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: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by wsamplet
 


Whether I believe the official story or not is irrelevant.

I would need to present evidence if I "claimed" anything - I am not aware I have done.

But there are things that don't make sense, and I'm happy for any realistic choices to plug these gaps - there just aren't any.

4 commercial airlines physically handed over to arabs who couldn't fly them - even when one plane has a warning of cockpit breach and news of the wtc strikes. Not a word said using the 1/2 second mic.

Talking of evidence, is there any that boxcutters and plastic knives were even used?




posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by adjay


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.


Apparently not Jason Dahl.


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.


Where you would place the axe has no bearing on where the aircraft manufacturer or airline operator would place it.


The fact the copilot left means nothing. The control of the plane stayed in the hands of the pilot


Please explain that to ULTIMA1.


Unlike the Flight 93 cockpit, where they knew if their cockpit was breached, they were all going to die.


If they knew there were going to die, why weren't they securing the cockpit door instead of replying to a message asking for confirmation?


Nobody said pilots will fight to the death to protect the flight crew and passengers just because they are pilots


The OP has on several occasions.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

The fact the copilot left means nothing. The control of the plane stayed in the hands of the pilot


Please explain that to ULTIMA1.



Where did i say anything about the copilot or the pilot ?

I thought you were the one who was satating that the hijackers took over the planes, getting into the cockpits with a key? Are you changing your story again?



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 05:31 PM
link   
It is a matter of self preservation first, and then the preservation of the lives of the passengers and crew, a responsibility that weighs very heavily on any commercial pilot. If the cockpit is taken, then the odds are that they are all going to die: If the plane needed safely landing, the highjackers would simply demand that the pilots fly the plane to a destinatiuon. But in this case, to allow anyone else to take the controls is tantamount to a death sentence as far as the pilots are concerned.

Never would a pilot willingly hand over a plane to be flown by others, no way. They would rather fight off the highjackers or die trying, as one has nbothing to lose anyway if the suicide highjackers were to get the controls, and the ONLY reason to replace pilots would be a suicide mission. It makes sense ONLY if a suicide is planned to take the controls. Every pilot knows this, and no pilot would simply give up the controls and HOPE and PRAY and WISH that the pilots are capable and willing to land the craft, an impossibility given that well trained and capable pilots were already at the helm. No, it makes no sense unless it was a remote taking.

Pilots would equate giving up the cockpit to death, and better to die trying to retain control and assure a landing when possible than to hand over the plane to obvious suicide highjackers and wait to die surrounded by passengers screaming questions at you as to how you could have given up the cockpit!! No way.The planes were remotely taken, landed and passengers removed to one plane, it was dumped at sea, and the set up planes did their thing , if in fact there were any at all. But no way would FOUR sets of pilots give up their planes, and there is NO WAY that anyone could overwhelm a cockpit before the mike could be keyed.

the FACT that we should have heard FOUR clear transmissions relating to a highjacking means that there was no MEANS to do so; there was the MOTIVE, which was training and instinct, the OPPORTUNITY, which was anytime from the time of attempted entry into the cockpits to the times of death or disability of the pilots, to key the mike and send a message. But all contacts were lost INSTANTLY, and only REMOTE can equal INSTANT.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Page 8 of this thread.



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.



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
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.


You stated the post about the copilot in the back. I was answering

Please keep track of what you post. You keep changing your story every post.

Here is your post. on page 8 posted on 9-10-2007 @ 15:09

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.



[edit on 10-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 10-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Hugely off subject
and sorry i havnt read the thread iin its entirety

Mr Lear - you have access to the VFR on Flight 93? Even 6 years after the death of those people Im surprised that the NTSB have given you total access to that data recorder.

Or is this edited data from the recorder that is in the public domain?

questioning minds would like to know



posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Originally posted by Ultima 1


Please keep track of what you post. You keep changing your story every post.


I have been keeping track of what I post and I just went back and read through all of my posts. Twice! Will you please point out for me where I change my story every post. You really should do this because I want to point out where you change yours.

You state that the pilots received two warnings.
I point out to you that two warnings were sent and only one was confirmed.
Then you state that the pilots should have not been surprised by the hijackers because one of the warnings said to secure the door.
Then I pointed out that the message they received did not state to secure the door.
Then you post that the United dispatchers were told to send the aircraft a message to secure the doors.
Then I pointed out that the message they sent and the pilots received did not say anything about securing the door.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
One important fact that has not been yet discussed is that the hijackers used mace.

Betty Ong mentioned: "They can't breathe in business class. They've got mace or something."

Perhaps pilots overwhelmed by mace simply did not the ability to fight or key in a transpoder code or call ATC or whatever else...

And in general about calling ATC: what use would that have? It's not like the cops are going to show up afterwards...

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Netstriker]



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   
So, now they have mace as well as boxcutters..what about gas masks also? Nonsense!! you do NOT spray mace in an enclosed area, the effects can spread over several feet, and the thought of using it in a cockpit is insane. A number of the alleged highjackers were singled out for surther checks, and that means that they were gone over thoroughly and had NOTHING on them.

And, the BETTY ONG tape is a PHONY, a set up. How many of you have actually listened to the tape? It sounds like a script, and badly done at that. If people could not breath in first class, then they could not breath anywhere on the plane, as the ventilation system recirculates air continuously...also, mace does not take your breath away, it merely burns the eyes and stops you from seeing. If people could not breath, then the bad guys must have used some form of really bad gas, necessitating gas masks for them to occupy the area afterward, right?

It staggers the mind how people will believe the ' reports ' from who knows where, that allege that all of these weapons and gases were used..but no proof whatsoever. Betty Ong was an OBVIOUS stooge and was playing a game at the request of the perps, that is certain. Listen to her sords, and hesitations, she sounds like she is describing a dog show, for God's sake!! Calm and cool and unconcerned..reading from a script for sure!! The Betty Ong tape is a smoking gun..just listen to it and tell me that she sounds sincere or scared..she does not.

The whole thing was and is a giant psy op with multiple layers of treachery and set up's , done quite well but not perfectly. There was NO gas or mace, there were NO ' Boeing Keys ' allowing access to the cockpits, there were no highjackers..and if there was, they were as suprised as anyone else when the planes started flying themselves to the airports where the passengers were switched and loaded onto one plane for disposal. But for sure, there was no mace and no gas..no evidence of it..again, just listen to Betty Ong to hear a person cooperating with a highjack GAME scenario..it could'nt be more clear when you hear the tape.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Not being able to fly with blood all over the cockpit.


excuse me, talk about twisting the story to fit your own needs.

I said there would have been a large amount of blood and it would be implausible but not impossible to circumvent that.

however, it is a HUGE hole in any story that supports the pilots were shanked. It would take too long to bleed out and produce a mess that would make the plane virtually unflyable.

thats all. didnt change my story didnt change my mind.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   


It staggers the mind how people will believe the ' reports ' from who knows where, that allege that all of these weapons and gases were used..but no proof whatsoever. Betty Ong was an OBVIOUS stooge and was playing a game at the request of the perps, that is certain.


Does this paragraph demonstrate a double standard?

So the Government decided to take flight 93 and faricate a story that would portray the passengers as heros. Complete with prank calls to the passengers loved ones where in they read off a script. I respectfully ask you to once again read your own words. For what ever reason you want to ignore the fact that the people on those planes had loved ones that they were in communication with on the ground saying their final good-byes. That is a fact unlike your remote control crap. Tip toe on this subject because you are on thin ice.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

You state that the pilots received two warnings.
Then you post that the United dispatchers were told to send the aircraft a message to secure the doors.
Then I pointed out that the message they sent and the pilots received did not say anything about securing the door.




Don't you think that if the pilots received a cockpit intrusion message that would also mean to secrue the cockpit door. I mean securing the cockpit door would be the way to stop a cockpit intrusion would it not?



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Phone calls like those with a son giving a Mom his last name and asking over and over " You believe me, don't you Mom "..and hesitations as if being coached..or how about the Barbara Olson calls, where it was collect until that was shoen to be impossible, and then a credit card because she ' forgot her's ' that day (!) and had to borrow one from some unnamed passenger..no records have ever been presented showing the numbers and identities of the callers and routings, etc. It was kept very vague on purpose.

If any calls were genuine, it would have been highly anomalous indeed: To make cell calls from those heights was nearly impossible then. But the main issues that really make the case for remote taking are the FACTS that scream it out, such as the FACT that out of EIGHT pilots, not ONE managed to press the button to activate the mike and contact the ground; that would have been the FIRST thing that they would have done if a cockpit were being breached. But we are asked to believe that the supermen Saudis were so fast that they could have invaded, killed, occupied and taken control, and all in LESS than the time required for the EIGHT pilots to press the button.

There are many other major issues that make remote taking the ONLY logical possibility, but the mere abscence of any radio calls from the four flights, with the possible exceptions noted above from PURPORTED transmissions from the flight indicating possible trouble..but NO transmissions from recognizable voices telling about cockpit intrusions or assaults. How ELSE to accomodate the facts? Those who believe in the Saudi Superman theory must accept a series of incredible events to do so: All FOUR cockpits invaded and occupied INSTANTLY, pilots killed or chased out of the cockpits by men armed with boxcutters...although as the strory goes on we hear about ' reports ' from no known source, that they ' might ' have had :

Tear gas, tear gas masks, combat knives, electronic devices for getting them to their targets..and all this must have been hidden VERY well due to the FACT that almost half of the purported highlackers were screened CLOSELY before boarding..they set the alarms off and NO DOUBT were wanded and checked, and they could not have gotten any real weapons on board..at least not the type that could run eight pilots off.

No, remote taking is the ONLY sensible way to fill in the facts against the odds. to believe otherwise is to believe in dozens of unproven and presumptuous suppositions based on nothing but a desire to believe in the official story. The official strory is so ridiculous when viewed in light of the known facts that only a person in denial could possibly entertain odds that long. No one can act that fast, and no one can do what the highjackers were supposed to have done to accomplish the acts that are alleged. No way.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   


originally posted by Ultima 1

Don't you think that if the pilots received a cockpit intrusion message that would also mean to secrue the cockpit door. I mean securing the cockpit door would be the way to stop a cockpit intrusion would it not?


Yes, possibly. Remember, though, Ultima. The airline dispatch sent the first message. Then two minutes later they received a reply back from flight 93. That alone indicates that it takes time to get messages back and forth. We know for sure that the dispatcher wasn't monitoring flight 93 only and that he could have been sending or replying to messages from other aircraft.

Maybe the pilots were waiting to receive the message for confirmation of what was going on. The first message was sent at 9:24, the reply was received that 9:26 and then the hijacking began at 9:28. The hesitation of Jason Dahl to get up out of his seat and a check for possible hijacking instead of waiting on a reply from dispatch could have meant the difference between life and death.

One more thing, the pilots were not aware of what was going on like the rest of us were. They did not have a television in the aircraft to watch the news reports and video coverage.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Yes, possibly. Remember, though, Ultima. The airline dispatch sent the first message. Then two minutes later they received a reply back from flight 93. That alone indicates that it takes time to get messages back and forth. We know for sure that the dispatcher wasn't monitoring flight 93 only and that he could have been sending or replying to messages from other aircraft.


Don't you think getting that message should have put the pilots on alert?

Nobody has been able to explain to me that pilots that had an cockpit intrusion message can stil be so surprised as to not be able to get off a call or signal, specailly since being in communicaiton with the ground.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


I have Ultima1, you just don't want to acknowledge it.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by wsamplet
I have Ultima1, you just don't want to acknowledge it.


You have a theory not facts.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
NO ONE has explained how the FOUR flights could have been taken INSTANTLY, despite the time needed to key the mike is a split second. NO ONE has repled to that in detail, only allegations of the highjackers being able to use Boeing keys to get in and superhuman abilities with small blades, none of which has been proven by evidence..all assumptions.

You have to examine it in detail, the actiual time needed to key the mikes ( less than a second ) with the liklihood of two men being able to slash and storm the cockpits before the mike could be keyed. There should have been FOUR planes yelling out trouble, and we do not see that. That means that they were not able to do so, and NOT because some Saudis were so superfats that they could perform feats beyond belief.

It takes only a SPLIT SECOND to key the mike, yet it didn't happen. WHY? Because of remote taking, thats why. NO OTHER explanation makes any sense at all othere than remote taking. We must otherwise believe that the highjackers, all FOUR sets, were able to penetrate the cockpits and kill the pilots and haul their bodies out of that small space and assume the controls, and it had to be INSTANT!! Sorry, but instant means remote, no other way.



posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Lets focus on the use of the radio. There is chatter between ATC and other pilots discussing hearing a scream. Flight 93 has substantial radio transmission where they are heard pleading. By my count that is 2 out of 4 flights. there has been a lot of boasting on this topic about pilots fighting to the death before giving up the plane, and their top notch training and decision making. If you follow that logic, why waste precious time raising ATC on the comm when there is nothing they can immediately do. I contend that a level headed pilot would first deal with containing the situation then radio to ATC to inform them of their status.

That said, do you not believe that the accounts of radio transmissions from 2 flights took place.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join