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: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Sorry, double post.

[edit on 6-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   
They did. Again, please read my post on page 4....it answers your question.

interview with the air traffic controller for flight 93 on 9/11:

www.cbsnews.com...


"At 9:25a.m., Werth communicated with Flight 93 for the last time. It was flying normally, cruising at 35,000 feet, 45-minutes into a six-hour journey. He told the pilot another plane was above him at 37,000 feet.

Three minutes later, at 9:38a.m., Werth heard from his console speaker the garbled sounds of a struggle in the cockpit. He put on his headsets to hear better. Then, about 30-seconds later, came another startling transmission.

"Mayday! Mayday Mayday!," the pilots voices cried out. "Hey, get out of here! Get out of here!"

"It started to act erratically right after that," Werth says. The plane's altitude suddenly dropped 700 feet. "I told the immediate supervisor who was within earshot that 'I think we have another one.'"

During the next four minutes, Werth repeatedly radioed the cockpit, asking the pilot to confirm the hijacking, but got no response. At 9:32a.m, he heard a transmission intended for the passenger cabin uttered in heavily-accented English: "Here, the captain, please sit down and remain sitting. We have a bomb on board."


garbled sounds of a struggle...heard thru console speaker before getting headset on and hearing the Mayday. That garbled sound could have been a pilot warning of a break in. Nobody of course would know, except the dead pilot now.




[edit on 6-10-2007 by Disclosed]

[edit on 6-10-2007 by Disclosed]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disclosed
They did. Again, please read my post on page 4....it answers your question.


Ok so we got a possable call from 1 plane, now what about the other 3?

We still have a long way to go to have any evidence to support the official story.


[edit on 6-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...
(American Airlines, Flight 77, phone calls) :


Phone calls

Two people on American Airlines Flight 77 made phone calls to contacts on the ground. At 09:12 EDT, flight attendant Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas.[13] During the call, which lasted nearly two minutes,[13] May said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals and they had been moved to the rear of the plane.[2] May also asked her mother to contact American Airlines, which she and her husband promptly did.[2] American Airlines was already aware of the hijacking.

Passenger Barbara K. Olson called her husband, United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson at the Department of Justice twice to tell him about the hijacking and to report that the passengers and pilots were held in the back of the plane. After the first call was cut off, Theodore Olson contacted the command center at the Department of Justice,[14] and tried unsuccessfully to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft. Olson called her husband back, and asked him "What should I tell the pilot?"[15]

Notes

* After the crash, the flight route designation for future flights on the same route was renumbered to Flight 149, which is now operated by a Boeing 737-800 instead of a Boeing 757-200.
* Flight 77 was the only flight hijacked where a bomb threat was not made. The other three hijacked flights were each reported to have had one hijacker with a red box strapped around his torso, claiming it to be a bomb.[54]


So why had these pilots given up their plane to these hijackers?
Indeed a VERY abnormal behavior.

I agree with the OP that a hostile, remote control, takeover of all 4 planes is a by far more logical explanation then all pilots given their plane's control away, or all pilots being killed or seriously injured.

These two latter reasons are contradicted by the Olsen's testimonies, whatever suspicious those are.
The whole Olsen's testimonies (Ted and Barbara alike) are highly suspicious. We've been over this numerous times on this forum in the past.
(ATS board's Conspiracy Search still defunct !).

If we however accept this Olsen testimony, then we must also accept that another scenario than ""first kill pilots, then take control"" is highly logical, since we then accept 2 pilots gathered in the back of flight 77 plane together with the passengers.
That makes a "psychological" or "socially engineered" take-over more logical. I mean, pilots were given some ongoing war games connected reason why the new pilots should take their place and the pilots should confirm to the new role play rules.

That remark : "What should I tell the pilot?" is very strange, since she is reportedly sitting in a chair using the build-in pay-phone, so why did she not give the phone to that pilot who could have given a much better description of the unfolding situation.

One other thing, which can be noted in the posted cockpit pictures of a 757.
If a struggle for life and death would have occurred in that cramped space, it is unavoidable that a lot of knobs and switches had been kicked by hands and feet of the participants.
That would have forced the planes in very erratic behavior, for sure.


I do not believe at all, important parts of the full official stories given first by the FEMA report, then the 9/11 Commission report and finally the NIST reports.

And I highly suspect a lot of the FBI reports written, see the testimonies of Sibel Edmonds and other FBI and NSA whistleblowers :
en.wikipedia.org... (Sibel Edmonds)
en.wikipedia.org... (Coleen Rowley)
en.wikipedia.org... (Russ Tice)



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I still believe that ALL of the radio transmissions were faked, all of them. Just like the phone calls from cell phones and seat back phones made COLLECT like the phony Olson story. Betty Ong reading from a script and calm as a cucumber. " Tell the pilot " ? What? Barbara Olson can call but a pilot cannot? If the pilots were alive then they gave up the cockpits, which is not possible to believe.

In a psy op like this many levels are needed to make it look real, and a critical part of that would be the calls and radio transmissions. Take a look at what is said on the alleged calls:Flt 93 gets warnings and still cannot key the mike that Mr. Lear tells us is right there and takes a TENTH of a SECOND to activate!!

So, the believers in the official story would have us believe that in less than a tenth of a second, the highjackers could have overwhelmed the cockpits...how can anyone believe that? If a radio call can be made that fast, WHY was not ONE call made? All we hear about are REPORTS from God knows where or what source telling us that somehow all four sets of highjackers were able to overcome the pilots before they could radio, taking ONE TENTH of a SECOND !!

If THAT is not a death knell for the official lie, I do not know what could be. To think that FOUR aircraft could be taken before even ONE pilot could key that mike is too silly, and anyone accepting such odds should contact me to buy some great mountain land..a little steep but full of trees!!

No matter whether or not the highjackers were able to enter a cockpit or not, the FACT is that not ONE radio message was sent from a plane to the ATC..all we hear about are the ' reports ' attributed to who knows who, that ' sounds ' were heard..garbled sounds..etc. There should have been a lot of sounds, including the pilots giving the ATC a heads up. That there were NO such messages means that the remote taking is the only logical story.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by eyewitness86




Until a pilot or Mr. Lear answers this, allow me to guess: Cockpit doors in 2001 were not ' privacy screens, but as I recall seeing them from flying a lot during that period were about 1/2 to 3/4' thick and seemed to be made of the melamine type board used in walls and lavatorie doors, etc. Cockpit doors, since at least the 60's, HAVE to be shut and locked unless a good reason exists for opening it, such as a pilot going aft or some other reason. It is obvious: Why would any flight take a risk of some deranged passenger just popping into the cockpit and caausing trouble when locking it keeps them out?



Eyewitness86 is correct. That the pilots of all 4 airplanes were overwhelmed is nonsense. Of all the pilots I have talked to since 911, without exception they have all said the same thing: if any hijacker broke into the cockpit te first thing they would do is roll the airplane inverted and push back and forth. This would bang the hijacker from ceiling to floor and either knock him unconscious or severely limit his capacity to respond.

Forget this pilots 'overwhelmed' nonsense. It did not happen. It could not happen. Its sheer, total nonsense.


Mr. Lear, in all previous hijacking attempts how many were thwarted by the maneuvers you describe? Likewise in how many previous hijackings did the pilots comply with the hijackers demands?

You asked pilots that question after 9-11. Of course they were going to tell that they will try some desperate maneuver. They would have nothing to lose; they know what the end result might be. My guess is if you asked them before 9-11 what they would have done the answer would have been different.

Let me add one more thing. You say that a pilot would roll their aircraft inverted. What would a pilot of an Airbus A320, 330 or 340 do? The control laws on those aircraft will not allow the pilot to roll the aircraft inverted.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Until Mr. Lear answers that very pertinent question, let me say that it is beyond insane to accept the story that in the Barbara Olson fable the PILOTS were sitting around in the back with the passengers, waiting for direction..that is silly. There is NO way, no historical precedent, for any pilot to give up the controls.

Every pilot would have fought off ALL attempts at some highjacker taking the controls; if the plane needed flying to an airport where the highjackers could make demands and get political attention, as in all previous cases, who better to fly the plane and get it to the desired destination bwetter than the pilots? ONLY in a suicide situation would highjackers actually insist on taking over, for obvious reasons: the pilots would never fly a plane into any buildings and in the worst case scenario would divert the craft at the last possible monent to try and reduce the damage on the ground as much as possible, by diverting to a body of water, or the most open scene available.

That is INSTINCTIVE to professional pilots: Preservce the lives of the passengers and crew at all costs, and barring that, try and reduce the effects of any crashes as much as humanly possible. To think that the pilots would have acceeded to the demands of the Saudi's and simply abandoned the cockpit and go sit quietly in the read waiting for the magic credit card ( that was never produced as evidence ) to come around from Barbara so he could call someone..right? It staggers the logical mind to imagine the odds involved in that being a real event.

' What should I tell the pilot "?. What a line, a real classic. Logic says that iof a landing were desired, the pilots would be flying the plane...if a suicidal crash is desired, then the highjackers MUST assume the controls, and at that point it is too late to do anything about it. The point at which the battle MUST be fought is at the cockpit door and in the cockpit itself: That very cramped and limited space, with the seats moved forward, would put the pilots legs extended to use the controls and their center of mass sitting low and forward int the seats. To think that a scrawny Saudi could LIFT almost 20 lbs. of man, times two, over the seats and stash them aft, before they could key the ATC communicator, is lunacy.

If it takes just a FRACTION OF A SECOND , as Mr. Lear points out, to activate that button on the yoke that sends the radio message, then WHY do we hear NOTHING from any pilots prior to a takeover? The posters who point to the alleged transcripts of the ' reports ' from some unknown original source saying that they heard " Mayday's", and some other transmission, are listening to the tapes of the set up..they HAD to have SOME circumstantial evidence to point to later that seems to indicate that a cockpit had been taken, but only in ONE case? only ONE out of four lost all controls in less than a TENTH of a second, the time to alert by radio?

In ALL examinations, the key words should be LIKELY and PROBABLY..denoting odds that fall within the realm of possibility under the given circumstances, and are the most logical answers to a hypothesis. Occams Razor says the the simplest answer that fitys the known evidence is likely the truth: Since all we have are unanswered suppositions based on conjecture, and an opposing body of proofs that overwhelm any chance of coincidence in this case, it can be assumed with confidence that the weight of evidence points to a remote highjacking as the only way to explain the factors we see in this event.

Since it only takes less than a half second to contact the ATC by radio, we are asked to believe that the offenders managed to not only violate the cockpit doors, but incapacitate both determined and struggling pilots ( times FOUR !!) and haul them from the cockpit BEFORE that fraction of a second passed!!! If the highjackers were THAT fast, then they surely qualify as superhuman, with abilities never seen before, in order to accept the official story. I prefer the answer that says it best: A man ( or woman ) sitting at a console somewhere deep in the bowels of our Defense establishment, looking at a screen, directed the operation along with a small group of conspirators, each having only very limited knowledge of what they were doing and WHY.

The GAMES that were going on that day could have been used, very easily, as a way to convince participants in the actual treasonous attacks that they were only a part of the GAMES. Not even later would any of them know if they were a part of the attck, since game elemenst could be manipulated as well as what was seen on screen. Only a few men at the highest levels would actually know the full story; all other might guess or know parts, but compartmentalization would eliminate many of the participants from knowing the extent of their own involvement.

The perps are smart and cagey and determined; Neocons are not dumb, just ruthless and dangerous . They had the required number of systems and people needed to pull this off, and did so well. BUT, they could not make it PERFECT, as it was too big, with too many elements to make perfect, and the hundreds of ' inexpliacable anomalies ' associated with this event show us that indeed the perps made a number of errors; some minute, and some egregious, such as not having all four cockpits yelling alerts as soon as the cockpit doors were breached!! If they had duped the voices of the pilots in advance, they could have put on a more convincing performance, but so many details and so little time!!

One has to examine the takeovers minutely to see the odds involved, and they are astronomical when seen in the light of reason and logic and the evidence.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


I followed the source from the Wiki link that you posted that said ''pilots'' and here is what I found.

Olson told her husband, "Our plane is being hijacked." She described how hijackers forced passengers and the flight's pilot to the rear of the aircraft. She said nothing about the number of hijackers or their nationality.
It is from this washingtonpost.com article. Remember also that Barbour Olson was reported to say pilot, not pilots.


Senator John W. Warner (Va.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, helped spearhead the campaign on Burlingame's behalf, saying he was driven in part by evidence that the pilot died fighting the hijackers, not in the crash.

According to a report in The Washington Post, the FBI told Burlingame's widow that the pilot died of injuries sustained before the plane hit the Pentagon, indicating he was killed in a struggle.
Source

Maybe the scenario was to threaten one pilot with death to convince the other pilot to leave the cockpit and then kill the pilot that was left in the cockpit. Seems more likely than remote takeover and fake CVR recordings, fake phone calls, and fake ATC recordings.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN
Mr. Lear, in all previous hijacking attempts how many were thwarted by the maneuvers you describe? Likewise in how many previous hijackings did the pilots comply with the hijackers demands?


A better question: how many pilots have ever given up the pilots seat and handed over complete control of the aircraft in a hijacking situation prior to 9/11?

Obviously on an Airbus you wouldn't go outside the flight envelope. But I assume you would still only relinquish controls of the aircraft upon being killed - as by giving up your seat you are as good as dead, and so is everyone else on the plane.

As long as you remain in the pilots seat, there is a slim chance you will survive. When you leave it, that's it.

[edit on 6-10-2007 by adjay]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   


originally posted by adjay
A better question: how many pilots have ever given up the pilots seat and handed over complete control of the aircraft in a hijacking situation prior to 9/11?


I don't know the answer to that question, but I will look around later to see what I can find.

How many times before September 11, 2001 did hijackers take control of the aircraft and crash it? I can think of one incident where the hijackers forced the pilot to fly the aircraft until it was out of gas.

Why would one assume that both pilots gave up control of the aircraft anyway? As I pointed out in my post above one pilot was in the back and the other pilot was dead before the aircraft crashed. Maybe after one pilot was in the back the hijackers killed the pilot in the cockpit.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMTMAN

Mr. Lear, in all previous hijacking attempts how many were thwarted by the maneuvers you describe?


To answer your question pilots of a FED-EX plane were attacked by a hijacker and severly wounded. After helping get the hijacker out of the cockpit the pilot rocked the plane and made all types of maneuvers that the plane was not really designed to do to keep the hijacker out of the cockpit.

Also after getting the hijacker out of the plane the first thing the pilot did was to declare an emergency over the radio.

None of the 9/11 pilots did any of these things.

en.wikipedia.org...

FedEx Flight 705, a McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30, experienced an attempted hijacking on April 7, 1994.

Calloway, a former Navy pilot and a martial arts expert, attacked just minutes after take-off. He brutally wounded the flight crew with hammers and fractured the skull of James Tucker. A lengthy struggle ensued with the flight engineer and captain. James Tucker, also an ex-Navy pilot, managed to control the plane as the three others struggled in the cockpit.

By means of extreme aerial maneuvers meant to keep Calloway off balance, the flight crew eventually succeeded in restraining Calloway. Dave Sanders landed the jet safely at Memphis International Airport despite the plane's being loaded with fuel and too heavy to land under normal circumstances. Emergency personnel gained access to the plane via escape slide and ladder: the cockpit interior was covered with blood.



[edit on 6-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Thanks for the post ULTIMA1.

So let me get this straight. When it's two unarmed pilots against one armed hijacker the story is totally believable.

When it's two unarmed pilots against four armed hijackers it's impossible. What am I missing here?

So much for it being impossible to fly an airplane with blood all over the cockpit.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Thanks for the post ULTIMA1.

So let me get this straight. When it's two unarmed pilots against one armed hijacker the story is totally believable.

When it's two unarmed pilots against four armed hijackers it's impossible. What am I missing here?

So much for it being impossible to fly an airplane with blood all over the cockpit.


Well if you read the report you would see that all 3 of the cockpit crew were serouisly injured, they were attacked from behind and hit in the head with a hammer. But even though they were severly injured they still fought off the hijacker and the pilot used manuevers to keep the hijacker out of the cockpit.

So between 8 pilots on 9/11 they could not keep 2 guys at bay at least long enough to get off a call or signal? (There were only 2 hijackers that went into the cockpit, the rest were to keep the pasengers out.)

NOTE: The pilots of flight 705 can never fly again becasue of the severe injuries that they receivced from the hijacker.




[edit on 6-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   

None of the three men heard Calloway enter the cockpit. Sanders suddenly became aware of a struggle, and heard the awful sound of hammer blows raining down upon his crewmates. He turned to see both men slumped in their chairs, injured terribly, and a blood-soaked Auburn Calloway moving toward him.

Maybe surprising a flight crew is not impossible after all.


Sanders, Tucker and Peterson scarcely had time to register what had happened—they didn’t even have a chance to radio for help—before Calloway returned.
Maybe not being able to send a distress call in an instant is not impossible after all.

tailstrike.com



[edit on 6-10-2007 by Boone 870]



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Originally posted by Boone 870





large photos link below.
Maybe sometimes they are like in the movies.


Good point Boone. As you can see those are not large round coverings and they don't cover the ear. They are a foam like material and sound can easily pass through them. But good point.


For people who seem to think it would be impossible for 2 or 3 hijackers to drag the dead bodies out of the pilot seats, here are a couple of photographs that may help you realize that it's not impossible.

Notice how close the seat is to the center console and the forward panel.
Now notice how far away the seat is from the center console and the front panel.

See the difference? It is apparent from the photos that the seats can be moved back as well as split to the outside of the aircraft for easier access.


Good point Boone. Some seats in the 757 are manually operated and some are electrical. If the hijackers knew the operation of the seats they could in fact move it back and to the side and it would make it easier to remove the pilot. My opinion is that if their throats had been cut there would be a lot of blood all over the controls, which would make them slippery to handle. As to whether or not 2 or 3 hijackers would be able to fit in the cockpit all at once in order to drag the pilot out of his seat I find that highly unlikely. Good point, though.


One more to look at. Do you notice anything missing? I did. I don't see a separately held handset for communicating with the passenger cabin.


Another good point Boone. I checked with a current and qualified 757 check airman and he confirms that there is no handset as I described in the 757. It does use the original button type operation for ATC and passenger address. I guess I could have done a better job checking on this before I made the post. No excuse, though.


I'm going to try and find out what all the buttons and switches do on a 757 yoke.


I forgot to ask on that point but I'm sure there is a mike button on the right hand side of the control wheel.

Thanks for the corrections and for setting me straight.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   


originally posted by ULTIMA
(There were only 2 hijackers that went into the cockpit, the rest were to keep the pasengers out.)


Says who? I don't remember any reports of only two hijackers going into the cockpit.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Thanks for the reply John and the honesty. It's not about setting anyone straight, it's about the details. You know, ''The devil is in the details.''

If more people would take time to examine the details, they may not believe in the vast conspiracy of 9/11.

I would appreciate it if you ask did your contact about the passenger cabin microphone button, I'm just about investiGoogled out.

PS I have a theory of why Hani Hanjour made a right hand turn before hitting the Pentagon if you're interested.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Originally posted by Boone 870



I would appreciate it if you ask did your contact about the passenger cabin microphone button, I'm just about investiGoogled out.


The mike button on the right side of the control wheel, usually at the back so you can press it with the inside of your index finger keys the mike. There are several bottons on the radio communications box which are for COMM 1, COMM 2, PAX ADDRESS, INT (interphone) and EXT (ground).
Whichever button you have depressed is who you are going to be talking to. You cannot press 2 or more buttons at the same time.


PS I have a theory of why Hani Hanjour made a right hand turn before hitting the Pentagon if you're interested.


Please do.



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Says who? I don't remember any reports of only two hijackers going into the cockpit.


You really should do some research. Only 2 hijackers went into the cockpits the others were bascially hired muscle to keep the passengers out of the way.


Originally posted by Boone 870
If more people would take time to examine the details, they may not believe in the vast conspiracy of 9/11.


If more people would take the time to examine details, they might see how much information the official story is missing or left out.



[edit on 6-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


even though the flight 77 fdr has proven to be fake?

thats a stretch.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join