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: 20
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
reply to post by thedman
 




That brief garbled transmission could have been inserted as easily as pie. There was a flying platform seen all over this event and finally over DC, and it could have sent that radio message.

It was supposed to be a highjacker who could not figure out the difference between the radio and the intercom...but COULD fly it perfectly all the way to where it ended, wherevr that was in reality.

So you see, there are NO RADIO message from any of the pilots....not one. Not One pilot could take even a second to call. That means remote.


uhh...what?

First off, how does one go from this:

"It was supposed to be a highjacker[sic] who could not figure out the difference between the radio and the intercom"

...to this:

"So you see, there are NO RADIO message from any of the pilots....not one."

..in one paragraph break. Maybe you should rephrase that to reflect the fact that there was a radio transmission believed to be from a hijacked aircraft, which you believe to be faked. But don't say there aren't any radio transmissions, when in the previous paragraph you indicate that there was. The one in question is from Mohammed Atta, who was thought to be the AA11 hijacker pilot. He keyed the mic thinking he was on the cabin interphone, while he was actually transmitting over a VHF ATC frequency. Its an easy mistake to make, real airliner pilots do it all the time. It just means they forgot to punch the appropriate mic select switch on the audio panel before keying.

Secondly, the ATC transcript of all four flights has been released by the NTSB. AA11s transcript is here.

Radio traffic for all four flights is normal up to the point where they stop responding; tell me how that points to remote control?

Now I know what else you are thinking...'Surely real pilots would've sent a 7500 squawk as soon as the cockpit door broke down, right?' Well, you tell me how long that takes with a 767 ATC panel, especially when a knife wielding maniac is trying to slit your throat, and I'll decide if its fishy that the code wasn't sent. But I'll give you a hint to keep you from sounding like an idiot in your reply. Review the CVR transcript from the Fedex 705 hijacking and point out when the pilots had time to make a call to ATC or set the transponder to 7500 during the attack. A reasonable request, no?




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
Not only did these diminutive cave dwellers manage to successfully take over the cockpits at the speed of light with no problems whatsoever, they were able to change the plane's orignal course and make a beeline for their targets (Twins/Pentagon) without missing a beat.

No 767/757 piloting experience, no navigational experience and we are supposed to believe that these box cutter wielding hit the virgin jackpot on all three occasions without straying off course. How dense can some people be not to be able to fathom the overwhelming piloting and navigational complexity of such scenarios by untrained individuals?


Cave dwellers? They all had degrees from western colleges, and many came from affluent well-to-do families. Sorry, did I just beat down your strawman?

And I must be pretty dense because every pilot I know, and I know bunch, knows just how easy it is to "point and crash" an airliner, especially when YOU ARE A FREAKING PILOT!! Oh did I mention that the all of the flying hijackers had pilots licenses(Hani Hanjour even had a commercial rating, meaning he could fly professionally, and 600 hours total time) and simulator time as well as all kinds of training aids , including 757/767 cockpit diagrams. Wow, sounds like they actually prepared for this huh...did I just beat down another of your strawmen? I'm terribly sorry about that.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

So they were tracking flight 93, lost them then found them then all of a sudden they allegedly crashed and the pilot with out any emotion describes a 'puff of black smoke'.

This is hardly a description for a massive Boeing 757 and fellow pilot crashing.

In conclusion they did not see a Boeing 757 crash nor was one found let alone the evidence on the ground that proves one didnt.



Jesus! Do you know what altitude American 1060 was at? No? Then how should you know what the impact mushroom should look like?

Its obvious he saw someone crash, and no other aircraft in the area was hijacked, or under any other distress at the time. It's pretty easy to figure out what happened, especially when the Flight Data Recorder and ATC Radar Data show the same thing.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


might be a silly question but dont the "autopilot device" make it possible for a remote landing and take off if your near an airport/ radio tower so to say and is pretty old tech and not something thats been recently installed in the airbus series.

im in no way an expert in this field and the closest i ve come to fly buckets of this size was an md 11 at the age 8,

still searching for the clips where they mention these removals (every thing is not on the internet) , i strongly recall it was well known airlines such as brittish airway, delta or in that direction.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


Thank you for the link to the Washington Post article about voice-morphing. The article refers to Dr George Papcun, creator of voice-morphing technology.

Perhaps you are unaware that Dr Papcun has firmly rejected any idea that his technology could have been used 0n 9/11 :-

sites.google.com...



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


might be a silly question but dont the "autopilot device" make it possible for a remote landing and take off if your near an airport/ radio tower so to say and is pretty old tech and not something thats been recently installed in the airbus series.

im in no way an expert in this field and the closest i ve come to fly buckets of this size was an md 11 at the age 8,

still searching for the clips where they mention these removals (every thing is not on the internet) , i strongly recall it was well known airlines such as brittish airway, delta or in that direction.



No airliner autopilot can perform an "automatic takeoff". Almost all of them can in fact do a hands-off "automatic landing"(autoland). But what is required is an ILS signal from a runway's localizer and glideslope antennae.

The limiting factor on any pre-GPS era aircraft(of the 4 9/11 aircraft, only UA93 had a line number after the 757 shipped with GPS receivers) with regard to turning it into a missile is the inaccuracy of IRS, even when its updated with navigational aid DME. It simply doesn't have the resolution or accuracy to place the aircraft exactly where you want it. But that's the least of the problems for any would-be remote control 'e-hijacker'.

I don't feel like going back and replying to all the "remote control" posts in the thread. Suffice to say that the 'remote control' peddlers in this thread have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. I wrote a piece for 911myths.com about the possibility of remotely controlling a 757/767; some of it is pertinent to the thread, some isn't. But I invite the resident 'e-hijacking' proponents to tell me how your autopilot/remote control system is going to work with all the circuit breakers pulled for autopilot, FMS, GPS(if installed), Air Data Computers, or even IRS systems, or any system ? How will it work when the engine generators have been selected off, or had the generator drive disconnect switches latched? How will it work when there is a hatch right behind the cockpit which leads to the avionics bay, where if necessary, the pilot can just simply pull the computers out by hand?

Software does very little on a mechanically controlled(cable and pulley) plane like a 757/767. Just kill the autopilot and and autothrottle, and software isn't doing a damned thing with regard to aircraft control, nor can it possibly do so. I'd argue the point on a Fly-By-Wire aircraft like an A330 or a 777, but ultimately the pilot can always degrade control law and get back control, but thats another topic...

[edit on 30-5-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
It took approx 11 minutes to take control of AA11 (1213-1224) reading from the manuscripts, That is a very long time to take control of a cockpit cabin, Which could mean poor training or "bad drills"..
Has anyone ever been threatened by a knife wielding person ?
(I mean a real knife not a "box cutter")
Well i have and its fight or flight big style and since there no where sensibly to go, These pilots would have fought like the tasmanian devil himself.... IMHO .



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by foxhoundone
 


foxhound...hold on a second, let's test your assumptions here:


It took approx 11 minutes to take control of AA11 (1213-1224) reading from the manuscripts, That is a very long time to take control of a cockpit cabin...


It seems you are basing that "11 minutes" solely on the time hack when the REAL pilots of AAL 11 stopped responding, and when it was determined that AAL 11 began a turn off course?

In reality, the time of "takeover" would have been a matter of seconds.

The rest of time, the autopilot was still engaged, and the hijacker terrorist pilot was in no hurry to start his turn...I would imagine he was adjusting his seat, settling in, possibly inputting the "new" waypoint as the 'destination' (this is very easy to do, once youknow how...it's just a matter of using the computer interface, pushing some buttons, using a drop-down menu, and typing in data, etc).

Since we do not have the DFDR for AAL 11 (nor UAL 175) we can only speculate based on what was seen in the AAL 77 and UAL 93 data. We DO have the autopilot interaction functions, post-takeover, along with the manual tuning actions of certain VHF nav radio equipment. Those manual tuning actions PROVE that there was a human doing it, as it could not have happened any other way.



[edit on 30 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by foxhoundone
 


Also, foxhound, did youread my reply, upthread, to this contention:


Well i have and its fight or flight big style and since there no where sensibly to go, These pilots would have fought like the tasmanian devil himself.... IMHO .


If not...keep in mind the vulnerability and disadvantage the pilots faced, whilst seated, backs to their attackers (who were standing). AND, the pilots had their seatbelts on, too. Surprised---from behind---litle time to react, and in a poor position to defend themselves?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Pilots shmilots....

On 911 there were multiple pre planned wargames which some included live-fly hijacking scenarios. Some of these craft were just blips on a Norad screen and others were real craft there were also smaller aircraft being used a surrogates.

The crafts that crashed were sometimes confused for blips but usually known as being part of the exercise. Most of the people involved believed that the crashed were all part of the simulation.

These craft were most likely remotely flown. There were also cruise missile acquisition scenarios taking place aswell. It was a busy day on 911 with all the war game and military, faa, norad, Usaf drills going on. These drills were used as the operational cover to execute the attack.

This information is readily available. I recommend searching elsewhere for this information and do not accept some guy on a forum saying it isnt so.

Dont take my word for it. This is what some Airforce pilot explained to me days after the attack.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Well.....THAT settles everything!!



Dont take my word for it. This is what some Airforce pilot explained to me days after the attack.


"some" Airforce pilot?
Yup, don't take your word for it....

Did he pull both of your legs, or just the one??



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


You quote two sentences from me that make perfect sense, IF you have any cognitive abilities. I said " supposed ' because that is what the official story drones would say....I do not believe it at all, I was simply saying what THEY said.

I do not believe that ANY genuine transmission was received after the highjackings began. It is the official story believers that say there was a radio message from a highjacker who mistook the radio for the intercom.

That radio message was sent by the perps to be able to later have SOME ' proof ' that a highjacker was actually in a cockpit. They failed to make additional arrangement for more convincing transmissions, and likley they were comfortable with the single ' accidental ' message.

But STILL not ONE of you official story faithful has yet given us a LIKELY and PLAUSIBLE scenario that would explain how the cockpits were taken so fast that NONE of the eight pilots had even a second or two to radio.

Professional pilots agree that it only takes a second or two to activate the radio button, which is located on the yoke, which is normall in the hands of at least one pilot unless the auto is engaged...but even then they are sitting there inches away and can certainly make a radio call if someone was assaulting the door or attacking the left seat pilot.

To believe that Chuck Burlingame, a tough guy under anyones definition and not likley to back away from a fight, ESPECIALLY with a small man armed with only a boxcutter, is an insult to his memory. If YOU believe that all eight pilots simply gave in and let themselves be herded around and or assualted/killed without a whimper ( and there is NO, repeat NO evidence of any reports of a struggle) then you have no real ability to process info and gauge its' true meaning.

No plane showeed ANY abrupt variations, such as rolling, pitching, etc....which manypilots say they would do to throw off an attack....so explain THAT, if you can. All eight pilots just got up and walked out , scared like children that the arab bogeymen would scratch them with a boxcutter....how could ANYONE believe this crap?

Only an official story cultist could stand unashamed and state one far fetched assumption after another with a straight face, expecting reasonable people to swallow odds so vast and incredible that only the worst and most enslaved gambler would contemplate betting on them.

One poster even had the nerve to suggest that the highjackers simply HOPED that a stew would open the cockpit and let them in!! The whole plan dependent on a maybe and a wish....please, how could anyone believe this?

When a guess like that is as logical as it gets when trying to prop up the Official lie you know their position is not only weak, but crashing into the rocks...the people who support the governments story are desperate for reasons that make sense...they have none, so they just try and muddy the water by making silly and impossible claims and assumptions and hoping that the reader on the edge will tire of the nonsense and forget it.

it makes you wonder about the motivations of the official story cultists...I call them cultists because they base their beliefs on a set of radical and incredible fantasies and lies and ignore reason and logic. They refuse to recognize absolute facts and apply the signifigance to them that they deserve, and in my book anyone that does that is deluded, and happily so.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


You have made it clear that you advocate voice-morphing and remote control as explanations for 9/11 planes.

However, in the last few posts you have been shown that Dr G Papcun, creator of voice-morphing technology, has denied that his technology could have been used 9/11 and you have weedwhacker, a former commercial pilot, and 767 doctor, an avionics technician, denying that remote control could have been applied to Boeing 757's or 767's on 9/11.

Is it not time for you to go back to the drawing board ?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Well.....THAT settles everything!!



Dont take my word for it. This is what some Airforce pilot explained to me days after the attack.


"some" Airforce pilot?
Yup, don't take your word for it....

Did he pull both of your legs, or just the one??




I started to type a reply to "ShadowHerder" but deleted it shortly thereafter. What's the point? Every single airline pilot, mechanic, and engineer in the world knows a 767 can't be remotely controlled in any way which would make the pilots spectators. But the blissful ignorants in this thread don't know that, don't *want* to know that, and will refuse to ask anyone who actually works in the industry who *should* know it; lest their wall of blissful, willful ignorance come crashing down at freefall speed. After all, if they can do it on TV...it must be real!

Apparently, theres always a magical "black box", if when installed can do things like override every switch and circuit breaker in the cockpit(even though these little guys are hard-wired to the computers the magical 'remote control box' will need to 'fly' the airplane). These magical devices can make dead appliances, like autopilot computers, spring back to life after their breakers were opened. They can also somehow work themselves when there is no power to the electrical bus they are on...and even more amazingly, this device actually manipulate flight control cables, bellcranks, torque tubes, and control rods that have no electrical connections. I need to get me one of these!

Got a part number ShadowHerder?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
reply to post by 767doctor
 


You quote two sentences from me that make perfect sense, IF you have any cognitive abilities. I said " supposed ' because that is what the official story drones would say....I do not believe it at all, I was simply saying what THEY said.

I do not believe that ANY genuine transmission was received after the highjackings began. It is the official story believers that say there was a radio message from a highjacker who mistook the radio for the intercom.

That radio message was sent by the perps to be able to later have SOME ' proof ' that a highjacker was actually in a cockpit. They failed to make additional arrangement for more convincing transmissions, and likley they were comfortable with the single ' accidental ' message.

But STILL not ONE of you official story faithful has yet given us a LIKELY and PLAUSIBLE scenario that would explain how the cockpits were taken so fast that NONE of the eight pilots had even a second or two to radio.

Professional pilots agree that it only takes a second or two to activate the radio button, which is located on the yoke, which is normall in the hands of at least one pilot unless the auto is engaged...but even then they are sitting there inches away and can certainly make a radio call if someone was assaulting the door or attacking the left seat pilot.

To believe that Chuck Burlingame, a tough guy under anyones definition and not likley to back away from a fight, ESPECIALLY with a small man armed with only a boxcutter, is an insult to his memory. If YOU believe that all eight pilots simply gave in and let themselves be herded around and or assualted/killed without a whimper ( and there is NO, repeat NO evidence of any reports of a struggle) then you have no real ability to process info and gauge its' true meaning.

No plane showeed ANY abrupt variations, such as rolling, pitching, etc....which manypilots say they would do to throw off an attack....so explain THAT, if you can. All eight pilots just got up and walked out , scared like children that the arab bogeymen would scratch them with a boxcutter....how could ANYONE believe this crap?

Only an official story cultist could stand unashamed and state one far fetched assumption after another with a straight face, expecting reasonable people to swallow odds so vast and incredible that only the worst and most enslaved gambler would contemplate betting on them.

One poster even had the nerve to suggest that the highjackers simply HOPED that a stew would open the cockpit and let them in!! The whole plan dependent on a maybe and a wish....please, how could anyone believe this?

When a guess like that is as logical as it gets when trying to prop up the Official lie you know their position is not only weak, but crashing into the rocks...the people who support the governments story are desperate for reasons that make sense...they have none, so they just try and muddy the water by making silly and impossible claims and assumptions and hoping that the reader on the edge will tire of the nonsense and forget it.



This isn't hard to figure out. It takes about 1 second to get from the cockpit door to the Captains and F/Os seats. The pilots were faced forward, and strapped in to the seats. The hijacker(s) was(were) in perfect position to make to slashing motions at the pilots throats with presumably razor sharp boxcutters. In fact, the "muscle hijackers" practiced this for months, even years, and there were likely two or more who initially took the cockpits.

The pilots had the plane on autopilot, thats why there were no abrupt attitude changes. As weedwhacker alluded to, in that phase of flight, their headsets were likely removed, using the speakers and handset to make ATC calls/PA announcements. That would require reaching forward to obtain the handset; not an instictive move when someone is slitting your throat.

Have a look at Fedex 705. It was many minutes before the (3) pilots were able to subdue the (1) hijacker before a distress call could be made. That was 3 to 1, not 2 on 2. Again, this isn't hard to visualize. You can do it.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   
And WHY do you guys believe that the original aircraft were the ones that hit the Towers? We all know NO planes hit the Pentagon or Penn. No proof has been shown by the government and they REFUSE to release serial numbers. So we are talking about two aircraft, the other two are missing or were left in service, as some evidence has pointed to. Maybe they were blown up over the sea. The aircraft WERE remotely controlled and that means that one of two things happened:

Either planes of similar or exact type were outfitted with the required equipment for remote taking and used to crash into the Towers, or the avionics WERE capable of being overidden, as MANY pilots have said.

Because some guy on ATS says he is this or that we are expected to rely on that? please. Try going to PILOTS for 911 truth and read what pilots say....they say it is an inside job. Many people have documented the fact that such systems WERE capable of being taken, and if it was a security clearance issue and the HOME RUN system that a HIGH OFFICIAL says was true, then many pilots would NOT know whether or not the jet could be taken unless a highjacking happened and it was utilized.

Total silence from the lot of you on my main point: HOW could it have happened so fast and perfectly and without alerts or radio calls???

Your lack of a sound and likley scenario is deafening. All you can do is say that other people must be right...when that is never confirmed.

Your resistance to logic either has roots in a cause that requires more than we can offer here or you guys have an agenda....you have to suspend an incredible amount of effort to make yourselves believe unbelievable odds and excuses that no one should make that has looked at the evidence.

It is so frustrating; it is like a detective standing there in front of a dead body, with a knife sticking out of his back, and along comes some flatffot that says" An obvious suicide ' as if is was apparent. One can only shake his head when thinking about the lengths people are willing to go down the fantasy trail in order to validate the indefensible.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
You have some really strange definitions for words like "know" "evidence" and "truth".




Either planes of similar or exact type were outfitted with the required equipment for remote taking and used to crash into the Towers, or the avionics WERE capable of being overidden, as MANY pilots have said.



Name one pilot outside of the inaptly named and completely inept "Pilots For Truth" who have said as much. A single one. Better yet, have the PFT guys explain how a 767 can "override" the pilots authority and make them helpless spectators. Get them to provide documentation, schematics, or I'd even settle for a coherent thesis. But don't waste your time - you wont get anything other than empty bluster and possibly some technobabble which equates to random gibberish.

PFT is an echo chamber for like-minded "no planes" and "flyover" loons. Any dissent in that group is expressly prohibited. Toe (alleged) F/O Bob's line or you find yourself on the outside looking in. That goes for forum participants, as well as PFT members. The recent meltdown between Rob and his right hand man Turbofan reflect the kafkaesque nature of the organization that calls itself "Pilots for Truth". Don't believe me? Join their forum and challenge Rob. You'll quickly find yourself getting the "insufficient posting privileges" dialog box when trying to submit your next post.

BTW, don't you find it odd that the leader of this "organization" is unemployed as a pilot? Wouldn't you expect an ALPA(Airline Pilots Association for you aviation illiterates) member and a high time airline CAPTAIN to be fronting this organization? There are around 500,000 pilots in the US, and many millions in the world....and *that's* what is leading the pilot revolution? Where is my laughing dog smiley?





Total silence from the lot of you on my main point: HOW could it have happened so fast and perfectly and without alerts or radio calls???



Try actually reading the thread. There is a precedence and this is the 3rd time Ive mentioned it.



[edit on 30-5-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I almost missed this little nugget of wisdom....



Originally posted by richierich

Many people have documented the fact that such systems WERE capable of being taken, and if it was a security clearance issue and the HOME RUN system that a HIGH OFFICIAL says was true, then many pilots would NOT know whether or not the jet could be taken unless a highjacking happened and it was utilized.



Yes, dear richierich.... but none of these folks have ever said *how* such a system works, even theoretically. I've told you basically why a 757/767 can't be remotely commandeered, and I've linked to a lengthy paper that I wrote which explains it in more detail. Why no detailed explanation to the affirmative? Because it doesn't exist. The idea was sh*tcanned before it ever left the drawing board because its impossible to "lockout" a pilot from controlling a mechanical jet. Again, I'd argue the pros and cons with a fly-by-wire example; but mechanical jets can fly with NO ELECTRICAL POWER. Robojets/Homerun = impossible.

Your ideas have no basis in reality. And before you come back with something like "but, but, but, the whole point of HOMERUN is that its a seeeekrit, duh"....well then every airline mechanic would know about it. We tend to be intimately familiar with everything installed on the aircraft. Where are they? Name the ones who attest to its existence.




[edit on 30-5-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Thank You weedwhacker for your detailed reply

I am basing the assumption on the fact AA11 was finished takeoff and "settling in" seat belts off and perhaps one pilot standing to open the cockpit door, ??
Of course i am basing my assumptions on the way i would react. (trained).
But if you have been in a situation with a knife wielding thug, You would know what that "adrenaline" rush is like, You just do not feel pain..

As the original OP states there were 8 pilots, Surly one of them put up an enormous fight, And lets not forget the pursers, Highly experienced employees (married with children) they would be a valued tool in the fight of your life..
This is my speculation WW based on my life experience



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by foxhoundone
 


You're welcome.


A few loose ends/misconceptions to clarify:


I am basing the assumption on the fact AA11 was finished takeoff and "settling in" seat belts off and perhaps one pilot standing to open the cockpit door, ??


Well...yes, in the case of all four flights, the storming of the cockpits didn't occur until after top-of-climb. BUT, no...we don't take our seatbelts off.

In fact, it is an FAR that requires a 'flight crewmember' to wear a seatbelt at all times, when at his/her station on the flight deck.


Sec. 121.543 - Flight crewmembers at controls.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each required flight crewmember on flight deck duty must remain at the assigned duty station with seat belt fastened while the aircraft is taking off or landing, and while it is en route.

(b) A required flight crewmember may leave the assigned duty station --

(1) If the crewmember's absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft;

(2) If the crewmember's absence is in connection with physiological needs; or

(3) If the crewmember is taking a rest period, and relief is provided --


More from link here.





...perhaps one pilot standing to open the cockpit door, ??


NO. I won't talk about the ritual for flight attendants to gain entry to the flight deck in today's post-9/11 environment. BUT, before 9/11 here is how it would happen:

There was usually a signal agreed upon, between the pilots and the cabin crew. On every F/A control panel, near their jumpseats, among the various controls is a button that, when pressed, rings a call chime in the cockpit. ("Ding"). On the B-757/767 it turns on a light on the overhead panel that corresponds with the F/A call panel location, and displays an EICAS message on the CRT screen up front. These same buttons are used for the cockpit to call the cabin, too.

Here: Crew Alerting Sysytem

Back then, if they (F/A) were right at the door, and wanted in, the ("Ding") would be followed by the agreed-upon number of knocks. There is a remote button to push, on the center pedestal (or overhead panel, depends on the airline customer configuration) that activated an electrical relay that energized to retract the mechanical pin that held the door latch in place. The door could then be pulled open, and the latch wold simply 'give' way. The door knob itself remained 'locked'.

NO pilot need get out his/her seat to open the door.



As the original OP states there were 8 pilots, Surly one of them put up an enormous fight, And lets not forget the pursers...


We can only speculate. Only one CVR was readable, and that's UAL 93.

Still...people are forgetting the terrible disadvantage the pilots faced, in the suddenness of the attacks, and their vulnerability.

Regardless of any hand-to-hand training they (the pilots) may or may not have had previously, they were taken by complete surprise, with no time to react.

As mentioned by 767Doctor upthread, look into the FedEx 705 incident.

A recap....a FedEx pilot, who had been disciplined ad was facing termination by the company (for an infraction that I forget at the moment) nevertheless still had his employee travel priveleges, and embarked on a flight (oon a DC-10) itending to 'hurt' the FedEx company, in an act of vengeance, by committing suicide with the fully-loaded airplane into the company's main sorting facility, and he intended to impact the fuel complex for maximum destruction potential.

There is NO locking door on the all-cargo FedEx airplanes (not that that would have mattered).

REMEMBER...this was ONE man, against three...a DC-10 has, in addition to the two pilots forward, the Flight Engineer on the right side, behind the First Officer's seat.

This ONE against three? He was armed with a normal claw hammer, same you'd buy at Sears. I believe he also was carrying a fishing speargun, but I think it was under the pretense of his cover story, that he was on a trip to go spear fishing....I'm not sure that weapon was ever used.

You should Google the story to get full details, because it shows without a doubt how the 9/11 cockpit takeovers could have been so easily successful.

Too bad most people don't bother to pay attention, but instead will succomb to any junk that comes from a "conspiracy" site instead....



[edit on 31 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join