hazard" their aircraft, crew and passengers by performing aerobatics?

Get a grip.

Originally posted by johnlear
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.

Good point Mr.Lear and isnt it also funny that the official story even has us believe that when the tables were turned and the people on 93 decided to get in the cockpit they had to brake it down with a cart and then guess what the pilot did ....you guess it ..*Rolled the plane* so yes I have always thought this was a very funny thing they seemingly missed when they put together the whole official story.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by dionysius9
Good points, all.

I also wonder why the pilots didn't take the planes into a negative-G dive once they realized someone had broken into the cockpit, lifting them off their feet. Its what I would do... let them try to cut my throat while I toss them around the plane with maneuvers.

Really? Are you a pilot then? Have experience flying a multi-engine commercial?

Originally posted by eyewitness86
John Lear a few pages back says that he talked to a lot of pilots since 9-11 and ALL of them said the same thing: that they would immediately turn the plane up and over and throw the attackers off their feet until the crew could respond.

Uh-huh. Now we really are in the realm of fantasy. Talk about wishful, 20/20 hindsight BS.

Again, I ask you, since 1945, how many hijackings have ended with the terrorists taking direct control of the plane and using it in a kamikaze attack?

4 have. Guess which 4.

How many hijackings have ended peacefully with the hostages (or a majority of them) released?
How many have ended with successful intervention by law enforcement/military personnel and a majority of hostage released?

Why, given the fact that never before in history had skyjackings ended in kamikaze attacks, would pilots suddenly decide to "hazard" their aircraft, crew and passengers by performing aerobatics?

Get a grip.

Well maybe your right maybe your not, def in the case of flight 93 there could be a major chance considering that plabnes had already crashed into the towers and they had been warned that they would have taken extrame measures...or do you think that as in the official story they got there beware text and then sat there for a few minutes whiel they pondered the bad news and then there cockpit was entered, rather quickly too i guess. Chic Burlingame who himself had simulated attacks on the pentagon and was a navy pilot and by all accounts would have gave them a problem, but were supposed to believe according to phone calls that he just gave up the controls and went and had a seat in the back of the plane?? By the way all the incidences you speak all have one very big difference than 911 and thats that the pilots were never told to give up the control of the plane. I think that would change things drastically as opposed to a highjacker telling you to land at his specified airport.

Originally posted by eyewitness86


I challenged everyone not long ago to listen to the Betty Ong tape and tell me that she is really a victim of some terrible highjacking and is scared stiff..she sounds like she is reading from a script, an amateur actress being told to play a role. just listen to it, there is no way anyone can imagine her comments as being real: Tear gas or something in the front of the plane..right. The front and back are closely connected and have the same air supply. Pilots being stabbed..she sounds as if she is reading some boring stock market document..she is OBVIOUSLY playing a role, and not even trying to sound genuinely scared or worried at all .

In my opinion, part of the planned operation was voice morphed and taped accounts ready to roll. I believe that the war games being played on 9-11 have EVERYTHING to do with what happened . I believe that the people were told that they were to take part in an exciting role playing event to ' keep America safe ' and be a good citizen. I have no doubt that unless the passengers were all offloaded onto one plane, and it dumped at sea, the only other answer is they were all duped into thinking that they were just part of some games and cooperating with the authorities.



Still, not ONE poster has adequately explained HOW all FOUR jets could LIKELY be taken instantly, before any of the mikes could be keyed. We SHOULD in all four cases have sounds of a struggle and pilots yelling ' get out ' and more sounds as any fight would make noise. Yelling would be heard in all normal situations like this: this why the REMOTE taking is the ONLY logical and likley way to reconcile all of the known facts.

Ill take it a step further and say I have always theorized that Betty Ong Either had a gun to her head or someone in front of her that was in complete control of the plane and the passengers. That what she said was part of the war game script or part of the cover story they were building with all the passenger calls.


Ill take a shot at it 86...It was a planned operation that was part of the war games that day, that all four planes pilots were "in on it" in the extent that they thought they were part of a United States Military controlled war game...I suspect that the red bandanas were to symbolize the "red team" which was being played by ATTA and his crew of 18(if there were that many on the plane). That the reason on the phone calls, things were not out of control and people were not panicking because it was way past that at that point and that they were being told what to say (possibly the reason why none of the so called cell phone calls are unexplainable). Air Force admitted initially that they were following flight 93 the whole time, most likely all of them were being watched. They remotely crashed 93 for whatever reason, maybe they realized to much time had expired and it was impossible for them to say they couldnt get to it before it reached its target or the passengers really did try to take back the plane.





[edit on 8-11-2007 by Stillresearchn911]

Originally posted by Stillresearchn911
By the way all the incidences you speak all have one very big difference than 911 and thats that the pilots were never told to give up the control of the plane.

Yes, exactly my point, if you care to look. Why, given the history of skyjacking, are we suddenly expecting pilots to fight back in this instance? Pilots have never fought back against skyjackers and hostage situations have almost uniformly been resolved in the passengers' favour. That is the history of skyjacking. This is the first time it is different.

I think that would change things drastically as opposed to a highjacker telling you to land at his specified airport.

Why? Human responses to situations are brought from experience. If the experience of skyjacking is that you comply, why would you radically alter your behaviour? Once the terrorists are in your cockpit and have you listening to them, you are in their control, the lives of your passengers depend on how well you comply.

If a terrorist is holding a stewardess with a blade to her throat and he tells the pilot to vacate his chair, what does the pilot do? He goes to his experience, which tells him that you comply with terrorists, not give them reasons to start killing.

Why are so many people willing to fantasise about pilots suddenly going into Wesley Snipes mode and not only fighting off, but defeating armed terrorists? This is Golan-Globus wet dreaming at its worst. People learn from experience. Experience told them to comply.

Now experience tells us something different.

AFTER the fact.

I gotta say this because I get the feeling that maybe some of you havent seen someone getting there throat slit or there head decapitated (but it is readily available at liveleak there are plenty examples there). My point being though that cutting someones throat no matter how skilled is not a easy thing to do to a human being who isnt being constrained at all. Not to mention that you will need a very sharp tough blade.
Think abut it once you see the blade come out and you realize that he is going for your neck and you realize this is a fight for your life, its not gonna be like in the movies where he walks up behind you reaches around the neck and slice and his head falls back off and the body stays there for a few seconds.
I agree totally that it would be a complete blood bath in the cockpit. And are we supposed to believe that two men entered the cockpit and attacked both pilots at the same time. Lets not forget these were small framed guys, most of them were pretty young also, fighting guys who were in the military previously. We're supposed to believed they did this four times without a single hiccup at any of the takeovers... And this is just one problem with the official story.

reply to post by Stillresearchn911



I agree Bro!! Betty Ong was told she was playing a part in the war games..that is the ONLY way to reconcile her lack of emotion and total calm, and what she said. It makes NO sense any other way.

I believe also that the war games are the linchpin that holds all this together; many passengers were told about helping in the games, and went along with it, not knowing that it was all a part of the plan to launch a war on Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran, etc., and profit the Neocons.

Look at the price of gas now..and everything else. Costs go up, wars go on, and profits soar. That was the plan and still is, from the most evil, despicable and murdering bunch of traitors this nation has ever seen: Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumslfeld, and many more. The Israeli Mossad crowd got exactly what they wanted, and remember the guys who were dancing after the Towers fell and were arrested? They were Mossad agents who ADMITTED ON TV IN ISRAEL THAT THEY WERE SENT TO NY TO FILM THE COLLAPSES!!!! THAT is proof enough.

But the planes were all remotely taken and flown and the plan went off well but with problems, which are now easy to spot. But since most Americans are so lazy and dumbed down by TV that they believe anything they are told by the scum in charge, this nation is finished.