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: 14
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.


Do you even read what you write? A terrorist holding a stewardess hostage isn't threatening SUIcide, he's threatening HOMOcide. Specifically the HOMOcide of the stewardess.


By the way what evidence do you have of a flight attendent being held hostage?


None. I have made that quite plain. The theory of a terrorist holding a stewardess hostage in order to coerce the pilots into action is just that, a theory, in answer to the question "How were the cocpits taken?" The true believers (that would be you) state that it couldn't be done. There's one method by which it could be done.


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


Only if the pilots were armed with projectile weapons, otherwise it is again a good sign of HOMOcide.


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?


See previous posts.




posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I really wish that the childish drivel would stop: it is APPARENT to ANY mature adult with common sense that any ' highjacker ' that would resort to murder to gain access to a cockpit would gladly committ suicide with an airplane if he got control. WHY else would a highjacker want to fly a plane? the pilots are the most qualified to fly, and get the highjackers to any destination they desired, right? OK. ONLY a highjacker with suicide on his mind would want to take the controls of a major aircraft: This is simple logic.

If a highjacker wants to land somewhere, he will force the pilots to take him there by either capturing the cockpit physically or perhaps with threatening a crew member or passenger. There has NEVER, in all of aviation history, been a highjacking of a plane by a qualified pilot of that same aircraft..NEVER. It has NEVER happened. NO highjacker in history has ever attempted to taake over a flight in order to land it somewhere with him at the controls..it makes NO sense whatsoever, not to any rational person or to any highjacker. ONLY a suicide mission would call for the pilots to be removed. Thats common sense.

Some of the questions asked by a few posters here really make me wonder if we are dealing with school kids here or adults: No thinking adult could assume some of the nonsense foolishness that we read here..parsing whether or not killing is homocide or suicide...amazing.

If a real highjacker could fly a large jet and wanted a vehicle for a suicide mission, they could STEAL a jet a lot easier than highjacking them and taking all of the risks involved in possible failure. Why not just take one from an airport somewhere with lax security and fly it out? Less risk of exposure and failure for the mission. But these guys all chose the hearest and most risky way to do it, huh? Try and take FOUR cockpits all at once and hope for success?

It staggers the sound mind to read some of the comments here; it seems as if some people will go to extraordinary lengths to try and prop up the Official Lie, even to the point of being downright silly. There is NO WAY that highjackers can overwhelm cockpits that fast, and there is NO WAY that in all FOUR cases, the pilots could have been yanked away from the controls so fast that not ONE of them managed to place a call. There is NO wiggle room with that logiac, and any attempts to try and meake it possible lead one down a primrose path of thorms and nothing else.

Some people are willing to accept odds that are beyond belief, but the sensible approach is to take what is seen and apply logic and common sense to it, and the answer that comes up every time is : Remote taking and a total set up by the inside players. There is just no other way that is even slightly believable.


six

posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


But if their intent was to strike at our sense of security why not hijack a jet? It hasnt happened in years in the US. Just adds another layer of fear.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Because highjacking jets is a very tricky business, thats why. there is NO guarantees of success, unless the system has been fixed in advance. What are the odds that all FOUR jets could be successfully taken within minutes of each other with 100% success rates? What are the odds that in all FOUR cases, the cockpits could be taken INSTANTLY, before any pilot could even key the mike? What are the odds that in all FOUR cases the lightly armed highjackers could either overwhelm or convince the pilots to give up their seats, and all INSTANTLY? What are the odds that in all FOUR cases, with the possible exceeption of Flt. 93, that the mssions would all be successful, with all targets hit perfectly?

Considering the entire scenario, all of the hundreds of ' inexpliacable anomalies ' associated with this event, it is plain and clear that this was a remote taking. WHY would the highjackers take chances unnecessarily? The OBJECT was to crash jets into Towers, etc., right? It doesn't matter HOW they get the jets, as long as they get to their targets. The highjackers would have planned for the least risky way of geting the missioon done, with the highest chance at success, and that is NOT by trying to highjack four jets at the same time!!

The mission was NOT to make all of us fear flying, it was to demonstrate( according to the official lie at least ) the capabilities of the supposed ' terrorists ' to strike efectively at their enemies, thats all. But as we all know, or should know, this was all an inside job and if there really WERE any highjackers that day, they were fall guys and patsies just like the crew and passengers: All cannon fodder for the Neocon coup. The perps actually believe that we should be sacrificed by our own people in order to achieve grand objectives: Collateral damage, as it were.

There is NO WAY that EIGHT pilots would have allowed murderous highjackers to take the controls: it is insane to imagine. The ONLY way that an aircraft is safe is when it is under the control of a trained pilot familiar with all of the controls. If a highjacker wanted to survive the event, he would demand that the pilots land somewhere for negotiations, just like in ALL past political events. The ONLY rational reason for a highjacker to take over would be to crash the plane with all on board dying. That is not disputable.

The pilots are smart men and knew this as well: It is only plain and simple logic to believe that if the controls are given up, then likley all on board will be dead soon. Where there is life, there is hope. And NO pilots would have given up the cockpits willingly, and to fight to the death with EIGHT men determined to live and fly would have taken FAR LONGER than the milleseconds that it took to disable the controls and kill the transponders.

In order for the official story to be true, one would have to believe that when the highjackers knocked on the cockpit doors, the pilots did a Chinese fire drill getting out of the cockpits as fast as possible and without any objections at all. But we know that is not possible. We SHOULD have FOUR sets of tapes with the FOUR airliners recording the entire events that took place in the cockpits: WHY have they not been released? We know why: Because it would show that at a certain time, all systems were taken over and there was NO yelling and struggling and fighting going on, or it would have been recorded by the FOUR cockpit recorders, which record the last half hour of conversation in the cockpit.

WHY have we not been given the transcripts, at least, of all FOUR takings as they occurred? We know why, don't we? Because they do not exist. If they did, it would bolster the governments case a lot, would it not? But they cannot release what they do not have. The truth is this: All FOUR planes were taken by remote control and flown to locations well known to some, and a matter of some conjecture to others. There is NO WAY to believe that all four highjackings could have gone off the same way, with 100% effectiveness, and NO radio messages from any one of the EIGHT pilots. No rational person can beoieve the official story, unless they simply are in a state of denial.

it IS an awful thing to realize that the people who are actually running the show are muderers and worse, but that is the truth. it is not an easy thing for many people to comprehend the sickening depths to which the power seeking and religiously demented will go to to accomplish their desired goals. The Neocon perps here are not willing to stop now: They rolled the dice and are on a course that will end either with them in total control of us all, or in their arrest and trrials for murder and conspiracy and treason. 9-11 was just a PART of a much grander overall plan, the beginnings of which we are seeing unfold around us even now.

But your eyes have to be opened in order to see.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Nice dodge. What are your thoughts on the link I provided?



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Nice dodge. What are your thoughts on the link I provided?


Nice way to post non-evidence. Please provide some evdience from a good and verifiable link. Not form a link that is questionable.

I am still waiting for someone to post a good reason why out of 4 planes not 1 could get off a proper emergency call or signal.

Specally after at least 1 plane received a warning.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by ULTIMA 1
Nice way to post non-evidence. Please provide some evdience from a good and verifiable link. Not form a link that is questionable.


What is questionable about that link? It came from the NTSB.


I am still waiting for someone to post a good reason why out of 4 planes not 1 could get off a proper emergency call or signal.


Maybe because the hijackers didn't want them to. Flight 93 got off 2 calls.


Specally after at least 1 plane received a warning.


The plane that received a warning was also the plane that managed to get off 2 radio calls.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
What is questionable about that link? It came from the NTSB.

Maybe because the hijackers didn't want them to. Flight 93 got off 2 calls.



Do they state 100% the voices are the pilots from flight 93?

So how did the hijackers stop them from making calls or signals if it only takes a second to hit the mike button or 2 seconds to set the transponder codes?

So are you saying that the hijackers were suicidal?

I need to see some good evidence that the calls came from the pilots of flight 93.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Do they state 100% the voices are the pilots from flight 93?

Did you look at my link? It says flight 93 on the transcript.


So how did the hijackers keep them from making calls or signals if it only takes a second to hit the mike button or 2 seconds to set the transponder codes?

Maybe the knives had something to do with that. Flight 93 got off 2 calls. Why do you think it only takes two seconds to change the transponder? John Lear said two to four seconds under optimal conditions.


So are you saying that the hijackers were suicidal?

Why wouldn't I? They did commit suicide after all. Whether or not the pilots knew that is a different question.


I need to see some good evidence that the calls came from the pilots of flight 93.

The evidence was good enough to be used to prosecute Zacharias Moussaoui. During the trial, prosecutors used the FAA control tower recordings, cockpit voice recorder recordings and the FDR animation to show what happened in the final moments of flight 93. I guess it was good enough for the families, the jury, and members of the press who were at the trial.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


Here you go eyewitness86. Another copilot who didn't fight to the death before giving up control.


And on July 23, 1999, as All Nippon Airways flight 61 ascended from Tokyo's Haneda Airport on its way to Sapporo, Yuji Nishizawa, 28, got up from his seat, pulled an 8-inch knife on a female flight attendant and forced her to unlock the cockpit door. He ordered the co-pilot out of the cockpit and demanded that the captain fly to a U.S. military base west of Tokyo. When he refused, Nishizawa stabbed him in the neck and took control of the aircraft.
Link.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
What a laugh!! Flt. 93 got off NO calls..none. There was some alleged ' chatter ' heard at the time the ATC was calling for 93..but that was a part of the act. Please give a MUCH beter answer than ' because the highjackers wanted them to ". That is seriously deficient. The knives? What knives? There are ALLEGATIONS of boxcutters, but almost half of the alleged ' highjackers ' were singled out for surther scrutiny at the airports and no doubt had NO weapons at all.

And HOW , pray tell, did the highjackers manage to slash two pilots to death before even one could press a button right under his finger? How? How could two at most highjackers assault a cramped cockpit, with no room to maneuver successfully take all four cockpits? How? How could you imagine the pilot flying the plane calling for help and declaring an emergency while the other pilot fought off the men, perhaps with the fire ax they carry, in any case a man can hold off a small knife for quite a while before being taken down. You might get your hands and arms cut but you will keep the attackers out of the cockpit and keep them from crashing the plane: The ONLY logical way to look at this is as follows:

It is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that in all FOUR cases, the lightly armed highjackers were able to instantly penetrate all four cockpits and disable the EIGHT pilots before they could respond or radio any alerts. No way to believe that. One must assume so many things not in evidence: One must assume that all four cockpit doors were standing wide open in violation of all orders and common sense, we must also assume that after getting into the cockpits without any problems they were able to either slash two men ( in each of four planes !!) to death and haul them from a blood drenched and very cramped cockpit area, or convince them somehow thru a dog and pony act of threatening someone..nonsense.

We must assume that in all four cases, the take overs were so fast that all pilots were unable to radio an alert. We must assume that in all four cases the new pilots were so well trained that they knew all of the navigational instruments intimately as well as all other aircraft controls, but were unable to tell the difference between the radio and the handset to the back of the plane for the intercom!! The official lie says that there were some souinds heard allegedly from Flt. 93 although this was never proven, when the ' highjacker ' mistakenly hit the wrong button!! Imagine that!! To know an aircraft so well that one can fly it better than any professional pilots now flying and get to their targets with no problems..but they didn't know the radio and how it worked!!

They knew of course how to breach cockpits and kill pilots instantly, and how to navigate and fly major aircraft and fly them into their targets, but they just didn't attend that lecture in the cave by Osama about the radios; all they got was the part about how to turn off the transponders!!! Imagine that !! How can anyone actually believe the official story anymore? how could they? It staggers the sound mind to imagine the degrees that one must go to to accept the incredible assumptions and suppositions that have to be swallowed before one can believe even one scrap of the official lie.

The highjackers were NOT superhuman and they could not, and did not, perform any miracles that day: From all available evidence it seems that the ' highjackers ' got their training at secure militray bases as inside players cooperating with out shadow intel guys..Able Danger tracked them during that time..as well as the Israelis, who were playing the cards the whole time to make it happen. The highjackers were fall guys, as suprised as anyone else when the planes were taken remotely , if they were ever on board at al, and there is very strong evidence to suggest that there were NO highjackers on any planes that day.

Whatever the case, it is beyond a doubt a truth that the 9-11 attacks were an operation performed and designed by the shadow government and the Neocon traitors and AIPAC Zionists that profited so much from it all. Cheney is the inside man and there are a few others at major levels, General Myers for one, and some FBI guys as well. All it takes is a few men willing to look the other way and ignore any implications of what they are doing. There is no one in power that believes the official story; it is for suckers only. No one could believe such odds and so many anomalies.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Did you look at my link? It says flight 93 on the transcript.

Maybe the knives had something to do with that. Flight 93 got off 2 calls. Why do you think it only takes two seconds to change the transponder? John Lear said two to four seconds under optimal conditions.


I did not ask if it stated flight 93. I asked if it stated 100% that it was the pilots of flight 93.

So the hijackers got into the cockpits and killed the pilots in less then 2-4 seconds?



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by ULTIMA1

I did not ask if it stated flight 93. I asked if it stated 100% that it was the pilots of flight 93.

So the hijackers got into the cockpits and killed the pilots in less then 2-4 seconds?


Why would they have to say that they're 100% sure if they were allowed to use it as evidence and Moussaoui's lawyers didn't object? None of the family members have claimed that it wasn't the pilots voice.

I never said they did. If you would read the link that I posted earlier, you would know that one of the pilots wasn't killed immediately.



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by eyewitness86
We must assume that in all four cases the new pilots were so well trained that they knew all of the navigational instruments intimately as well as all other aircraft controls, but were unable to tell the difference between the radio and the handset to the back of the plane for the intercom!!


What handset are you talking about? Do you actually read the posts on this thread or do you just jump in and type out seven or eight paragraphs of the same things that you've said through this whole thread?

John Lear stated earlier that there was a separate handset used to communicate with the passenger cabin. I posted photos of a 757 cockpit and asked him where they were. He said he had made a mistake and the 757 was different than the 727. Then he explained how the radio communications work on a 757. Did you miss his post?



posted on Nov, 13 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
I really wish that the childish drivel would stop: it is APPARENT to ANY mature adult with common sense that any ' highjacker ' that would resort to murder to gain access to a cockpit would gladly committ suicide with an airplane if he got control.


Childish? Okay...

Why is it apparent to any mature adult? It is apparent only to those examining the situation with full knowledge of what ultimately happened. Tell me, was it apparent to the US gov't that putting steel and oil sanctions on Japan would cause the attack on Pearl Harbour?

And where is it said the hijackers resorted to murder to gain access? I merely postulated that they could threaten to murder the stewardess and the pilots would have a very hard time calling that bluff.

It is apparent to any reasonable adult that your adherence to your "truth" is such that no reasonble question will be answered.


WHY else would a highjacker want to fly a plane?


Because they are big, shiny phallic symbols? No? Okay then, because they want complete control, they don't want to have to argue with pilots...Personally, I'm not a hijacker, so I can't really say with definitive insight.


the pilots are the most qualified to fly, and get the highjackers to any destination they desired, right?


Yes, but what if one of the hijackers was the afore-mentioned EgyptAir, Iran Air or Garuda pilots? I noticed that you singularly failed to answer that particular hypothesis. Now, why couldn't a hijacker also be a qualified pilot?

You have seen Con Air, right? Remember Swamp Thing, the con who took over the controls? If Hollywood can think of it, why can't Bin Laden?

And

How do the pilots know that NONE of the hijackers are qualified pilots?


OK.


Yes, I know.


ONLY a highjacker with suicide on his mind would want to take the controls of a major aircraft:


Why? What if the hijackers wanted to repeat the 1970 PFLP hijacking scenario of several jets in the desert? What if the hijackers wanted to prove they were not a bunch of amateurs but educated, trained professionals not to be messed with? Terrorist hijackings are mostly about the statement made. The end result is the statement, not the damage. Sep 11 wasn't about the WTC, it was about America's vulnerability.


This is simple logic.


It's certainly simplistic.


If a highjacker wants to land somewhere, he will force the pilots to take him there by either capturing the cockpit physically or perhaps with threatening a crew member or passenger.


Wait, wait, wait. Let's look at that again.


If a highjacker wants to land somewhere, he will force the pilots to take him there by either capturing the cockpit physically or perhaps with threatening a crew member or passenger.


Remind me, what is the title of this thread? Isn't it "How were the cockpits taken?"


There has NEVER, in all of aviation history, been a highjacking of a plane by a qualified pilot of that same aircraft..NEVER. It has NEVER happened.


And that, apparently, means it CANNOT happen? Prior to Taranto there had never been a major aerial attack on a fleet at harbour. Didn't mean it couldn't be done. The Japanese were watching closely, the Yanks were not.

Pilots have hijacked their own aircraft.

en.wikipedia.org...:_Pilot_Suicide%3F
en.wikipedia.org...

Now, before you begin your next rant, yes, I noted that these were suicide. And before you start your next, next rant, yes I note that I have said because pilots have never fought back before they were unlikely to this time. I still hold that view because the pilots wre reacting to a common situation, hijacking, that had taken an uncommon twist, take control. A pilot hijacker wouldn't be reacting to an uncommon situation. He would be the uncommon situation.


NO highjacker in history has ever attempted to taake over a flight in order to land it somewhere with him at the controls..


Again, that apparently means it cannot be done...


it makes NO sense whatsoever,


Why not?


not to any rational person


By what standard, exactly, are you judging "rationality"? Yours?


or to any highjacker.


Really? Know a lot of hijackers, do you? No? Okay, maybe you've profiled a lot of them for the FBI et al...No? Oh, then how do you propose to back that claim?


ONLY a suicide mission would call for the pilots to be removed.


Again with the empirical statements utterly bereft of either proof or thoughtful analysis. This is becoming a theme with you, isn't it.


Thats common sense.


From you? Where?


Some of the questions asked by a few posters here really make me wonder if we are dealing with school kids here or adults:


Your utter inability to answer questions that provide alternative theories to your own makes one wonder just how old you are.


No thinking adult could assume some of the nonsense foolishness that we read here..


I know, it amazes me what I'm forced to respond to...



parsing whether or not killing is homocide or suicide...amazing.


If you don't know the difference I suggest you get out your OED and start reading. Because, believe you me (which, I know, is an act of self-nullification for you and therefore highly unlikely), the difference is vitally important and if you don't know what it is, don't use the terms.


If a real highjacker could fly a large jet and wanted a vehicle for a suicide mission, they could STEAL a jet a lot easier than highjacking them and taking all of the risks involved in possible failure.


Really? Please set out for us in detail how a Muslim pilot of either Asian or Middle-Eastern appearance can steal a commercial jet from an airport in the US, get it airborne and fly it anywhere with less risk of failure than compared with hijacking it once airborne? Which one will the US President have less difficulty in ordering shot down?


Why not just take one from an airport somewhere with lax security and fly it out?


Tell us how.


Less risk of exposure and failure for the mission.


Less risk of exposure?

Crew Chief 1: "Say, Dave, didn't we leave a 757 there?"
CC2: "Maybe we left it over by the other terminal..."
CC1: "Geez, if my head wasn't screwed on I'd leave it at home!"

or:

Tower at airport with lax security: "Hey, you in the 757, you have clearance, or what?"

Pilot/thief: "Yeah, your buddy who's in the john now said I could take off."

Tower: "Oh, okay then. Fly safe y'all."

Or

Thief/Pilot: "Yo, somebody fuel that 757, I gotta take her up on a test!"


But these guys all chose the hearest and most risky way to do it, huh?


Apparently not.


Try and take FOUR cockpits all at once and hope for success?


Hope? No, I don't think so. Plan, train, game? Yes. Pray? Well, of course, five times a day if they were real Muslims. But hope? I doubt it.


It staggers the sound mind to read some of the comments here; it seems as if some people will go to extraordinary lengths to try and prop up the Official Lie, even to the point of being downright silly.


Right, like suggesting that stealing a multi-engine commercial from an airport has a lower chance of discovery and failure than hijacking a plane that is already airborne...


There is NO WAY that highjackers can overwhelm cockpits that fast,


Prove it.


and there is NO WAY that in all FOUR cases, the pilots could have been yanked away from the controls so fast that not ONE of them managed to place a call.


Prove that. And stop using obfuscatory language such as "yanked". Who said they were "yanked"? Who said they didn't get out of their seats under their own steam under threat?


There is NO wiggle room with that logiac,


Wiggle room? You know, the Pope said there was no wiggle room in the logic that the sun revolved around the earth.


and any attempts to try and meake it possible lead one down a primrose path of thorms and nothing else.


This isn't "wiggle room", this is genuine questioning. You still can't answer those questions. As for garden paths...suggest you get your secatuers out and keep the sharp...


Some people are willing to accept odds that are beyond belief, but the sensible approach is to take what is seen and apply logic and common sense to it,


When you do, let us know.


and the answer that comes up every time is : Remote taking and a total set up by the inside players. There is just no other way that is even slightly believable.


Every time? No other way?

Well, on that note, discussion over.

But then, this wasn't ever a discussion, was it? This was just so you could tell us all how stupid we are and how smart you are because you know the government orchestrated and ordered the deaths of three thousand of their own people, not to mention a bunch of foreigners.

ps Mea culpa on the egregious mis-spelling of homicide, all I can say is I watched LA Confidential the other day and Kevin Spacey's line was stuck in my head.


edit: sp

[edit on 13-11-2007 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Why would they have to say that they're 100% sure if they were allowed to use it as evidence and Moussaoui's lawyers didn't object? None of the family members have claimed that it wasn't the pilots voice.

I never said they did. If you would read the link that I posted earlier, you would know that one of the pilots wasn't killed immediately.


Lots of people have been conficted on circumstantial evidence. I will ask a third time, does the evidence you have 100% sure the voice is from the pilots.

Yes you did, when asked why the pilots could not get off a call or signal you stated because of the knives.

[edit on 14-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86
There has NEVER, in all of aviation history, been a highjacking of a plane by a qualified pilot of that same aircraft..NEVER. It has NEVER happened.


To which Boone gave us a link which disproved that assertion.


NO highjacker in history has ever attempted to taake over a flight in order to land it somewhere with him at the controls..



He ordered the co-pilot out of the cockpit and demanded that the captain fly to a U.S. military base west of Tokyo. When he refused, Nishizawa stabbed him in the neck and took control of the aircraft.



it makes NO sense whatsoever,


No, not to a rational human, but then...


...16 reported instances in which a lone passenger attempted to break through the cockpit door. Of these, 10 attempts were successful. In almost every instance, the perpetrator was either angry, frightened, deranged or intoxicated.


I'd suggest the level of "frightened" or "angry" would have to be somewhere near "severely"!


not to any rational person


By what standard, exactly, are you judging "rationality"? Yours?


In almost every instance, the perpetrator was either angry, frightened, deranged or intoxicated.



or to any highjacker.



Nishizawa stabbed him in the neck and took control of the aircraft.



Try and take FOUR cockpits all at once and hope for success?



...Of these, 10 attempts were successful...

...If these people (all of whom acted without training) can breach the cockpit door, imagine how easy it is for a group of motivated hijackers...


Yes, just imagine...Well, I guess we don't need to, do we?



It staggers the sound mind to read some of the comments here; it seems as if some people will go to extraordinary lengths to try and prop up the Official Lie, even to the point of being downright silly.


Well, stagger on, then...



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Amazing, simply amazing. I guess we just have totally different ideas as to what constitutes logic. That is the only thing that can explain the continued refusal to see the obvious.

Just because something is POSSIBLE, does not mean that it is LIKELY. Got that? OK. I am not going to go point by point and refute all that nonsense, because you are seemingly on a different plane of logic than me. Soi, I will just say that because on 10 occasions in history drunks and crazies have invaded cockpiots, does NOT mean that they had a 100% sucess rate!! My God..what illogic!! How many attempts were stopped before they got into a cockpit? That would level the logic field a bit, yes?

And to imagine FOUR almost simultaneous highjackings, all without anything but small and crude weapons at BEST is beyond logical. The FACT that none of the EIGHT pilots was able to even key the mike button is a fact that you would rather ignore because all you can come up with as a very flimsy excuse is the sad old " They were so fast and had knives' nonsense. That does NOT do for an explanation, not at all. And to imagine pilots giving in to a highjackers demands just because they were threatening a stewardess or someone else is LUDICROUS!! Silly!!

Better the crew member get killed than all on board, and THAT is what is most likley if highjackers invade a cockpit with the intent to take it and fly it. you gave ONE example, in all of aviation hisotry, of a real pilot trying to take a plane. One. Ok, you got me. I was wrong. There was ONE instead of NONE. Big deal..it still proves my point quite well: It is almost unheard of for a highjacker to want to actually fly the plane..right? Can we all at least agree on that? So knowing that, pilots would NOT risk ALL the passengers and crews lives by opening up the cockpit, they would try and land as soon as humanly possible and they would be RADIOING the hell out of the ATC to let them know to get help standing by on the ground.

That is LIKELY. Your logic is far out and UNlikley. Totally. Your logic says " If there is the slightest chance, no matter how remote, we will consider tha valid evidence and as likely as any other scenario. And by so doing you are being intellectually dishonest and are missing the entire point of logic and odds. The ODDS say, overwhelmingly, that the official story is so far from being possible, or likley, that the smartest thing to do is to take everything the Government says with a grain of salt.

And to believe that the conditions existed on 9-11 that allowed for the most REMOTE and UNLIKELY events to occur is plain crazy. It makes no sense at all to accept odds sky high when the most logical and apparent answers are right there in front of you. The planes were taken REMOTELY, that is the ONLY way to explain all of the MANY anomalies associated with this event. To believe otherwise means accepting a wide range of almost impossible scenarios as fact, and bending critical thinking to it's knees in subjection to an irrational application of the facts.

So, it is plain and clear that the pilots, all professionals and desiring to live and kep their charges safe also, would NOT have given up the controls of the planes to highjackers under ANY circumstances except being killed. And there is NO evidence that there were fights and slashings and blood all over the cockpit. there are NO proofs of any radio contacts from the FOUR planes, and that alone screams for attention: We SHOULD have FOUR tapes with cockpit sounds to prove the case, should we not? but we do not, because they do not exist.

They do not exist because the planes were taken remotely. There is no other intelligent application of the known facts that makes any sense at all.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by ULTIMA 1
Lots of people have been conficted on circumstantial evidence. I will ask a third time, does the evidence you have 100% sure the voice is from the pilots.

Yes you did, when asked why the pilots could not get off a call or signal you stated because of the knives.


It's not my evidence. Moussaoui's attorneys didn't object to it during the trial. The families didn't say that it wasn't the pilots voice, so yeah, 100% sure.

No, I didn't. I never said the pilots were killed within two to four seconds.
Why would I say that when the CVR records one of the pilots begging for his life?



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
No, I didn't. I never said the pilots were killed within two to four seconds.
Why would I say that when the CVR records one of the pilots begging for his life?


So if you are saying that the pilots were not killed within 2-4 seconds why couldn't they get off an emergency call or signal?

Do you have evidence that it is the pilot of flight 93 begging for his life?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join