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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
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.


The pilots on Flight 93 had 2 warnings. A secure cockpit door and a message about the other hijackings.

So how were they surprised by the hijackers? After the first message they should have been alerted to something going on and ready for anything to happen.

If they were just sending a message on the internal message system to respond the hijack message, why coudn't they have sent a message for help?

Why couldn't they have taken 2 seconds to set the emergency codes on the transponder?

Why couldn't they call over the mike?

If all the hijackers were in the cockpits who took the passengers to the back of the planes and sprayed the mace or pepper spray to keep the passenger at bay? (according to the official story of the phone calls made)

[edit on 9-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
A crash with lots of death. Ask and you shall receive. Video Link and here is a airdistasters.com link


Thanks.


Originally posted by Boone 870
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.


9.24: Warning of cockpit intrusion sent by ATC, "Beware any cockpit intrusion—two a/c [aircraft] hit World Trade Center"

9.26: Pilot asking for confirmation (2 minutes later?? Why 2 minutes? Is this not very important to clarify?)

9.28: Jason Dahl heard yelling "Get out of here" along with commotion and "possibly screaming" ("possibly screaming" ? You either hear screaming, or you don't?)

I doubt that a cockpit intrusion is news to be taken lightly in a commercial airline pilot's seat. I believe the one warning by ATC is enough to have one hand on that fireaxe ready to slam it into someones face if they stick it close to the cockpit cabin door, after hearing the fate of two other planes that had obviously given up their pilots seats to the hijackers. You won't wait for confirmation of a message like that - even if you did ask for confirmation, having that fireaxe to hand would be a life and death situation.


Originally posted by Boone 870
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.


I couldn't get the video link to work but I read the news story.


The hijackers, however, realizing that they had failed, attempted to take control of the instruments. They wanted to turn the hijacking into a suicide mission by crashing into the resort. The struggle in the cockpit between the pilot and a hijacker was evident as the aircraft, gliding at 200 miles per hour without flaps down, approached the water. Presumably, a wing tip skimmed the water, which caused the plane to overturn at least once and break into three segments.


Some points:

1. The pilot did not leave the cockpit. The control of the plane never left the hands of the pilot, even at the final stage, the option to "hand over" the plane was never an option, and with the threat of a bomb still real.

2. The pilot did not roll the plane, but there was a real threat of a bomb on board. The pilot was under the impression if he did as he was told, the plane and its passengers would be safer than if he did something like throw the controls around. Unlike Flight 93, where the pilot knew what the hijackers agenda was (fly the plane into a building), so even if they had a bomb, everyone was guaranteed to be dead if he gave the controls to the hijackers.

3. The people on board seemed to act in a strange way - "the mood of the hijacking was unusual" - continuing on as if nothing happened, chatting, reading, eating, sleeping. I mean no offense to any race, colour or creed when I say I cannot imagine a plane full of American's acting in such a way. Or American airline pilots, although I concede I can imagine an African airline in 1996 conducting itself in this manner.

4. The hijackers had a small fireaxe and fire extinguisher - another proof of the utility value a fireaxe has on board a plane. Coupled with the fact that Flight 93's hijackers thought to use it on the passenger uprising, why didn't the pilots after being warned of such a deadly conclusion?

5. The pilot on the Ethiopian flight had no warning whatsoever of cockpit intrusion, thought there was a bomb onboard, and had been hijacked before - obviously without loss of life previously. I also doubt he had as much training in being hijacked as AA or UA give to their pilots, and he had good reason to believe the plane would be safer if he followed their instruction. Unlike Flight 93.

6. Pilots are indeed trained to fly. They are also more aware than anyone of how important it is to have this training in order to be able to fly. Flying a commercial jet without training is nothing less than suicide, which again brings back the point that under no condition, ever, would you give up the controls to a plane to anybody unless they were trained to fly, i.e. a pilot. Even more so upon being warned of "cockpit intrusion" and told of two other planes that had been hijacked and flown into the WTC.

P.S. These points are not counters to yours, although the numbering may look like they are.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Here's a video of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 crash.


National Geographic Channel reconstruction video.

Google Video Link



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Here's a video of the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 crash.


So what are you trying to prove by the videos ?



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1

The pilots on Flight 93 had 2 warnings. A secure cockpit door and a message about the other hijackings.


Maybe. Two messages were sent, the first one was received and then the pilot asked for a confirmation. First message was received at 9:24, confirmation message was received at 9:26, second warning message was then sent back and the assault began at 9:28. How does anyone know if the pilot received the second warning message before the assault started?


So how were they surprised by the hijackers?


Apparently, from the pilots response, it was a vague message. It did not say ''Warning Flight 93! You have four hijackers onboard and they're getting ready to storm your cockpit ''.


If they were just sending a message on the internal message system to respond the hijack message, why coudn't they have sent a message for help?

Why couldn't they have taken 2 seconds to set the emergency codes on the transponder?


Because it would take time to type in a message to send back. John Lear said that it would take two to four seconds under ideal conditions to set the transponder to the hijack code. Why would you consider hijackers storming the cockpit with deadly weapons as ideal conditions?

Why would you think that the hijackers would allow them to change the transponder or type in a message?


Why couldn't they call over the mike?


They did. Twice.


If all the hijackers were in the cockpits who took the passengers to the back of the planes and sprayed the mace or pepper spray to keep the passenger at bay? (according to the official story of the phone calls made)


I never said for sure that all the hijackers were in the cockpit. The accounts of flight 93 do not clearly state where the hijackers were and at what point in time they were in the passenger cabin. I also said that it was possible that one of the hijackers were still in the passenger cabin when the assault began.

After the passengers witnessed the hijackers stabbing and killing fellow passengers and flight attendants, they knew the hijackers meant business and followed their commands.

Why do you keep looking for all of the impossibilities?



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Possibilities. Examples.

As this thread has evolved, a lot of people have thrown out claims of impossible things happening.

Breaching the cockpits and surprising the pilots.
Pilots not instantly sending radio messages when being hijacked.
Pilots not being able to change the transponder to hijack code.
Pilots not giving up their place in the cockpit without fighting to the death.
Pilots not doing extreme measures and maneuvers to disable hijackers.
Not being able to fly with blood all over the cockpit.
Not being able to drag bodies out of the seats.

I am not saying that I am absolutely right. I'm just trying to counter all the claims of impossibility in regards to what happened in the cockpits. Do you disagree with anything that I have pointed out so far?



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870\
Why do you keep looking for all of the impossibilities?


Maybe becasue i am looking for what actually happened that day.
I could ask you, why you keep avoiding all the evidence.

Statement of Andrew P. Studdert to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States
January 27, 2004

At 9:21 United dispatchers are told to advise their flights to secure cockpit doors;

At 9:24 a United dispatcher sends a “Beware of cockpit intrusion . . . Two aircraft in NY hit Trade Center Builds” message to Flight 93. Flight 93 responds to this message at 9:26 , requesting that the dispatcher confirm the latest message;

At approximately 9:30, a United dispatcher reports that we cannot reach Flight 93;


So why, if the pilots had some warning could the hijackers still surprise them?


Breaching the cockpits and surprising the pilots.
Pilots not instantly sending radio messages when being hijacked.
Pilots not being able to change the transponder to hijack code.
Pilots not giving up their place in the cockpit without fighting to the death.
Pilots not doing extreme measures and maneuvers to disable hijackers.
Not being able to fly with blood all over the cockpit.
Not being able to drag bodies out of the seats.


1. How were pilots surprised that had warnings?

2. Most of the pilots had just been talking to ATC, why couldn't they call for help?

3. It only takes 2 seconds to change code. 1 pilot could held the 2 hijackers at bay while 1 changed transponder.

4. The pilots are responsable for the passengers safety, and their own, they would not have jsut given up control of the aircraft.

5. The pilot of the FED EX flight did extreme maneuvers to keep a hijacker out of the cockpit.

6. It would have been a lot harder to fly with blood on the controls.

7. Its a cramped tight area, it would have been hard to drag them out, and where did they put them?






[edit on 9-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 9-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Originally posted by adjay


I doubt that a cockpit intrusion is news to be taken lightly in a commercial airline pilot's seat. I believe the one warning by ATC is enough to have one hand on that fireaxe ready to slam it into someones face if they stick it close to the cockpit cabin door, after hearing the fate of two other planes that had obviously given up their pilots seats to the hijackers. You won't wait for confirmation of a message like that - even if you did ask for confirmation, having that fireaxe to hand would be a life and death situation.


There are two pilots on a 757. One of them has to be flying the aircraft. Jason Dahl was the first officer. He was the one receiving and sending messages back to United Airlines. The assault began two minutes after Jason sent the message back to United, if he was waiting for the confirmation, maybe he didn't jump up out of the seat to grab the axe and secure the door.

I've posted several pictures earlier in the thread of the cockpit of the 757 and I did not see a fire ax anywhere in the pictures. I would guess that the axe is somewhere in the back of the cockpit and not readily available to grab while sitting in the pilot's seat.



1. The pilot did not leave the cockpit. The control of the plane never left the hands of the pilot, even at the final stage, the option to "hand over" the plane was never an option, and with the threat of a bomb still real.


But the copilot did without fighting to the death. The hijackers on this flight were not trained to fly the airplane. They wanted the pilot to fly them to Australia. If they had trained and prepared like the 9/11 hijackers, they could have just as easily taken control of the aircraft and done whatever they desired or were capable of.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
One must isolate and define the exact issue in order to pin it down definitively: Here is my question:

HOW could it be even remotely LIKELY that in all FOUR cases, the pilots were overwhelmed before they could key that button and talk to the ATC? You say that in ONE case there are some words heard that indicate...all very iffy as far as actual cockpit invasions go, fits right in with a psy op tape though..to give credence to the official story.

But, shouldn't we have heard from ALL four cockpits an announcement or alert? It would have taken a split second to key that radio button and broadcast a message, but three of the planes do not respond at all, and the other allegedly has voices purported to be the pilots..but in a remote taking scenario, the only likley choice given the facts, no real transmissions would have been heard at all as all communications would have been cut off when the controls took over from the remote location. If ANY tapes were actually what they are supposed to be, I would be amazed. I think that virtually ALL of the radio and phone communications from that day were pure psy op and part of the plan, for reinforcement of their allegations.

But we are asked to believe that in three cases alone, not ONE pilot was able to take a SPLIT SECOND to push the button and talk to the ATC. That would have been the FIRST instinct in case of a cockpit intrusion: It is so cramped an area that a pilot could fight off one man while the other flew the plane and radioed a mayday or alert. That should have happened in AL four cases, at the least. But it does not happen at all, and the best evidence so far for a real account of what transpired is from the very people who ask us to believe the rest of the story: government agencies feeding info to some source; who verified this from the media?

What investigative reporter combed thru the files and amassed evidence showing that the taapes presented actually came from that flight, and not some black file at the CIA or NSA or whatever..wherever the highest level officials able to pull this off so brazenly and openly for so long reside. There has never been real and thorough checking of the governments allegations, of course.Recall that Bush and Cheney pressured Arlin Spector to have NO hearings on 9-11, a fact that Cheney later lied about, and then refused to be interviewed about it uinless they were TOGETHER, and with NO tapes or records or anything but the memories of the few lapdogs chosen to play the game. George having his hand held by Uncle Dick, and we wonder why?

It would be funny if not for all those bodies lying cold in the ground due to their crimes of war and conquest and riches..I firmly believe that in future generations, if books are still allowed, future peoples will judge us harshy, knowing we had access to advanced education, firm moral giudance and spiritual beliefs, and a lavish lifestyle, at least compared to the worst case scenarios. But we will be faulted for not being outraged..for not speaking out when so many dozens of infamous crimes are heaped one upon another and paraded around with a sign on it that says : " Trust us, we will keep you safe-- ask no questions and obey all the new rules ".

The Democrats are USELESS, nothing but a pack of ravenous wolves slavering for another bite of corporate largesse; connections, wealth, fame, power...ah, its a great time to be a politician!! You can just ignore the will of the people, who you know are too wrapped up in their lives to protest meaningfully, and pass whatever laws that your pals in the big businesses want you to!! All the perks, flying around and partying..having a staff to answer the laim, what a life!!As long as the Dems stay out of the bathrooms and the embarrassment that the Repugs have heaped upon themselves lately, they will putter along smiling as usual.

There are only ONE or two people who would seriously change things, and the big boys will Wellstone anyone getting close, or simply invalidate the vote with caging and other normal Republican activities. The system is rigged, a few major players sit in a room, and they hash out what is best for the ' pasrty ' NOT the people. The they choose the one that they think will likley win against the Repug. candidate. The Repugs do the same thing, only with the corporate people actually in the room along with the politicians!! Then, the stooges on the Supreme Court, with maniacs like Scalia as the rabid mad dog justice always leaping to kill another Constitutional right, get ready to take over and declare their boy the winner if it gets really close..no problem!!

And as the opposing candidate is always another Bonesman or affluent member of some commission or other they always bow out at the first hint of an argument, licking their wounds for years and ignoring the screaming members of their party demanding change NOW!! Democrats are afraid of appearing weak on terro, and drugs, and everything else. So, they adopt the Repug stances in chief but label it as something else, always giving in when Bush stamps his foot and refuses to play unless his rules are in effect. The Dems are afraid that the average Joe sixpack will not vote for them if they take a strong stand, despite the polls, and so they refuse to insist on change.

Americans are yelling for investigations and impeachments and justice, but the politicians are not listening; they claim to be uneducated about all the realy critical issues, like who did 9-11!! But they sure know how many new prisons were built last year to house those yterrible terroristic pot people..sickness is as sickness does.

Oh well, ready to escape and move to Spain and grow some herbs andforget the copming storm? I am close..



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. How were pilots surprised that had warnings?


Warnings? Only one warning was confirmed to have been received. It was a vague warning, it did not specify, to the pilots, that flight 93 was absolutely, positively, without a doubt going to be hijacked. Remember that the pilots are in the front of the aircraft looking forward flying the airplane with the door closed and not turned around facing the passenger cabin watching what is happening. I know that two messages were sent to flight 93.


2. Most of the pilots had just been talking to ATC, why couldn't they call for help?


You're right, they were. Here's the scenario. Hijackers enter the cockpit, pilots turn around to see what's happening, hijackers put sharp blades to the pilots throats, pilots are scared for their lives and do what they're told to. Do you think the hijackers walked into the cockpit and said ''Hello pilots. We're here to hijack your aircraft, feel free to radio air traffic control, change the transponder to hijack code, and type in a message to send to your Airlines flight handler."?


3. It only takes 2 seconds to change code. 1 pilot could held the 2 hijackers at bay while 1 changed transponder.


I've already addressed the transponder. Maybe in Hollywood. Did you not look at the pictures of the 757 cockpit that I posted earlier? The pilots are strapped into their seat that sits very close to the floor and they have the center console to deal with. Both of their legs are in front of them and in a little channel that has a console in between them. How do you propose that one pilot can turn around from his seat and fight off to hijackers?


4. The pilots are responsable for the passengers safety, and their own, they would not have jsut given up control of the aircraft.


I agree that the pilots are responsible for the passengers, the flight crew, and the airplane. Why do you keep saying that the pilots gave up control with all the reports of pilots begging for their lives, sounds of stabbing in the cockpit, reports of pilots bodies on the floor, and evidence that the pilot of flight 77 was murdered before the crash? It sounds more like to me that they were forced to do so. You ask that question over and over. You want me to explain why when you are the one that keeps claiming that is how it happened. You explain it. You are the one making the claim, not me. I'm all ears.

One flight 77, Barbara Olson and others reported that one of the pilots was in the rear of the aircraft with the passengers. Just because he was in the back with the passengers does not mean that he gave up control of the aircraft. It means that he gave up his seat in the cockpit. Just like on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961.


5. The pilot of the FED EX flight did extreme maneuvers to keep a hijacker out of the cockpit.


Yes he did. After two of the crew members got other seats to fight him off. They were in the gallery and the cargo section of the aircraft while he was done in the maneuvers. The hijacker was not standing in the cockpit with the knife to his throat.


6. It would have been a lot harder to fly with blood on the controls.


Yes. But not impossible has proven on FedEx 705.


7. Its a cramped tight area, it would have been hard to drag them out, and where did they put them?



I never said that it was easy. They would've put the bodies wherever they wanted. I really doubt that they left them in the seat.

. The bodies could have been on the floor in the aisle or somewhere behind the screen in the galley area, aircraft entrance area, or in the cockpit on the floor.















[edit on 9-10-2007 by Boone 870]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Warnings? Only one warning was confirmed to have been received. It was a vague warning, it did not specify

One flight 77, Barbara Olson and others reported that one of the pilots was in the rear of the aircraft with the passengers. Just because he was in the back with the passengers does not mean that he gave up control of the aircraft. It means that he gave up his seat in the cockpit. Just like on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961.


1. I do not think a secure cokpit door warning a vague warning.

2. So now you contridict yourself. First you say that hijackers break into the cockpit and kill the pilots then you turn around and quote Olson that one of the pilots was in the back with pasesengers. So which is it.

Also if the pilot is in the back with the passengers means he gave up control of the aircraft, becasue if he did fight back he would have been killed.
















[edit on 9-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. I do not think a secure cokpit door warning a vague warning.

From your source.

At 9:24 a United dispatcher sends a “Beware of cockpit intrusion . . . Two aircraft in NY hit Trade Center Builds” message to Flight 93. Flight 93 responds to this message at 9:26 , requesting that the dispatcher confirm the latest message;

There is no secure cockpit door warning in that message.


2. So now you contridict yourself. First you say that hijackers break into the cockpit and kill the pilots then you turn around and quote Olson that one of the pilots was in the back with pasesengers. So which is it.


I don't think that I directly contradict myself. I do not recall stating that the hijackers had to "break into" the cockpit. If anything, I believe that they simply inserted a key into the lock and turned it.

I do not believe that the hijackings of all four aircraft were identical. Obviously, on flight 77, one of the pilots was forced to the rear of the aircraft alive. On the rest of the flights, I believe the pilots were killed or seriously injured in or near the cockpit and then removed. Remember the media reports of one of the pilots on flight 11 intermittently keying the microphone button for several minutes after the takeover? I do not know although the details. To me, that does not mean inside job.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
There is no secure cockpit door warning in that message.

I don't think that I directly contradict myself. I do not recall stating that the hijackers had to "break into" the cockpit. If anything, I believe that they simply inserted a key into the lock and turned it.

To me, that does not mean inside job.


1. I guess you missed this, At 9:21 United dispatchers are told to advise their flights to secure cockpit doors;

Also i believe the pilot would have known to secure the cockpit door with that message. I also believe the pilot was requesting more infomration on the message not to repeat the message becasue he did not understand it.

2. So now we go to braaking into the cockpit and cutting the pilots throat to letting themselves in with a key. You sure do change your story a lot.

3. Did i say it was an inside job?

[edit on 9-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. I guess you missed this, At 9:21 United dispatchers are told to advise their flights to secure cockpit doors;


Is that what the United dispatchers sent in the message?


2. So now we go to braaking into the cockpit and cutting the pilots throat to letting themselves in with a key. You sure do change your story a lot.


I do not recall saying that the hijackers broke into the cockpit. Go back to the first page and read my first two posts. If it was my belief that the hijackers broke into the cockpit, why would I be posting about the availability of keys to the hijackers from the onset of this thread?


3. Did i say it was an inside job?


No you didn't. I apologize.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I think a lot of people are making a lot of assumptions. Pilots will fight to the death to protect the flight crew and passengers just because they are pilots. Blood on flight controls will make it nearly impossible to fly a plane. It takes only 2 seconds to change a transponder.

Which is it 9/11 conspirators, Holograms or remote control. Does American Airlines have a policy of only hiring Billy Bad Asses. I for one have yet to see a pilot that left me with the impression that he would fight to death for me, or capable of taking out multiple armed foes.

All I see are assumptions being tossed around, and frustration that they are not being accepted as fact.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Why keep evading the main point? Tell us HOW all eight pilots failed to key the mike. That is so simple. We SHOULD have heard FOUR tapes of pilots yelling that they were being attacked, or giving an alert, yet all we have are allegations that on one plane some noises were heard, voices from who knows who.

Someone tell me a LIKELY way that all FOUR jets could have been taken so fast that not even ONE pilot could have pressed the button and talked on the radio. There should be FOUR tapes of cockpit intrusions caught, yet only ONE out of four even has ANY semblance of being an alert.

The odds are TOO overwhelming that this was a remote taking.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
There are two pilots on a 757. One of them has to be flying the aircraft. Jason Dahl was the first officer. He was the one receiving and sending messages back to United Airlines. The assault began two minutes after Jason sent the message back to United, if he was waiting for the confirmation, maybe he didn't jump up out of the seat to grab the axe and secure the door.

I've posted several pictures earlier in the thread of the cockpit of the 757 and I did not see a fire ax anywhere in the pictures. I would guess that the axe is somewhere in the back of the cockpit and not readily available to grab while sitting in the pilot's seat.


Yeah, also you could say the assault began 4 minutes after being warned of cockpit intrusions, and of 2 planes being flown into the towers. Anybody in this situation would start making a contingency plan of some sort - anything sharp, anything that could be used lethally, will be in that persons mind.

Your pictures did not show a fireaxe - that's does not mean the cockpits you posted had one, nor does it really indicate where it may have been placed in Flight 93. For safety reasons, I would place the fireaxe within reach of the co-pilot if not both pilots, considering at an emergency they may be strapped into their seats.


Originally posted by Boone 870
But the copilot did without fighting to the death. The hijackers on this flight were not trained to fly the airplane. They wanted the pilot to fly them to Australia. If they had trained and prepared like the 9/11 hijackers, they could have just as easily taken control of the aircraft and done whatever they desired or were capable of.


The fact the copilot left means nothing. The control of the plane stayed in the hands of the pilot - albeit under voice control of the hijackers. The copilot isn't about to fight someone to the death over being asked to leave the cockpit, knowing there's a capable pilot and a probable way out of this one without injury. Unlike the Flight 93 cockpit, where they knew if their cockpit was breached, they were all going to die.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by wsamplet
I think a lot of people are making a lot of assumptions. Pilots will fight to the death to protect the flight crew and passengers just because they are pilots. Blood on flight controls will make it nearly impossible to fly a plane. It takes only 2 seconds to change a transponder.

Which is it 9/11 conspirators, Holograms or remote control. Does American Airlines have a policy of only hiring Billy Bad Asses. I for one have yet to see a pilot that left me with the impression that he would fight to death for me, or capable of taking out multiple armed foes.

All I see are assumptions being tossed around, and frustration that they are not being accepted as fact.


Nobody said pilots will fight to the death to protect the flight crew and passengers just because they are pilots. What has been implied, however, is that upon knowing 2 planes hit the WTC, after breached cockpits, anybody would fight to the death for their own life, rather than giving the hijackers the lives of everybody on board. These pilots have families, children, friends, and they want to get home to see them.

It's petty to group "9/11 conspirators" together, and throw in the hologram and remote control tags to a discussion about how the cockpits were taken.

If you aren't willing to consider all evidence, why visit this forum?



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
What evidence? So far there has been only speculation, not evidence. Why is it so hard to believe that these pilots couldn't have been taken by suprise by people with a well rehearsed plan. The only people that no what happened were the ones on the planes, unfortunately they can not tell the story. I believe that the official account is the most accurate.

Based on my own observations as a passenger, the cockpit door before 9/11 was rarely locked, and flight crew members were in and out of the cockpit with regularity.

We know that the planes that hit the wtc had all ready crashed when the messages were sent to flight 93. the plane that hit the pentagon was all ready under terrorist control. Flight 93 did key the mike and there is recorded proof of that.

please, lets not ask questions that can only be answered by assumptions and call that evidence.

If you don't believe the offical story than please lay out your count by count theroy on what happend. If it will make it easier we can focus on flight 93, tell your theory of what happened on that plane.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Is that what the United dispatchers sent in the message?


I believe the pilot would have known it was a secure cockpit message.

More information about the terrorist.

www.ctstudies.com...

5 hijackers flew despite red flags
By 7:35 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, all five hijackers on American Airlines Flight 77 had been tagged by a passenger pre-screening program as "a risk to aircraft safety," and four had set off magnetometer alarms at airport checkpoints, according to staff reports presented yesterday to the independent 9/11 panel.....(Newsday, 28 Jan 04)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join