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.

 

Why No Revolt From Flt. 77 Victims? They were told they were going to die..

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Here is a link to an article that purports to establish the fact that the passengers on board Flight 77 were told to ' call their relatives and tell them they were going to die ' by the alleged ' highjackers '.

If true, then why not revolt? There were many ex military on that plane, including some high ranking ones in military and private government work, and no doubt they and the pilots would not have stood by and died without a whimper. This is the flight with the phony Barbara Olson calls, which we now know never took place. First, check out the article:


www.washingtonpost.com...


Next, go to this one and go about a third of the way down the page and read the material concerning the Olson calls. First he says they were on a cell phone; then it changes to a COLLECT call, as if that were possible from a seat back phone..and then someone LOANED her a card to use..because she forgot hers that day!! On and on it goes. But when the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui took place, the FBI agents testified that NO calls took place from the plane to Olson!! ZERO seconds was the length of the call. WHY then did Ted say he spoke twice to her? A lie or a voice morph or an act? See what you think:


killtown.911review.org...




posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


Then this website is highly applicable to your subject and stated from the expertise of a pilot:

www.pilotsfor911truth.org...

Common Strategy Prior to 9/11/2001

"I find it hard to believe Capt. Burlingame gave up his ship to Hani Hanjour pointing a boxcutter at him. Pilots know The Common Strategy prior to 9/11. Capt. Burlingame would have taken them where they wanted to go, but only after seeing more than a "boxcutter" or knife. Why was Capt. Burlingame, a retired Military Officer with training in anti-terrorism, reported to have given up his airplane to 5 foot nothing. 100 and nothing Hani Hanjour holding a "boxcutter". (Exaggeration added for size of Hani, he was tiny, lets just put it that way). We at pilotsfor911truth.org feel the same as his family in that Capt. Burlingame would not have given up his airplane unlike what is reported in this linked article from CNN.

"Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters."
CNN - September 12, 2001 Posted: 2:06 AM EDT (0606 GMT)

The pilots' number 1 priority is the safety of the passengers. Number 2 priority is to get them to their destination on time. Pilots dont just give up their airplane to someone with a knife.. regardless of what the press has told you about The Common Strategy prior to 9/11."



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


That is because Ted and Barbara Olson are both members of the PNAC crew. PNAC will provide well for their members.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
There is no way imaginable that any pilots would have allowed themselves to be ' herded ' into the reaer of the plane to face the shame of the passengers saying" Well, who is in charge? What if they crash the plane on purpose? ". Are we supposed to believe that these pilots would fall for that? No way on earth. Only a fight to the death would have taken the cockpits: If highjackers intended to live and go to some airport and make demands, then the pilots are the only and obvious choice as the best able to fly the plane and get them there, right?

If that is true, and it is, then it stands to reason that the ONLY reason that highjackers would ever want to take the controls would be to crash the plane in a suicide pact. It is logical, and the pilots knew that also. That is why the whole official story rings totally hollow: It is not the genuine article at all; things would happen much differently in real life. The pilots would never give up the cockpits without a fight, and with small men with only small blades? Please..we would have heard at least four sets of tapes of pilots yelling into the mikes as they fought off the attackers, but we get nothing...none..nada.

And one more point: WHY in the hell would the highjackers turn off the transponders as their first act? It is the opposite of what they should have wanted to do. Turing off the transponders may mean that the ATC cannot get an ident and tell who you are and how high, but the military and regular radars can still see the blips of the plane, and what WORSE way to stay unobtrusive and not attract any attention as long as possible then to turn off the transponders, thereby immediately alerting thje ATC's that something was wrong.

It was not the smart move, unless the intent all along was to have the military radar as the only one able to trasck the targets with any certainty..the military was doing the games and was corrupted from within as well, of course.

One more screaming anomaly: Read the treanscripts of the two flight attendants on Flt. 11, the girl up front and Betty Ong..and when you read it , it will dawn on you that NO ONE, saw anyone take the cockpits. No one saw or heard anything that would indicate a highjacking was taking place..they had to guess. There is never any reports of anyone seeing the highjackers taking the cockpits, and the girls are reading from a script as sure as hell. Listen carefully a few times..they are playing a role in the Games..the games are the key.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I wanted to bring this back from the grave because so few people posted about it, and it covers a topic that no one had expounded upon before, to my knowledge. The alleged info that the government spews in this case makes no sense and has not been corroborated by any other evidence.

Anyone think this means something?



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Past history prior to 9/11 has shown that you never pissed off the hijackers.

No resistance by passengers or pilots during the 70 and 80s. No until they land and thats when hijackers will meet real resistance with bullet in the head.

Guess there is a policy not to antagonize the hijackers that could have a bomb on board until they land. IMHO.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
Past history prior to 9/11 has shown that you never pissed off the hijackers.

No resistance by passengers or pilots during the 70 and 80s. No until they land and thats when hijackers will meet real resistance with bullet in the head.

Guess there is a policy not to antagonize the hijackers that could have a bomb on board until they land. IMHO.


It wasn't exactly policy, but it is what pilots and flight attendants were advised to do when they went thru training updates, which took place every year. We were told to first make sure (to the individual's satisfaction) that they did indeed have a weapon. Then try to deal with them in a sympathetic way, to earn their trust. And flight attendants were told NEVER to let anyone have access to the cockpit. The first order of business was to ensure the safety of the passengers until they landed.
Having been a flight attendant, that Betty Ong tape/transcription rang very false to me. For one thing, they kept asking her the same questions; no one would keep a flight attendant on the line that long if they were in danger, and keep asking the same questions with long pauses in between. Betty had an emergency on her hands and needed to help out the rest of the crew. She's on the phone obviously and the last thing the hijackers would want is for airline personnel to talk on the phone to ANYONE. The hijackers would have grabbed her in a second and gotten her off the phone.
To me, it did sound like something that would happen in a training session.



posted on Feb, 19 2008 @ 03:20 PM
link   
In due time you will learn that those planes on 9/11 were electronically hijacked.

For those of you that are thinking that this technology is not out yet, you better check your history, they have been doing this for 50 years.




posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Is it not possible that the pilots were forced to give up the cockpit because the terrorists were killing passengers? What if one of them had a knife to a kids throat threatening to kill them? What would YOU do?

And seeing the passengers wouldn't have known where it was they were heading or that the hijackers had plans to kill them all, why the hell would they rush them? They would almost certainly die then.

eyewitness, you make out that all pilots are rambo who could take anyone down when confronted with a knife. You can't train or prepare for events like that. Yes you're concerned for the safety of the passengers, but your own safety comes first and foremost.

They're pilots, not ninjas.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Is it not possible that the pilots were forced to give up the cockpit because the terrorists were killing passengers? What if one of them had a knife to a kids throat threatening to kill them? What would YOU do?

And seeing the passengers wouldn't have known where it was they were heading or that the hijackers had plans to kill them all, why the hell would they rush them? They would almost certainly die then.

eyewitness, you make out that all pilots are rambo who could take anyone down when confronted with a knife. You can't train or prepare for events like that. Yes you're concerned for the safety of the passengers, but your own safety comes first and foremost.

They're pilots, not ninjas.


The pilots would not risk the lives of all the passengers by trying to save just one person. Many pilots, if not most, were in the military and are trained at combat, etc. And, you may find it hard to believe, but many, if not most, pilots would give their lives to save the passengers. It's the mindset they have - they are very aware that they are responsible for hundreds of lives on the plane.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestladyThe pilots would not risk the lives of all the passengers by trying to save just one person. Many pilots, if not most, were in the military and are trained at combat, etc. And, you may find it hard to believe, but many, if not most, pilots would give their lives to save the passengers. It's the mindset they have - they are very aware that they are responsible for hundreds of lives on the plane.


In your opinion, bearing in mind the climate at the time when a hijacking occurs, how many slit throats do you think it would have taken for the pilots to do something? Whether it be aerial manouvers to try and knock them off their feet or something.

If the hijackers were able to burst onto the flight deck with a blade to an attendants throat (someone they know) - or a kid's even! - and told not to call for help/move/etc, would they have just sat there? Would they have disobeyed? If they did not disobey, then how do you believe they would have tried to defuse the situation without blood being shed while staying in control of the plane?



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   

February 20, 2008 at 13:53:26

BREAKING 9/11 NEWS: FBI Says Barbara Olsen Did Not Call Ted Olsen. Bush Solicitor General LIED !!

by Bill Douglas Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com...




Nationally syndicated talk show host Charles Goyette uncovered blockbuster information in his drive-time interview with author David Ray Griffin.



A center piece of the increasingly apparent BULLSH*T story our government and corporate media have fed us for six long years was a complete fabrication!




We were fed a lie by Ted Olsen who served as Solictor General for the Bush Administration, when on 9/11 he held a press conference to tell America and the world that his dead wife had called him before her demise from the jet she was on that had just been hijacked.



Personally, I thought it was odd at the time that a man would decide to hold a press conference minutes after hearing of his own wife’s death, when it happened on 9/11. If my own wife had just died, the last thing I’d want to do would be to talk to anyone, let alone call a press conference. It didn’t “smell” right.



Now we know why it didn’t smell right. It was a lie. The FBI has reported that no such call between Barbara Olsen and Ted Olsen ever took place on 9/11/2001.



It was part of the rapidly unraveling scam that is the official story of 9/11.




posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Muppetus Galacticus
 


Simply giving up the cockpit is a different story. Pilots are trained never to give up the cockpit, but to cooperate if it's been proven to their satisfaction that the hijackers have a knife. Once you give up the cockpit, you have no hope whatsoever of regaining control of the aircraft and everyone - pilots, passengers, and flight attendants - would then be in danger more than ever. I've never heard of pilots giving up the cockpit in a hijacking. It's the worst thing anyone could do because ALL passengers are at risk, not just a few who got their throats slit, awful as that seems. No flight attendant would ever let the hijackers in the cockpit, either. If so, all would be lost.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join