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: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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.


That's what I'm doing.

I am aware of the muscle hijackers. Just because it is believed that two of the five hijackers were the trained killers does not mean that the other three could not have helped with the takeover or the bodies.

If there were only two hijackers in the cockpit, why did Betty Ong say this?
''And we can’t get into the cockpit, the door won’t open''

[edit on 7-10-2007 by Boone 870]




posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Saying that a planted FDR with contradictory information to the original flight path is a stretch IMO.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
If there were only two hijackers in the cockpit, why did Betty Ong say this?
''And we can’t get into the cockpit, the door won’t open''

[edit on 7-10-2007 by Boone 870]


Maybe because they locked the door, (remember flight 93 they had to use a cart to break into the cockpit).

Besides i thought the hijackers had taken the passengers to the back of the planes according to the phons calls.






[edit on 7-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
You have to listen to the tape of Betty Ong to see clearly that she is reading a script, being prompted; she sounds as if she is describing a home decoration event..no stress in her voice, saying things that do not add up. Either she was told that she was playing a part in the GAMES that were all unfolding on that day; I believe there is a chance that the vast majority of the passengers and crew were told they were involved in a routine role playing test. Just listen to her voice and what she says.Add to that the call from the passenger who had to tel his own Mom his last name and kept asking " you believe me don't you Mom?" over and over, pausing to get direction.

Either voice morphs were used to create totally phony calls, or they were staged for sure. The only half way believeable call was from a guy in a rest room saying he heard a loud bang and saw smoke..Flt 93, and no doubt if real he saw the missle hit. But to believe that two ( no more would fit in that space ) highjackers could enter and disable and haul both pilots ( times four!!) before any of them could send a message by radio is beyond possible. No way. Who can accept such odds, and why?



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 02:04 PM
link   


originally posted by eyewitness86
Either voice morphs were used to create totally phony calls, or they were staged for sure. The only half way believeable call was from a guy in a rest room saying he heard a loud bang and saw smoke..Flt 93, and no doubt if real he saw the missle hit. But to believe that two ( no more would fit in that space ) highjackers could enter and disable and haul both pilots ( times four!!) before any of them could send a message by radio is beyond possible. No way. Who can accept such odds, and why?


Wrong again! The pilots of flight 93 were able to transmit 2 separate radio calls before they were subdued. Why do you continue to ignore this fact?

If flight 93 was hit with a missile, why didn't the data parameters of the FDR show any changes that indicated a missile strike?



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


In an earlier post you claim that only two hijackers entered the cockpit as if it were an absolute. The point of posting Betty Ong's statement was to show that maybe it was possible that all the hijackers were in the cockpit. Why would the hijackers let someone try to open the cockpit door if they were standing guard in the passenger cabin?



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Saying that a planted FDR with contradictory information to the original flight path is a stretch IMO.


thats fine with me but the video differes from the FDR, one is telling the truth, which one? CT'er or not you cant have it both ways.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
In an earlier post you claim that only two hijackers entered the cockpit as if it were an absolute. The point of posting Betty Ong's statement was to show that maybe it was possible that all the hijackers were in the cockpit. Why would the hijackers let someone try to open the cockpit door if they were standing guard in the passenger cabin?


Well doesn't the official story state that when the flight 93 passengers broke into the cockpoit their were only 2 hijackers in the cockpit?

How could all the hijackers be in the cockpit? For 1 their is not enough room and who took the passengers to the back of the plane (as per phone calls)



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   


originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well doesn't the official story state that when the flight 93 passengers broke into the cockpoit their were only 2 hijackers in the cockpit?


Not that I recall. Can you point me to a source? I do remember reports of the passengers planning on attacking the the hijackers in the passenger cabin, but not of them actually doing so. If the pilots bodies had been removed from the cockpit, then two hijackers could have been in the seats and I'm sure that the other two could have easily fit in the cockpit somewhere else.

There were only four hijackers on 93.



posted on Oct, 7 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
If the pilots bodies had been removed from the cockpit, then two hijackers could have been in the seats and I'm sure that the other two could have easily fit in the cockpit somewhere else.

There were only four hijackers on 93.



Well thats IF the pilots had been removed. Also again if all the hijackers were in the cockpit who was keeping the passengers at bay?



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 



The callers reported that the hijackers were wearing red bandanas and had forced passengers to the back of the airplane, a Boeing 757. They also said that a passenger had been stabbed and that two people -- possibly the captain and first officer -- were lying on the floor of the cabin, injured or dead, the commission said in its report. "One caller reported that a flight attendant had been killed," it said.
source

I would guess that if the passengers were making their assault on the cockpit, then the hijackers were in the cockpit or overcome by the passengers.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
I would guess that if the passengers were making their assault on the cockpit, then the hijackers were in the cockpit or overcome by the passengers.


oh, you mean the official story does not tell us? I guess the official story really is missing or left out a lot of information.



[edit on 8-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Do you really expect the official story to explain and provide all evidence for any question regarding 9/11? Why are your standards of evidence so high?



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Do you really expect the official story to explain and provide all evidence for any question regarding 9/11? Why are your standards of evidence so high?


Well since people that believe the official story keep stating they know everything that happened (and call poeple that want to find the truth names and insult them). I just assumed they would have the facts and evidence to support their thoeries and the the official story.

My standards of evidence is probly higher then most becasue i am a analyst and work with facts and evidence.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Well since people that believe the official story keep stating they know everything that happened (and call poeple that want to find the truth names and insult them). I just assumed they would have the facts and evidence to support their thoeries and the the official story.


I believe the official story and I certainly don't claim to know everything that happened and never will. On this forum, I haven't called anyone names or insulted anyone.

So where have I been wrong on this topic?



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
I believe the official story and I certainly don't claim to know everything that happened and never will. On this forum, I haven't called anyone names or insulted anyone.

So where have I been wrong on this topic?


Oh, i was not talking about you. But alot of other poeple on other forums are real big on insulting people who do not go along with the official story.

Also most people on other forums i ahve been on who believe the official story say they know what happened and no matter what evidence you show them they will not accept it.

I have asked anyone who believes the official story to provide evidence as to why they beleive the official story and where they get their evidence from that makes them believe it.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
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.


Ending in? A link would be sweet, it's possible to land a plane without any gas.. It's not really the same as handing over the pilots seat to someone who can't fly (extremely irrational choice to take by an extremely rational thinker).


Originally posted by Boone 870
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.


They weren't unarmed - there was a fireaxe in the cockpit which I'm sure would win paper scissors stone against a plastic knife. So after being given a warning of "Beware cockpit intrusion", these guys will have that ready for anybody coming thru that door. But they were "forced from the cockpit and may have been wounded".

The terrorists thought of using it when the passengers looked like they were going to revolt..

Regardless if they gave it up easily (extremely likely) or not; how did this manage to happen without hitting the mic in that split second and announcing the problem? Or having that fire axe handy, in case of a cockpit breach (as warned)? Like John says, these guys were probably very much on the ball at this typically coffee hour part of their working day.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Maybe after one pilot was in the back the hijackers killed the pilot in the cockpit.


Gee, you really are trying to come up with anything to keep from admitting something else other then what the official story states might have happened.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Originally posted by adjay

Ending in? A link would be sweet, it's possible to land a plane without any gas.. It's not really the same as handing over the pilots seat to someone who can't fly (extremely irrational choice to take by an extremely rational thinker).


A crash with lots of death. Ask and you shall receive. Video Link and here is a airdistasters.com link


They weren't unarmed - there was a fireaxe in the cockpit which I'm sure would win paper scissors stone against a plastic knife. So after being given a warning of "Beware cockpit intrusion", these guys will have that ready for anybody coming thru that door.


I agree that there was a fire ax in the cockpit. The question is whether or not the pilots were aware that their aircraft was being hijacked. The pilots received one warning. They sent a message for clarification and then the airline company sent one more message that was not confirmed as being received. The two messages sent and the one reply all happened within approximately 6 minutes of the hijacking.

I have no doubt that if the pilot received the message in time and had he looked out the cockpit door to witness the ensuing mayhem, the whole flight 93 issue would be completely different.

Flight 93 did send two messages over the radio. I guess hijackers entering the cockpit was enough confirmation of the first message to make them broadcast a message over the radio unlike the other three flights.

A few things to note from the Ethiopian Airlines flight 961 links above.

1. Rapid intrusion of the cockpit.
2. The copilot left the cockpit without fighting to the death.
3. Five people can fit into the cockpit of a 767.
4. It was several minutes before the pilot radioed anything to ATC.
5. It was this particular pilots 3rd hijacking and he did not roll the plane upside down or do any crazy maneuvers to disable the hijackers.
6. 4 people can fit into the cockpit of a 737 (smaller than a 757).
7. The pilot says that pilots are trained to fly, not to fight.



posted on Oct, 8 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I don't understand. Will you clarify that for me?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join