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: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
NEVER before in aviation history had ' highjackers ' demanded to assume the controls of a major plane. Thats what you are forgetting in your statements about the liklihood of pilots simply giving up the cockpits to demands made from the threat of some crew member being threatened.

Pilots before had to fly the planes to the destinations that the highjackers insisted upon, correct? NO highjackers had EVER had the skills to fly major airliners and even if they killed passengers and crew members to get their demands listened to, they would not kill pilots because they are the only ones that can fly them out!!

In the supposed case of ' suicide ' highjackings, which have been discussed and planned for for many years , it makes sense ONLY to assume that the pilots would resist with all their might any attempts to take control of the plane. Why? It is so simple:

The ONLY scenario in which a highjacker would want to assume the controls would be for a suicide mission, obviously. They would know that no pilots would ever willingly crash their planes into buildings, and would resist with all their power that from happening. The tought of pilots saying " Ok, you win. You can fly the planes and do whatever you want, we give up so you won't harm one of the crew"., is the most stupid assumption one could make.

It is ridiculous to believe that the pilots would accept a suicide highjackers takeover merely to delay the deaths of all, in order to save a flight attendant from death? That makes no sense!! Think about it: What would be the use of saving a crew members life for a few minutes? What is the use in saving a life only to KNOW that they are all dead anyway, as ONLY a suicide mission would include taking the pilots out of the cockpit.

There is NO other good reason to remove pilots from the controls, other than the fact that they wanted to do things that the pilots would not do. That makes sense. The pilots could fly better and more accurately than any amateur, and ONLY in the case of a suicide mission would the removal of pilots be mandated as part of the plan, rather than just demands for certain destinations. See the logic? it cannot be any other way.

So, we KNOW that no pilots would give up the cockpits without a fight to suicide highjackers, people attacking them rather than coering them with threats..so NO pilots were herded like sheep into the rear, that a total lie. The ONLY ' evidence ' of that was the phony call from Barbara Olson to Ted, in which she wondered what she should tell the pilot!! Remember that? But at the trial of Moussaoi ( sp?) the FBO testified that NOT ONE CALL was completed from the plane and that one call was ' not connected ' and had ' zero sceconds' on the call record. The alleged calls from Olson were according to that testimony a lie and a phony.

So, we are to believe either that the highjackers were able to perform superhuman and super lucky feats 4 out of 4 times, with perfect results, and all before the button on the yoke could be pushed to activate the mike. One poster above thinks that the supposed call from 93 means something: it does not. We are asked to believe that the highjackers, able to instantly breach the cockpit and take command, all without the plane reacting radically..and that they had the skill to navigate and fly the big jets to their targets with great accuracy, but they COULD NOT USE THE RADIO properly!! They didn't know that the handset for the rear of the plane was not the radio button on the yoke!!

So we are asked to believe that the PILOTS of all four planes could not activate the button on the yoke, because they were attacked and overwhelmed SO FAST...BUT the highjackers were able to push the buttons and broadcast..what garbage. The tape of the Flt. 93 ' highjacking ' was a phnoy, as was the rest of the calls and such. The Betty Ong tape shows how silly it is to believe that the official story is true, and this is another. The highjackers knew everything except how to use the radio and thought it was the rear of the plane!! Imagine that!! Such skills and yet such an amateur error!!

We still are faced with the major question that has not been answered:

What method could have been used by all four sets of ' highjackers ' that could account for the INSTANT taking of all FOUR sets of cockpits? Given the FACT that there has never been any serious allegation of the ' highjackers ' having anything more than simple bladed weapons, if that, with many of them going through secondary scrutiny at the airports and getting a going over..how can the INSTANT taking of all four cockpits be explained? How can the attackers break all FOUR doors with instant success? Then, how could they convince, either with threats or the use of force, the pilots to vacate the cockpits, and all BEFORE EVEN ONE PILOT COULD PUSH THE BUTTON !!

The officla lie believers all ignore this point: We SHOULD have FOUR sets of cockpit tapes showing various sounds, including the yelling and whatnot that always accompanies a fight,grunting, heavy breathing.. fights make noise. And WHY would the pilot who is still at the controls NOT push the button? He has his hands on the yoke and the finger right there, he would NATURALY key the mike as a warning as to what was happening to the ATC, and you can BET your life that in all FOUR cases, the pilots wopuld have yelled a lot into the mikes before any attackers could have successfully emptied the cockpit and taken over.

We SHOULD have four sets of tapes with cockpit sounds and yelling.and transmission to the ATC from the flights..How long does it take to yell your flight number and a mayday? Just a secind or two,is all. But in all FOUR cases, we are asked to believe that somehow all EIGHT pilots simply failed to act in all normal and sensible ways, and either did not fight and streatched their necks out to the Saudis, or gave up the cockpits to the intruders and just hoped that it wans't really a suicide mission and that the crew member they saved by giving up the cockpit would still be alive with the rest of them when it was all over.What pilots would do that? None.

No, the only logical supposition in this: The planes were instantly taken by remote control, and not by teams of Saudis armed with small knives and big threats. The facts just do not support the official story, not in any way, shape or form. if we look very closely at the mechanics of the takings, the needed times for physically removing, after killing, human bodies from cramped areas, with blood everywhere, and believe that all this could be done INSTANTLY with no opportunity for even ONE pilot to push the button...it is just insane to acept odds like that when the solution is right in front of you: Remote control taking is and was a reality on 9-11 and ONLY that can explain the things we see on that day.

there is NO other rational choice, other than remote taking. Otherwise we have to believe in fairy tales and superhuman feats and luck beyond belief..I rather would believe in what the eyes see and the senses detect and the coomon sense and logic of the matter dictates. No way that the official story could be true: how could ANYONE believe it? Amazing.




posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
eyewitness86#1 and eyewitness86#2, whichever one I'm talking to, what about flight 93? One of the pilots got off a radio call.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
There is only ONE Eyewitness86!! Thats me!! The tape of someone making sounds was NOT proven to be from Flt. 93..it was in my ionion a hoax..part of the plan. The story alleges that the highjacker simply didn't know that by pushing the radio button the on the yoke he would activate the radio..supposedly he didn't know the difference bewteen the radio and the speaker in the back of the plane, the intercom..but they sure knew everything else about those jets, didn't they!!?

There was heard, from no determined source, some sounds that made it sound like a highjacking was taking place..but there is no proof that it originated from Flt. 93..could have been radioed by the perps as part of the game. Think about this: WHY do we not have FOUR sets of tapes from all FOUR planes? Why is there only ONE SUPPOSED transmission from only ONE plane, and not of the pilot speaking but the alleged highjacker.

So, we have NO recordings of ANY pilot making ANY calls or warnings or alerts whatsoever. just a brief tape of SOMEONE making sounds that could be interpreted as being from the plane..which of course supported the Official story. What evidence exists that proves that there were any highjackings? Only the tapes..and they are all hoaxed. The Betty Ong tape is a hoax..the Barbara olson calls NEVER HAPPENED, as the FBI testified to the Moussaoui trial. There were NO calls completed from the plane Olson was supposedly on, according to the FBI.

So that means a layered approach was used to make it look like highjackings when in fact it was totally remote all the way. When the Government says that they think that the transmission was from Flt. 93, that is a guess and totally unsupported by evidence that can be relied upon. There were NO radio calls made in all FOUR cases because the remote controllers took over the functions INSTANTLY. Only remote can explain INSTANT.



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
In the supposed case of ' suicide ' highjackings, which have been discussed and planned for for many years , it makes sense ONLY to assume that the pilots would resist with all their might any attempts to take control of the plane. Why? It is so simple:


Discussed and planned by whom? Why would the pilots know these were suicide hijackings?


The ONLY scenario in which a highjacker would want to assume the controls would be for a suicide mission, obviously.


Obvious to whom? And when was it obvious? in 1977, 1983, September 12, 2001?


They would know that no pilots would ever willingly crash their planes into buildings, and would resist with all their power that from happening.


There is a big difference between "knowing" that something will happen and "thinking" that something "may" happen and planning for it. Did the terrorists "know" the pilots would resist? No, because pilots never had. Did the terrorists assume the pilots would resist? Probably, one of the "facts" about small groups of basically self-sustaining ideologues is that they tend to re-inforce each other's worst fears, which in this case would mean everytime they "gamed" the plan they would always assume the pilots would resist, leading them to plan for that eventuality, regardless of what the truth was.

Would the pilots play along with Kamikaze? No. Do we know they would resist leaving their chairs? No we don't. Not unless they were clairvoyant and knew what was coming. Tell me, aside from knowing I will disagree with you, how are your future predicitons coming? Got some stock tips for us?


The tought of pilots saying " Ok, you win. You can fly the planes and do whatever you want, we give up so you won't harm one of the crew"., is the most stupid assumption one could make.


Why? You've yet to say why.


It is ridiculous to believe that the pilots would accept a suicide highjackers takeover merely to delay the deaths of all, in order to save a flight attendant from death?


Why is it?


That makes no sense!!


Why not?


Think about it:


I have been, apparently a little more deeply than you. to wit:


What would be the use of saving a crew members life for a few minutes?


How do you know it's only going to be for a few minutes? How do pilots know in any hostage situation how long their compliance will continue to keep lives safe?


What is the use in saving a life only to KNOW that they are all dead anyway


How do they KNOW that?


as ONLY a suicide mission would include taking the pilots out of the cockpit.


and how do they KNOW that?


There is NO other good reason to remove pilots from the controls, other than the fact that they wanted to do things that the pilots would not do.


Unless one of the terrorists was an ex-EgyptAir pilot, for example. Or Iran Air, or maybe they were one of Abu Bakar Bashir's men and they used to fly for Garuda...And then the terrorists don't need to lean on the pilot, they can go where they want, such as the Jordanian desert, and keep the pilot in the passenger cabin.


That makes sense.


Yes, I know.


The pilots could fly better and more accurately than any amateur,


But the above three men wouldn't be amateurs, would they...


and ONLY in the case of a suicide mission would the removal of pilots be mandated as part of the plan,


ONLY if you can't think past the end of your nose.


rather than just demands for certain destinations. See the logic? it cannot be any other way.


And yet, see the logic, look at how it could be another way.


So, we KNOW that no pilots would give up the cockpits without a fight to suicide highjackers,


Again with this suicide hijackers thing. How did the pilots KNOW they were suicide hijackers?


people attacking them rather than coering them with threats..


How do we know they were attacked instead of coerced? Remember that stewardess/knife situation I hypothesised? You haven't disproved it yet.


so NO pilots were herded like sheep into the rear, that a total lie.


Really, you were there? You saw it not happening? Don't make empirical statements when you don't have the proof.


The ONLY ' evidence ' of that was the phony call from Barbara Olson to Ted,


You mean the evidence you have that something didn't happen is that you don't believe the evidence that says it did? BTW, I'm not presenting evidence, I'm presenting theories. Theories you can't disprove. Theories which poke holes in your "facts". Theories which are based on a rational examination of the facts as known on Sep 10, not Sep 12.


So, we are to believe either that the highjackers were able to perform superhuman and super lucky feats 4 out of 4 times,


Where's the super-human?


with perfect results,


93 was perfect?


and all before the button on the yoke could be pushed to activate the mike.


Have you tried that little experiment that was suggested about how quickly one could react?


One poster above thinks that the supposed call from 93 means something: it does not.


Of course not, it disagrees with your hypothesis.


We are asked to believe that the highjackers, able to instantly breach the cockpit and take command, all without the plane reacting radically


erm, yes. Remember all those announcements about turbulence each time you flew and the warning that the seatbelt sign had been turned back on? Ever been buffeted really badly? I haven't. But I have friends who have, even been bruised by it. Pilots fly smoothly, they don't attempt Roulette drills in domestic passenger jets without warning. They wouldn't want 70kg+ bodies hurtling uncontrollable around the cockpit, how well would you be protecting your passengers if a full-grown terrorist landed on you and prevented you from operating the control column, while you were in a dive?



posted on Nov, 11 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Again with this suicide hijackers thing. How did the pilots KNOW they were suicide hijackers?

Have you tried that little experiment that was suggested about how quickly one could react?


Gee, you really need to do some research and post some evidnece to back up your theory.

1. We know at least Flight 93 recieved a warning about the other hijackings. So please explain to me how the hijackers surprised them if they had a warning? Because the only way the pilots could not have gotten off a emergency call or signal was to be surprised.

2. Pilots are highly skilled and highly trained to handle emergenices and would react quickly. Please explain to me how you could not hit a mike button and get off a message in a few seconds?

3. Please explain to me why the pilots could not have thought about rocking the plane to keep out the hijackers, the hijackers did it on Flight 93 to try to keep the passengers from getting in.






[edit on 11-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Gee, no, I don't. The point here is that I don't have to do some research. I'm questioning the hypothesis that says it was faked because it's impossible to take the cockpits. I don't have to prove anything; the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not me. You need to prove it and I'm questioning your (well, 86's) theory, showing its weak spots.

1. He isn't talking about 93, he's talking about ALL 4 flights. So, how did the pilots in the FIRST 3 jets KNOW they were suicide hijackers? (Gee, this ALL CAPS stuff is fun, once you get the hang of it.)

2. Yes, pilots are highly skilled and highly trained. Pilots train for in-flight emergencies such as engine flame-outs, engine fires, hydraulic failures etc. How often to they begin their emergency procedures before they begin their Mayday calls? I don't know, I'm not a pilot, but my bet (and I say bet because those are the odds I back) is they start hitting engine and/or fire-extinguisher switches BEFORE they key the radio mic.

As for how quickly they could react...Ask a pilot this: If a terrorist is standing in the cockpit doorway with a stewardess held hostage, is the pilot's first reaction to radio in a report (Hi, Dulles Tower/Atlanta Control, this is Flight 93, FYI we're being hijacked...), or ask the terrorist what he wants? Will the stewardess survive that radio report? Do you think terrorists are dumb enough not to figure that airlines and air traffic controllers probably have scripted radio messages that warn of terrorist incidents? Do you then assume that terrorists wouldn't make their first order "No radio messages"?

3. Remember when I used the phrase "hazard their jet"? That's a maritime legal term, but as so much aerial terminology came from the sea, it's probably pretty accurate.

Explain to me why the pilots would do that, taking into account the number of times I've mentioned the history of hijackings and the fact that pilots have never done that before...

Oh, right, NOW you mean Flt 93...

Because the pilot's first thought is for their passengers' safety, rather the opposite view to the one held by the terrorists...(duh)...because as well as this being the first time it has happened, it is happening in real time.

So, in real (not reel) time, you want the pilots to read the text update, digest it, marvel at the outrageousness of what it said, decide, amongst themselves that if it happens to them they will fight back. Decide that the Best way to fight back is to violently manouvre the plane. Perform said violent manouvres, preventing the terrorists from taking the plane and then, once they are on the straight and level again, leave the cockpit to subdue and apprehend the terrorists. Did I get all of that right?

Or maybe they won't leave the cockpit, maybe they'll violently manouvre their way down to the ground, keeping the terrorists off their feet and unable to function, and then violently land their jet, where law-enforcement can violently come aboard and violently subde and apprehend the terrorists?

Or maybe, just maybe, they won't really have a clue how to react, the whole thing being so far outside what has been experienced up 'til then...

Or, wait for it...


Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please explain to me why the pilots could not have thought about rocking the plane to keep out the hijackers, the hijackers did it on Flight 93 to try to keep the passengers from getting in.


Okay, then, let's get to specifics...


Please explain to me why the pilots could not have thought about rocking the plane to keep out the hijackers,


I didn't say they couldn't have thought of doing it. I doubt very much that they did. I'm willing to say I don't think the first three sets of cockpit crew thought of it, because WHY WOULD THEY? (which is my point, why would the FIRST THREE do it?), and I'm willing to say that even if the captain of Flt 93 (or his sidekick) did think of doing it, that's no guarantee that they would have. And all that stuff about other pilots' opinions is just smoke. Of course, given what actually happened, the armchair generals all would have done something heroic to prevent it from happening. Could they have thought of it? Sure. After all, Bin Laden, Zawahiri et al could think of driving planes into the WTC. Yamamoto could think of bombing Pearl. Hitler could think of invading Russia. People can THINK of lots of things, not all of them relevant, not all of them practical, just because you THINK of doing something, doesn't mean you then do it.

and


the hijackers did it on Flight 93 to try to keep the passengers from getting in.


And look at how well that turned out.



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthman4
I called a marina 8 miles from the alleged crash site of flight 93. They did find wreckage in the lake. This is impossible. I know this from my CAP training. Misinformation is being used to cover up something, something I may never know.



The lake is at most about 2 miles from the crash site. It's about 6 miles if you are following the road and looking it up on something like google maps etc. I don't think debris from an airplane going 500+ mph is going to follow the road.... do you?



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
If a terrorist is standing in the cockpit doorway with a stewardess held hostage, is the pilot's first reaction to radio in a report


Gee, you know you just really contridicted yourself. You made the statement of how did the pilots know it was suicide hijackers, then you post about hijacker in the doorway with a flight attendent held hostage. By the way what evidence do you have of a flight attendent being held hostage?

Also the hijackers attacked the pilots with box cutters, don't you think thats a good sign they are suicide hijackers?

So please explain to me. Why that out of 4 planes not 1 could get off an emergency call or signal, specailly when at least 1 plane had prior warning?






[edit on 12-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by ULTIMA 1
So please explain to me. Why that out of 4 planes not 1 could get off an emergency call or signal, specailly when at least 1 plane had prior warning?


Flight 93 made 2 separate radio calls. Did you read any of the links I posted in this thread?



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Somehow to 911 conspiracy theorists not sending out a hijack signal is proof of a gov cover-up. If we approach this from a CT point of view it was necessary to send a signal to fake the appearance of being hijacked, then why didn't they do that one final small step, did they forget? got lazy? Not think of it at all? None of that makes sense with a super intelligent, highly organized, gov agency. (when do we ever see this from government)

forget the details, use common sense and you can debunk 99% of these 911 conspiracies in seconds. Hence the reason so few people believe them.



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Flight 93 made 2 separate radio calls. Did you read any of the links I posted in this thread?


Those calls were debated as to what they stated and who they were from.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by teebigins
Somehow to 911 conspiracy theorists not sending out a hijack signal is proof of a gov cover-up.

forget the details, use common sense and you can debunk 99% of these 911 conspiracies in seconds.


Please show me where i stated anything about a conspiracy. Why do you people that believe the official story have to try to put words in peoples mouths or try to twist what is stated? Are you really that afraid of anyone posting facts and evidence that prove the official story wrong?

Actually i use educattion, experience and basic common sense to see that 99% of the official story can be debunked.

I also use actual professional and government research sources to find out facts along with FOIA requests to the actual investigators, you should try it sometime.



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Debated by whom? Do you believe the calls were from flight 93?



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Debated by whom? Do you believe the calls were from flight 93?


There were just voices, its not known whos voices or what plane they came from, pilots or hijackers.



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


The 9/11 Commission thinks they came from flight 93, do you?



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
The 9/11 Commission thinks they came from flight 93, do you?



I don't know, i do not have the evidence. Besides didn't the people on the 9/11 commission state that they did not have enough time or money to do a proper investigation?



posted on Nov, 12 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by ULTIMA 1
Gee, you know you just really contridicted yourself. You made the statement of how did the pilots know it was suicide hijackers, then you post about hijacker in the doorway with a flight attendent held hostage. By the way what evidence do you have of a flight attendent being held hostage?


You are using 20/20 hindsight ULTIMA1. If someone breaks into your house with a knife are you going to assume they are suicidal robbers?

The evidence we have is in the FAA/NTSB flight data study used in the 9/11 commission and Zacharias Moussaoui trial. I've posted the transcript earlier in this thread. Did you read it?


Besides didn't the people on the 9/11 commission state that they did not have enough time or money to do a proper investigation?


That question is completely irrelevant to this topic.


I don't know, i do not have the evidence.


Yes you do. You just choose to ignore it. I've posted it once before in this thread, but I will do it again just in case you missed it.
Link
Again, this FAA/NTSB document was used in the 9/11 commission and Zacharias Moussaoui trial as evidence. You keep saying that you don't have evidence when you do. Is it real or is it fake?



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

Besides didn't the people on the 9/11 commission state that they did not have enough time or money to do a proper investigation?


That question is completely irrelevant to this topic.


How is the fact that the 9/11 commission not doing a proper investigation irrelevent, specially if you are using them for evidence?



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   
youtube.com... pt 1

youtube.com... pt 2

youtube.com... pt 3

youtube.com... pt 4

9/11 Ring of Power

this is interesting…



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   
double post

[edit on 13-11-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join