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: 22
11
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


And herein lies the root of a wrong assumption, that causes all of this Internet mayhem:


If you trust a government that would pull off 9-11 to begin with...


Extreme paranoia, without any substance nor evidence.




posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by richierich
 


And herein lies the root of a wrong assumption, that causes all of this Internet mayhem:


If you trust a government that would pull off 9-11 to begin with...


Extreme paranoia, without any substance nor evidence.



Since you consider the massive number of ' inexplicable anomalies ' associated with this event , as well as the first person testimonies, the physical evidence and every fact known regarding this event, to be ' UN substantial " and " NOT evidential " , I can only now regard you in one of three ways:

You are either the kind of person that enjoys being argumentative, regardless of accuracy and common sense, just to have an adversary to spar with...OR you unable to correctly comprehend information and process it in terms of likleihood and odds and relation to other critical factors. Some brains simply cannot process what it is being told and the poor victim believes totally that they MUST be right even though they can never express in DETAIL and with accuracy their opposition to a stated fact.

The other possibility is that you are compensated in some way, or volunteer, to try and sabotage the efforts we make at educating the uninformed, to perpetuate the illusions presented in the official fairy tale.

What drives someone to contrarily deny obvious facts? You show them a photo of a Tower exploding upward and outward at great velocity and the concrete reduced to micron size powder and they have no problem claiming with a serious face that ' gravity ' did it all. When you prove that a collapse could never contain enough energy to not only topple the entire structure but reduce it to dust , they blithely ignore that and move on as if you never said it.

If they DO address it, out of some sense of shame, a foreign concept to virtually all official story cultists, they have the nerve to announce that
" It doesn't matter, pictures don't prove anything". Like a petulant child caught in the very act of cookie mongering, the official story drones claim that reality is not what we think...after all, who are we to believe? Us, or your lying eyes?

The official story people actually ask us to not believe our own eyes, and instead to believe the people who offer us nothing in the way of evidence and who have everything to gain by the continued denial of reality.

If they can keep a few less educated people on the fence or to give up examining the subject, then they feel they have succeeded. It is the stifling of truth that is the hallmark of their agenda, and anyone who knows better but keeps on spewing nonsense has to have a motive...what it is remains to be seen.



posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
A crude trap I agree, weedwhacker, but your prey isn't terribly sophisticated.


Originally posted by richierich
The highjack[sic] alert, and you should know this already, is a standard switch that the pilot would activate if anyone tried to invade the cockpit.


"Hijack switch" you say? Tell you what, rich. I have a cool million USD for you if you can prove it exists. But before you scour the internet from end to end, allow me to suggest a phrase to get you pointed in the right direction. Just type "transponder code 7500" or "squawk 7500" into google and you'll quickly realize that the "hijack alert" is just like any other 4-digit transponder code. There is also "7600" for NORDO(No Radio), "7700" for emergencies, and "1200" for VFR flight.


I think weedwhacker may have posted a photo of a transponder upthread, but I'll post another one - which happens to be from a 767.





Where is the switch, rich? Just point it out, and you'll be the proud owner of a cool million bucks!


By the way, I take it from your non-response that you are unwilling to put your "remote control" theory to the test? Have you given up on it, or is it that you prefer to remain willfully ignorant? That's not the attitude I'd expect from a "truth" seeker.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


Never been quite clear on it until now looking at the photo again, I think WW explained this to me but I had no picture to look at.

So looking at it I assume you use the number pad to type say 7500 in and then press what( I couldn't seem to locate a enter button)? Is this exactly what the pilot would of had to do, can you explain exactly what would have been the buttons pushed and the order, based off the photo of the 767 transponder?



Thanks 767dr



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by 767doctor
 


Never been quite clear on it until now looking at the photo again, I think WW explained this to me but I had no picture to look at.

So looking at it I assume you use the number pad to type say 7500 in and then press what( I couldn't seem to locate a enter button)? Is this exactly what the pilot would of had to do, can you explain exactly what would have been the buttons pushed and the order, based off the photo of the 767 transponder?



Thanks 767dr




Nope. The number pad you mention is the ACARS keypad, which is used to enter ACARS text messages. If you look carefully, you'll notice 4 knobs just below the "0000" display. Assuming we start at "0000"; to key in "7500" - you'd rotate the left outer knob 1 click CCW(or 7 clicks CW), the left inner knob 3 clicks CCW(or 5 clicks CW) and hit the "ENT" button, which is the lower button between the knobs.


on edit: While we are on the subject, all one needs to do to turn off the transponder is rotate the mode select knob(the top right knob) to STBY, which is where it is in the picture.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


I gotta say something, first though, I have no clue how the hijackers were able to breach 3 outta 4 of the cockpits that day so flawlessly that there wasn't a peep out of the pilots and/or that all breaches were successful. Even the Commission says it is one of the biggest mysteries of 9/11.

That being said, I think for anyone who has fought multiple people at one time by your self or like in the cockpits that day 2 pilots verse 4, 5 people, can understand very easily how easily and fast you could be incapacitated.

You see for those who might not have had this pleasure of defending yourself against multiple attackers I'll explain briefly what happens. You will immediately square up with one of your attackers, then you will begin to feel pain usually in the back of your head as the freed up attacker has no one to stop him from pummeling your head. You will quickly turn to this attacker behind you who's been pummeling your head so that you can give him some payback...right about this time though, guess who starts pummeling the back of your head now? You guessed it the guy you just turned away from.

So you see, now let's imagine that your attackers have knives or even box cutters, and now imagine these attackers only are trying to accomplish one thing..slit your throat from jugular to jugular. Also, imagine that these attackers have cut the throats of maybe 1000's of animals over the years that they consumed. Some of them, that have fought in the Serb wars, may have had experience cutting human throats/decapitations.

So I ask you, even if these were guys in the buck fifty weight class, if four or five guys rush you(and your unarmed like the pilots) and there only goal is to cut your throat. How long do you think it will take for one of the four or five of them to cut your throat while your tangled up with all of them. Also, keep in mind this wasn't some unorganized bar fight or street fight. This was a group of guys going in organized to achieve one thing during the engagement with the pilots, kill them fast.

Me personally, I can't see it taking longer than thirty seconds and that's a long estimate, I bet it might have happened even faster than that. There's also a chance that the pilots put up no fight and simply put their hands up staring forward thinking they were now going to be hostages flying the aircraft to some airport, only to have their throats cut as soon as the hijackers got in place behind them.

Bottom line is this, once the cockpits were breached the pilots didn't stand a chance.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
Everything you said is just an assumption based on nothing. There is ZERO evidence that anyones throat wa slil.


Betty Ong's and Amy Sweeney's phone calls mention three people dead - two airline employees and "the Passenger in 9B", whose throat she specifically said had been cut. The latter also mentioned a bomb, and the use of mace or pepper spray.

Now, I suspect you'll disregard this, because it comes from the government. But bear in mind that Sweeney's call was not heard at the 9/11 commission because it showed that this was no ordinary hijacking, and that therefore authorities should have acted quicker to intercept the other flights.

If the government fabricated it - which the inventor of voice morphing says is impossible anyway - then why would they not use it at their own investigation?




The PILOTS are in a crampled cockpit, but the right hand seat is far enough away from the door to give time enough for an alert. EIGHT pilots had at least enough time to toggle the radio and call a mayday, but NOTHING is heard. You expect anyone to believe that EIGHT pilots quivered in fear and gave it all up because a highjackers was able to grab, assault and control a flight attendant, all taking place at the cockpit door...right? THIS is your likley scenario?


Yes. If someone was rushing towards me trying to cut my throat then I wouldn't pause to do anything except defend myself. To be clear, I don't think they "gave it up". I think they were murdered. But if they did in any of the cases I assume it's because they thought this was a traditional hijacking - as would anyone except a Super Truther with 20/20 hindsight.

It's not my scenario that is unlikely. It's yours, with its fake phone calls, and pilots pausing as they are about to be fatally assaulted to enter hijack codes.




You believe that in all FOUR cases, the ' small men' were able to : Get a cockpit door open in the first place...then get the attendant and assault her...convince the pilots to give up control of the plane, escort them out of the area, and assume the controls...right? IS THAT what you swallow?



No. I think they most likely killed the pilots there and then. Indeed the phone calls imply this.

Sweeney reportedly told Ong that she didn't think the pilots were flying the plane any more. She couldn't contact the cockpit.




The desperation is apparent. Official story cultists have to reach out to the ends of reason to try and defeat logic and fact.


And yet it's you who is doing this. You conveniently ignore the responses of 767Dr when they don't fit your fairy tale, simply disregarding facts about aeroplane remote control and operation. And you employ circular logic so that any piece of evidence that disagrees with your amateur notions is "government produced" and therefore worthless.

And why is this government produced evidence no good? Because they pulled off 9/11! Do you really not see that your are trying to prove that the government was behind 9/11 by discounting evidence that you say is only worthless because the government was behind 9/11?

And you accuse us of "defeating logic"!




One poster above actually dismissed John Lears knowledge of aircraft!!


Where?


There are NO two ways about it; either they were taken remotely OR
the above scenario must be dealt with and explained to the satisfaction of an unbiased critic with an open mind and no preconceived notions.


You cannot have it both ways; either you explain HOW the facts fit, or admit they do not. Anything else is nonsense.


I'm fairly happy with the explanation. For yours to be right you need

- remote control to be real

- voice morphed phone call to be possible (the inventor says not) and to have been used

- the cockpit recording to be fake

- pilots who, on being hijacked and murdered, pause to enter codes into machines. (You've even been shown an example where they didn't do this in a non-fatal hijacking attempt!)

All my scenario needs is determined, ruthless hijackers. Even with the cards falling their way their preparedness to kill and the character of the situation means they don't have to be that lucky.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
What is so difficult to understand...?

The hijackers kick through the cockpit door and slit the throats of the pilots. A surprise attack from behind like that would take... um... maybe 5 seconds.

The pilots probably wouldn't even know what was happening, let alone have a chance to fight back or even type in some hijack code.

Imagine you're a pilot. You hear a noise at the cockpit door. You turn your head to see and in the blink of an eye you have a knife sawing at your throat. You expect these guys to then start typing codes into a keypad?! Jesus christ!

When you are inventing these conspiracies, try visualizing it in real life not fantasy movie land.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
What is so difficult to understand...?

The hijackers kick through the cockpit door and slit the throats of the pilots. A surprise attack from behind like that would take... um... maybe 5 seconds.

The pilots probably wouldn't even know what was happening, let alone have a chance to fight back or even type in some hijack code.

Imagine you're a pilot. You hear a noise at the cockpit door. You turn your head to see and in the blink of an eye you have a knife sawing at your throat. You expect these guys to then start typing codes into a keypad?! Jesus christ!

When you are inventing these conspiracies, try visualizing it in real life not fantasy movie land.



What an imagination you have!! Please go to PILOTSFOR911TRUTH and read for a while. MOST pilots, not internet forum posters, have said that there is NO WAY that they would turn over a plane. Also, if all it takes is a small man giving a kick to a cockpit door ( NEVER PROVEN, by the way ), it would give PLENTY of time for the right seat pilot to RADIO a message.

The RADIO has a button on the YOKE..and slipping a finger to it and speaking takes a SECOND...you GUESS that it would take only 5 seconds for a small arab man to : KICK open a door, attack and disable or convince BOTH pilots to get out, and then assume control.

The educated mind staggers at the thought of ASSUMING that in all FOUR cases, the small men were able to do all that!! Please. What if the kick did NOT break the door down...that would give the pilots plenty of time to radio an alert. The official lie depends on people assuming outrageous nonsense...totally UNlikley.

No one with a shred of sense could possibly believe that in all FOUR cases, a perfect and INSTANT takeover was accomplished, with NO pilots touching a radio button, and no pilot being able to send the highjack alert from the transponder. you must give credit to the arabs that is silly to imagine: You must assign them,: SUPERHUMAN STRENGTH, SUPERHUMAN SPEED AND REFLEXES, AND SUPERHUMAN FLYING SKILLS.

I suppose all of you official story cultists start with an assumption: The official story is true. then, instead of analyzing the evidence, you do the opposite and ' tailor the evidence to fit the assumption'. You have to swallow a whale and then gripe when it gives you a bellyache.

HOW can a person with even a smattering of reason and logic still believe that in all FOUR cases, a couple of small men with only a small blade could totally and completely defy the odds, logic, reason and all of the evidence.

WHy do you guys insist on trying to protect the perps? What do you get out of denying plain facts? Instead of giving us a LIKELY scenario, all you can do is resort to the least possible: you expect us to believe that these arabs were superhuman, had incredible luck, and executed the whole thing perfectly...including evading all radar and protection the USA has....AND making 3 skyscrapers fall from fire alone!!

Who could believe that? ONLY someone with an evil agenda against truth, or someone that is just argumentative for funs sake and don't care how ridiculous they sound, OR someone paid to try and protect the perps.

What other reasons could there be for willful neglact of the truth and assumptions that defy the imagination and evidence? Trying to prop up the official lie is an impossible task, unless your audience is even more lacking in reasoning abilities than yourselves.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 767doctor
 


I will bet my Mercedes Benz, which is real, that you do not have a million dollars to bet with.

Also, simply showing these official story cultists the transponder bank that holds the highjack alert means nothing....like Bill Clinton, all they want to do is quibble over the meaning of a word....button, switch, who the hell cares? There is a HIGHJACK alert built in, and a RADIO that takes only a second to activate...and NONE of them were used on 9-11.

That is fact. Unless someone here can give an intelligent answer, I will assume that the official story drones have run out of ammo and are throwing stones at the advancing army....its a matter of time before even the most rabid drone has to admit that the official story make NO sense and is IMPOSSIBLE to believe given the evidence.

You all can argue abck and forth until doomsday and still the truth stands:

NOT ONE person has laid out an intelligent, LIKELY and plauasible scenario as to how all 4 cockpits were taken instantly and perfectly given the evidence. You have to stretch the very bounds of reason to the breaking point to even accept a small part of the official lie...and that is not how you get to the truth.

Admit it...be that big at least....you have NO idea how these small men could have pulled all this off so fast and so perfectly....and the only anser is remote.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Voice morphing IS real, and I proved it already with a link that shows it was used already....the original inventor has N O idea what the government did with his technology since he did it....and it has been PROVEN to work.

Remote taking is also a fact, as PROVEN already....do you just ignore all that has been presented?

As for Betty Ong and the rest, those were war games...nothing more. First Bettey said that LEWIn the MOSSAD guy had started the carnage from his seat...then the story changes and he is a victim!! The it is tear gas...blah blah blah....there has been ZERO evidence from any source that substantiates their lies. NO EVIDENCE of any of it....listen to Betty...she is plainly acting, totally calm, reciting words given to har, and taking direction from someone close by.

My God people!! What on earth makes you think that the Neocons and Cheney and PNAC are decent human beings? The proof says they are murdering, traitorous scum that should be swinging from a rope.

This was an inside job and every iota of evidence supports that fact.

To believe otherwise is insane. Or just dishonest.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


Broken record alert!! Please, someone walk over to the turntable and move the stylus....



Please go to PILOTSFOR911TRUTH and read for a while.


Ooops! Well, I apologize...NOW I see your problem. You believe that junk!

Hint: The only "pilot" that does most posting there is the 'co-founder', and he's in his own delusional world, sad to say. The majority of everyone else? Sycophants who kneel at the 'Altar of Balsamo' --- check out the profiles and experience levels of most of the "active" posters over there, in order to get a clearer picture.

But, the record needle that's stuck? THIS:


MOST pilots.... have said that there is NO WAY that they would turn over a plane.


AND so have I! I've agreed, and agreed and agreed with that statement!!!

Also, I've pointed out is YOU, and only you, who keeps raising it as a scenario (didn't happen!) just so you can knock it down...you can stop now. Pick up that needle, and start a new song.

I also tend to think that there was NO actual forcing of the flight deck doors, not in this sense:


ll it takes is a small man giving a kick to a cockpit door...


Still, I agree. Here's what would happen....You and I are sitting there, and there is a very loud commotion, sounding like someone beating on the door. First, we'd look at each other....THEN, one of us would use the Interphone to call back to the cabin, to ask what the (heck) was going on!

We don't, just because of a disturbance in the cabin, that we have yet to know anything about (as to its nature) immediately tell ATC!! What good would that do? They'd say...."OK, copy that. What is your request?"

They'd want to know, from us, IF we needed to divert ASAP, IF we were asking for assistance after landing (ater picking a destination)..etc, etc.

The controller is sitting in a dark room, on the ground, a hundred miles away!

NOW...here's a more likely scenario. Since you keep asking, and people keep telling you....maybe THIS time you will read it, finally??

We, you and I are sitting there. The cabin call chime goes 'Ding!' THEN, there is the pre-briefed knock o nthe door. We know, because we briefed it, that the F/A is at the door, probably had already called earlier, and asked if we wanted coffee, or whatever...so, we unlock the door with the remote button.

AS THE DOOR is opened, the terrorists RUSH the F/A, and the cockpit intrusion is underway. From the moment the intruders act, until they reach the pilots (sitting virtually helpless) is a second, at most. NOT '5 seconds', which is an incredibly long time, if you think about it.

Now, another thing you are correct about:


The RADIO has a button on the YOKE..and slipping a finger to it and speaking takes a SECOND...


Yes. BUT, like I said above...why? What good does it do, in the IMMEDIATE moments? You are surprised, startled, and lookig back over your shoulder to see what's happening. LAST thing on your mind is to radio a call to the ground!! As pointed out above...

Sorry, but I find that some people are stuck so strongly on wanting to believe, as you do, in order to feel better about the incredibly IMPOSSIBLE concept of 'remote control'! You have talked yourself into this mindset by ignoring any OTHER explanation...even when you ask, and they are given!!!


The educated mind staggers...


Indeed!


Now this is just silly:


You must assign them,: SUPERHUMAN STRENGTH, SUPERHUMAN SPEED AND REFLEXES, AND SUPERHUMAN FLYING SKILLS.


I've linked the DFDR data, from NTSB reports, for AAL 77 and UAL 93 (only ones we have) that show the autopilots, and other cockpit controls, being operated by the terrorists, after the takeovers. They actually show a lot of amateur mistakes.


OK...I lkie this, because it's good example of "pot-kettle-black" thinking:


... instead of analyzing the evidence, you do the opposite and ' tailor the evidence to fit the assumption'.




... you expect us to believe that these arabs were superhuman...


No. See above.


... had incredible luck... and executed the whole thing perfectly


Well, not really. See United Airlines 93.


...including evading all radar and protection the USA has....


NO. Radar tracked the airplanes, there was no "evading". Where'd that gem come from? PfT??



THIS is straight out of the "truth conspiracy" playbook, though:

AND making 3 skyscrapers fall from fire alone!!


deeerrrrppppp! (That was the needle skipping ALL the way across the record!)

Cognitive disconnect warning...FIRST, you are pounding the chorus about "remote control", so you are suggesting, regardless, that AIRPLANES hit the buildings!!! BUT THEN, you write that?
Credibilty dropping, dropping......:shk:




Oh, and "pot-kettle-black", again:


...assumptions that defy the imagination and evidence?



eyewitness86...I asked earlier, and was ignored....is this, or isn't this, you??



[edit on 3 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Voice morphing IS real, and I proved it already with a link that shows it was used already....the original inventor has N O idea what the government did with his technology since he did it....and it has been PROVEN to work.

Remote taking is also a fact, as PROVEN already....do you just ignore all that has been presented?

As for Betty Ong and the rest, those were war games...nothing more. First Bettey said that LEWIn the MOSSAD guy had started the carnage from his seat...then the story changes and he is a victim!! The it is tear gas...blah blah blah....there has been ZERO evidence from any source that substantiates their lies. NO EVIDENCE of any of it....listen to Betty...she is plainly acting, totally calm, reciting words given to har, and taking direction from someone close by.

My God people!! What on earth makes you think that the Neocons and Cheney and PNAC are decent human beings? The proof says they are murdering, traitorous scum that should be swinging from a rope.

This was an inside job and every iota of evidence supports that fact.

To believe otherwise is insane. Or just dishonest.


I see you are still clinging to voice-morphing despite the creator of the technology denying it could have been applied in the 9/11 situation.

Your excuse ? that the "government" could have moved the technology along without the inventor knowing. Problem with that is that it is not a deficiency in technology that makes it impossible but a lack of knowledge. How could anyone get the necessary voice samples and personal information in respect of, for example, the large number of passengers who only joined UA 93 last minute but made calls ?

www.historycommons.org...



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by richierich

I will bet my Mercedes Benz, which is real, that you do not have a million dollars to bet with.


It should be obvious to any poster here with more than a single operating brain cell that I didn't need a million dollars for my "richierich Million Dollar Challenge" to be safe. You see rich, everyone else reading has figured out that there is no such thing in aviation as a "hijack switch". If you think the "Pilots for Truth" can help you out in locating one, by all means start a thread there and have them assist you. But my million dollars, which you've so astutely pointed out doesn't exist, will still be safe.




Also, simply showing these official story cultists the transponder bank that holds the highjack alert means nothing....like Bill Clinton, all they want to do is quibble over the meaning of a word....button, switch, who the hell cares? There is a HIGHJACK alert built in, and a RADIO that takes only a second to activate...and NONE of them were used on 9-11.


I don't know how many ways we can phrase it and we've sure tried a bunch of different combinations, even with pictures and words mixed together, and so far they all just seem to bounce right off you. What's worse is you don't even seem to notice that this is happening. It's like you've donned a protective shield of ignorance, which no fact can penetrate.

Dude, seriously. Are you even reading the replies? There is no "hijack button", "hijack switch", or what ever the hell else you want to call it. It doesn't exist! This is not a quibble over semantics. It's the blind refusal *by you* of a very simple fact which can be easily checked. Entering the hijack code is no different from entering any other 4 digit transponder code, which is something that takes several seconds. That will be the very last way I phrase it to you. If you continue to repeat your mantra ad nauseum, I'm going to assume that you're incapable of learning very simple things, or that you simply choose to remain cloaked in a protective barrier of ignorance. Either way, simply not worthy of a response.

So, to sum up....in Richierichville...a photo of a 767 transponder, less one mythical "hijack alert switch", is evidence of nothing. But a bald assertion that one exists is, without any accompanying evidence whatsoever, is evidence that one exists. All I can say is wow.



That is fact. Unless someone here can give an intelligent answer, I will assume that the official story drones have run out of ammo and are throwing stones at the advancing army....its a matter of time before even the most rabid drone has to admit that the official story make NO sense and is IMPOSSIBLE to believe given the evidence.


Hmm, I'm fact-counting and so far I've tallied a grand total of ZERO (correct)facts in your reply. Paranoid anti-government rhetoric? Check. Bald assertion fallacy? Check. Appeals to emotion? Check. Arguments from ignorance? Check. Arguments from incredulity? Check. Good ol' fashioned strawmen? You betcha. Facts? Zero.

BTW, where are you getting this "small men" nonsense? Jeez, at least provide some kind of source. AFAIK, only Atta and Hanjour could be described as diminutive, but they were "pilots", the others were the "muscle hijackers".





[edit on 4-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by richierich
Remote taking is also a fact, as PROVEN already....do you just ignore all that has been presented?

I admit that I joined this thread rather late, but I haven't seen you present a single fact - let alone the string of facts(as well as an absence of contravening evidence) that would constitute proof. If you have it, now would be the time to post it.



My God people!! What on earth makes you think that the Neocons and Cheney and PNAC are decent human beings? The proof says they are murdering, traitorous scum that should be swinging from a rope.

This was an inside job and every iota of evidence supports that fact.

To believe otherwise is insane. Or just dishonest.

Just knock this political crap off, okay? First off, it's another stupid, pointless, strawman argument. It's patently obvious that you have nothing to back up your fairy tail of remote controlled planes, helpless pilots, midget hijackers, hijack buttons, voice morphed loved ones, etc...and you are getting defensive about it, even proclaiming facts where there are none to be found. If you want to talk about the evil Neocons, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney and George Bush - do it in the politics section.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by 767doctor]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
If the doors were open the pilots would be able to hear the commotion in the back.

If the doors were closed they would have time to at least respond.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by plopunisher
 


I thought you might have been reading this thread?

Let's see if I can clarify your assumptions, there.

"If the doors were open..."

Well..yeah, you CAN hear more IF the doors are open. You can ALSO hear quite a lot, even when they're closed!!

(I have to keep repeating this...for anyone who's ever been aboard an airliner try to remember...and for those, next time you fly, take a look...at the LAVATORY doors. Pre-9/11 the flight deck doors were essentially of the same design as the lavatory doors, in terms of materials used. Light weight, thin and by no means impenetrable).

BUT, reason I am trying to focus attention is...the "commotion" comment isn't relevant. . .there would be no "commotion" UNTIL the F/A innocently opened the door, and was surprised and RUSHED by the attackers!

This would happen very, very quickly.

Doesn't this make sense? Something like that had not happened before, and airline people were casual, and even blase' about it. NONE of our annual re-current training scenarios warned about it.

UP TO THEN, the assumption had always been that any hijacking event would, by human nature, mean that the criminals would be AFRAID of dying...and our strategies were tailored to work on that angle.

NOW, of course, the entire situation is different....obviously. I'm puzzled why people can't understand, this is a very logical, and rather simple concept.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Despite richierich's inevitable incredulity, I am more and more inclined to believe that the hi-jackers waited for a flight attendant to enter the cockpit before making their move.

The time intervals from take-off to hi-jack were different for all four flights. Flight 11 approx 15 mins, Flight 175 30 mins, Flight 77 35 mins and Flight 93 40 mins. There was obviously no plan for everyone to force the cockpit door at, say, 30 mins and it seems most likely to me that they were waiting for an opportunity. After all, Flight 93 was late taking off but it still took the longest to implement the hi-jack and I would have thought that there must have been some anxiety about a possible intercept.

I think this scenario is also supported by the cvr tape. In there is a record of a voice, I understand female, saying "please don't hurt me ", " I don't want to die" which supports the idea that a flight attendant was caught up in the cockpit mayhem. Also, at 09.58.57, in the cvr transcipt we have a hi-jacker saying " they want to get in here. Hold, hold from the inside, Hold from the inside. Hold" This suggests to me that the cockpit door was still serviceable at this stage so obviously hadn't been smashed in earlier.

911research.wtc7.net...

However, I have directed this to you because I would really like to know with what degree of certainty the hi-jackers could have expected, pre-9/11, a flight attendant to go into the cockpit in, say, the first hour of the flight. A 50/50 chance obviously would not have been good enough. I cant help thinking that the fact that all 4 planes had embarked on a transcontinental flight must have figured in the planning. The fact that they had plenty of fuel on board must have been a factor but could it also have been that the pilots would certainly have expected at least a cup of coffee within an hour of take-off ? Would appreciate the benefit of your experience, thanks.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Good analysis, there Alfie...glad to see all of the times you mentioned, and the differences on each flight when the intrusions occured after take-off, brought together conveniently in one place...I meant to do that, but you've saved me the trouble!



As to the last part, and your question: Over my many years, the interactions between the 'cockpit' crew, and 'cabin' crew varied --- a lot depended on the tone that is set, right off the bat, when you first meet.

Just as some people may be aware of a certain 'friction' that exists between say, nurses and doctors who work together, a similar situation occurs in the airline business...in general, pilots are (often) viewed by the other employees as aloof, sometimes ego-centric and in most extremem cases, are considered just "overpaid bus drivers".

Simply showing some respect for others, goes a long way to smooth a working relationship, usually. AND that can affect the level of "service" a flight crew receives from the cabin crew, again depending a lot on personalities involved.

With that background info in place....the routine (especially when considering a long flight, such as the transcons invovled on 9/11) is this:

Pilots are extremely busy for about the first ten to fifteen minutes, approximately. F/As, however, are not. Everyone who flies often will be able to see the patterns, and the 'schedule' of activity that the F/As undergo, as they prepare for the various inflight services.

F/As usually, sometime after the 'sterile' environment is signalled behind us (above 10,000 feet during departure) they make their PA about electronic devices, relax seat backs, etc..blah, blah. THEN they start to set up their galleys and get stuff ready. Those who are working the First Class cabin are generally the only ones who interact, inflight, with the cockpit. Usually, my experience has been, they set up the galley (first 30 minutes, roughly...will vary) and maybe do a round of drinks to F/C....then, before they get into the meal service, THAT is when they check on the 'pit.

Astute observers would have been able to see this routine, especially after repeated reconnaissance flights, for just that purpose. (They had plenty of money to spend freely, and it would only have to be ONE of them, per flight, to observe).

It is also quite obvious when an F/A picks up an interphone handset, and if he/she presses the panel, and no cabin chime (the 'ding/dong' you sometimes hear) sounds, then that tells the astute observer that they have called the 'pit. (If you're sitting close enough...row 1, you might be able to hear the chime in the cockpit, too).

SO...long way to explailn, but details matter I suppose...F/A rings the 'pit, chat about what they want/need, hangs up interphone, busies about in the galley, then picks up interphone again, and knocks on door?

THAT is the opportunity the terrorists were waiting for, that they had scouted and watched and learned beforehand.

But remember, that was then....it was a slightly less paranoid time, and a lot less stringent in procedure. Today, of course, a lot more care is devoted to entry/egress while in flight. AND, yes, it's a pain in the neck, too. FAA rules have been codified, and are specific, today, about procedures, and each indivdual US airline is tasked with ensuring compliance, by their crews.

On an interesting side note: On holiday, last summer (2009), I flew some 'domestic' legs in Europe. THEY (at least the few times I was onboard, in Business Class, with full view) were very cavalier about security, it seemed to me.

Same routine I've described above....they were serving breakfast to the 'pit shortly after top of climb (about 20-30 minutes) and...often left the door wide open, and unguarded.

Thought I'd see if any other ATSers have noticed....



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 

I was going to reply to your post myself, but "weedwhacker" did a good enough job.

The big point you keep making is that the hijacking seemed to happen perfectly in "ALL FOUR" cases. True, but why is this so unbelievable to you?

We have established that prior to 9/11 cabin doors were flimsy and that the attackers could easily have forced their way in and incapacitated the pilots very quickly.

Knowing this, the fact that it happened in "FOUR" simultaneous cases or "FOUR MILLION" is irrelevant.

You are forgetting that a pilot isn't going to start reporting a 'hijack' to anybody until he knows without a doubt that the plane is being hijacked. It could be someone bursting into the cockpit by mistake... it could be a drunk passenger...

It's not like as soon as he hears any strange noise he immediately presses the big, red flashing "HIJACK! OMFG!" button on his control panel.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by FOXMULDER147]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join