It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


BETTY ONG / FLIGHT 11 Was A Mock Hijacking Exercise.

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:38 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

You are avoiding my question and point.

Would you dissmiss one report from the back over another? (I am not talking about timing of the cockpit rush here - though it becomes circumspect based on the second flight attendants comments) I am asking if one crew report would be worth more than anothers?

There was a report of a gun on the plane and a shooting.

There was a reprot of mace on the plane and its spraying.

There was a report of a Isreali Elite Commando shot by a Terrorist.

These stories are not made up by me. I am sorry if the conflicting storylines affects the golden haze of what I am sure was a distinguished career.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by scrapple]

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by OrionStars

Thanks OS. It feels stupid to ask for confirmation, but the digital record helps put things in perspective for readers. You are right the whole story stinks. Thanks for your post.


[edit on 18-1-2008 by scrapple]

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 01:48 PM
reply to post by scrapple

NO, scrapple...I did not avoid your question. I think I tried to answer to the best of my ability, given the limitations of this forum...I mean, we aren't face-to-face.

None of us were there on that day. I can only state my opinion, based on experience, of a possible scenario as it went down.

You can only get so much information when you are talking to an FA on the interphone. And you just do not expect a great amount of disturbance on a flight...we get lulled into a routine. ('course, much more awareness now...)

It is quite possible that the Captain asked the 'Lead' FA (AA called the position 'Purser') to come in and tell him what was going on. THAT could have been a fatal mistake, not knowing that the entire mission would turn out the way it did.

I won't provide detail, but post-9/11 we had many training videos to alert us to just such a tactic...diversionary tactics to be aware of.

posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 07:05 PM

On Sunday, Santacruz airport conducted one of its routine mock exercises which went a little awry when an overenthusiastic media mistook it for the real thing and landed at the airport in full strength.

Unsuspecting passengers who heard the `news' from the media persons gathered outside the airport manager's office for further information about the incident immediately panicked and started enquiries.

As per the procedures laid down for the mock hijacking drill, the cockpit crew of an Alliance Air Boeing aircraft on a Mumbai-Mangalore flight informed the air-traffic control that the plane was hijacked by a lone skyjacker. ``The ATC, as per the drill laid down, immediately alerted concerned agencies like Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Airport officials and police, who immediately rushed to the airport,

The mock exercise began at 1.04 pm and lasted for two-and-a-half hours. Seventeen passengers drawn from various agencies and seven crew members were aboard the aircraft. Among the demands made by the `hijackers' included a getaway car, an audience with the prime minister and a sum of US $1 millon.

The negotiating team which included personnel drawn from various agencies also comprised experts in the field of psychology and psychiatry, Iyengar added. The lone `hijacker' was apprehended as he tried to escape in the `getaway' car

BEst part.....

As only a few chosen officials from the higher echelons of the AAI and the airline were aware of the drill, some amount of confusion prevailed among the local staffers in the city who had to cancel their Sunday break and rush to work.

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 06:51 AM

Originally posted by IvanZana
TH epoint of showing those passengers in my last post had nothing to do with their religion but more so the experience.

Daniel Lewin was trained in anti Hijacking, the pilots have Airforce experience, and the other passengers on most of the planes were mostly Ceo's, Vice presidents and founders of major companies.

There were no terrorists on the planes except for these guys. Nobody can find proof that Muhamed Atta was on that plane.

Nice try boone and swamp for trying to make it a jewish hating thing btw.

I think there is evidence that Atta was not on one of those. I talked to someone who saw him in Florida, at the Venice airport, before the hijacking.

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

And WHY would a Captain ask a LEAD to enter the cockpit when a phone would do just fine? If there is a situation on a plane, the LAST thing the pilots do is open the cocpit door; it is their ONLY line of defense, other than hand to hand combat, and that is the last thing pilots want. To imagine that it is likley that the ' C'mon in ' scenario was real is silly. There is NO reason to believe that any cockpits were taken: The total lack of any radio alert means that any takeovers had to be INSTANT. And the ONLY instant takeovers come from REMOTE control technology.

The 9-11 events were the first ever real world excercise using the utmost technology coupled with a plan so brilliant and daring that to unravel it is almost beyond the abilities of the invesigator to determine, mostly due to media coverups and official lies. The data is all secret, and remians so. The FBI will not even release the serial numbers of ' recovered ' parts: That is because there ARE NO numbers and there are no parts. If the FBI came out and admitted that they had no parts to compare all hell would break loose and we would be right back in a state of panic and the leaders will not allow that.

They covered up the JFK and RFK murders, and many more to keep things from getting out of control and bringing the entire mess down on the heads of the perps. What most people just cannot conceive is that these people are really murdering thugs that are wrapped in a blanket of respectability for public consumption: Our leaders are either part of the event or part of the coverup. I refuse to believe that minds as brilliant as those far up in the chain of command do not see the facts: If WE can plainly see the crimes of the Cheney/Bush cabal, then so can they.

But disclosure and justice are far from being what they want: Control, money and power are all they seek, and they will kill millions of us to get what they want: they are doing so now!!

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:32 PM

Originally posted by scrapple


There was a report of a gun on the plane and a shooting.

There was a reprot of mace on the plane and its spraying.

There was a report of a Isreali Elite Commando shot by a Terrorist.

These stories are not made up by me. I am sorry if the conflicting storylines affects the golden haze of what I am sure was a distinguished career.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by scrapple]

And thus begins the oonspiracies.

How about Daniel Lewin?

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:02 PM
reply to post by eyewitness86

eyewitness, it is difficult to convey our mindset and strategy that existed on 10 September 2001, and prior.

Suffice to say, there were code words to be used to indicate, on the interphone, if the FA was under duress. These common strategies are well known within the Industry...they are now obsolete.

What we are more alert to, now, is a concerted effort to gain access at any cost...and measures are in place, I won't elaborate of course, to prevent Flight Deck incursions at all costs.

In the past...yes, when you heard about a problem in the cabin, you just might want to speak face to face to ascertain EXACTLY what is going down. The mindset then was it was a disturbance in the cabin, with no ulterior motives or we know better.

I have no idea how the cockpits were violated on the four airplanes...a diversionary tactic? A moment of opportunity? I have mentioned, somewhere, that as recently as three years ago I was on a flight, intra Europe, where I, from my Business Class seat, watched the FAs stand in the open cockpit door and chat...whilst handing food and drink up...believe me, I was watching every person around me, looking for any suspicious behavior. Obviously, I was maybe a little too cautious...but my point is, that does NOT happen on a US carrier anymore!

Hope this clears a few things up, eyewitness. Thanks.

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:12 PM
This thread has wandered pretty far off topic. The key issue here is that this phone call contains a lot of information, and it is very difficult to provide a scenario in which the 'official story' holds up under the logic that the facts in this phone call force one to go by.

I think the key here is the 'mace'. Betty Ong states several times that 'no-one can get up there' referring to first class. It would seem that no-one around her has seen anyone that would be considered a hijacker, only that a gas is keeping people away and that they cannot contact the cockpit through the intercom system.

To me this alone points to a scenario in which the planes were gassed and taken over by remote control. To try and fit the 'story' of five hijackers taking over a plane so smoothly that the black boxes do not show an interruption of any kind in the plane's flight path, as well as not one peep on the radio from anyone in the cockpit, or anyone punching in the transponder code... Well, it is ludicrous.

Betty Ong doesn't necessarily have to be part of a mock drill to sound so calm. It sounds to me like she simply doesn't know what is going on, and neither does anyone else there. They have simply lost contact with the cockpit, and a 'gas' prevents them from approaching the front of the plane. She would not be as calm as she is if there were screaming hijackers with boxcutters making examples of anyone not following their demands.

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 11:37 PM
reply to post by KaiBosh

KaiBosh, thanks for writing in (posting) but here are a few points I have to differ with you...

The DFDR and DCVR (commonly called the 'black boxes') were not recoverable from the Twin Towers accident site. There ARE tapes from Air Traffic Control (ATC) where you can hear the voice of, in the case of AA11, Atta talking. Thing is, he thought he was on the PA, to the cabin, but in fact, he was transmitting on the VHF frequency that was left tuned in, and it was recorded at the ARTCC.

Betty Ong...she was NOT calm! You can clearly hear the stress in her voice. I pointed out, in a post days ago, that people will fly these kinds of trips because it is a great way to get in the hours, in only two leave in the morning, you layover in LAX for 10 or 11 hours, you get home the second day...and you have a couple of days off afterwards. THAT is how the airline biz works!

These transcons are plum trips, and in a senority-based system, which is the norm in the Airline Industry, the most senior (based on date of hire) get their preferred choice.

My point is, Ms. Ong flew this trip repeatedly, and often, because it happened to fit her lifestyle...and the flight numbers are always the same...and under stress, she misspoke, and called it '12'...which was, undoubtedly, the flight number for the return the next morning. Look it up!!

BTW...It is a tradition that flight numbers going Westbound are odd...and flight numbers going Eastbound are is a tradition that dates back to the beginnings of the railroads.

I hope that I have been able to contribute something to expand the knowledge of those who read this thread. There are so many emotions that can come into play, it is important for all of us to take a step back, examine where we are coming from, and then try to reconcile all of the information, even if it conflicts, to sort out what is true and what is not.


posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 06:48 AM
Aug '01 - Raytheon and US Air Force successfully land pilot-less Boeing 727 using military GPS landing system that enables ground control to take control of hijacked plane. (Der Spiegel, Raytheon)

Aug 30 - Dept of Transportation conducts exercise involving high-jacked plane and a cell phone from it among other aspects of the scenario that one participants describes as being 'very strange' when the actual event happened on 9/11. (MTI)

Sept 8 - Mock drill at Buffalo Niagara Airport simulated terrorists blowing up an aircraft containing 82 passengers and some of the participants will help at Ground Zero after 9/11.

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

IvanZana, those are interesting. Can we see the references? Because, if the radio control aspect is true (I fly radio controlled models, by the way) then I would be very intrigued.

I remember a test of aviation fuel additives a few years ago, where they went to extreme lengths to rig a B707 for radio control...loaded it with the fuel, with the additive to help in fire suppression, and also put in a lot of crash test dummies so the experiment could serve a dual purpose...did the additive work? And, what really happens to a human body in an airplane crash?

OH, but here is the kicker! The guy on the ground, 'flying' the R/C B707, was supposed to aim it, with the gear up, at the target...which consisted of shredders on either side of the runway, so as to make sure the wings get torn off, and fire ensues. Everything went well, until the last part of the final approach...the guy 'flying' the airplane got it on target, but was succumbing to a characteristic of the B707 that many pilots will tell you had a tendency to 'wallow'...PIO, it is called...(Pilot Induced Oscillations). In the case of the B707, this PIO could start around the Longitudinal axis, the roll component of the three motions of an aircraft in flight.

...three axes of an airplane: the vertical, the lateral, and the longitudinal...

Movement about the vertical axis, is called yaw. Movement about the lateral axis is called pitch. Movement about the longitudinal axis is called roll.

Well, that was a basic lesson for any aspiring pilots out, we will get into aerodynamics.......

But back to the point. Radio controlled B767s? Possible. Able to hit their targets so precisely? Twice? With no practice?

Anyone here who has flown an R/C airplane will tell you, there are factors involved that require a tremendous amount of practice to hit a target.

Ever had an R/C car? Notice how when it is coming toward you, your control inputs tend to be reversed? That is because you aren't IN the vehicle. Your point of view is outside, not inside.

ATS is a great site, one that allows various views to be aired. But let's not cloud the issue here. Some have claimed there were NO airplanes (the Hologram Theory). Some have claimed there were airplanes, but no passengers (the Radio Control Theory). Others say it is what we saw that day...a co-ordinated attack planned for years in advance. It seems the conspiracy theorists can't agree on one cause of the 9/11 tragedy.

I just feel, instead of focusing on the 'HOW', we should be focused on the 'HOW---did we allow this to happen?!?' WHO dropped the ball? Clinton?? Bush??

Thanks, everyone, for your contributions to this discussion.

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:42 PM
Originally posted by weedwhacker

I just feel, instead of focusing on the 'HOW', we should be focused on the 'HOW---did we allow this to happen?!?' WHO dropped the ball? Clinton?? Bush??

Thanks weedwhacker. It was was a conspiracy by the military industrial/NAZA/DoD complex which included many or all of the following companies and/or individuals:


I don't believe that either Bush or Clinton had anything to do with it.

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:01 PM
reply to post by johnlear


Thanks for that info...

How do we now use that to prosecute the REAL criminals?

I am getting so disgusted by the lies, the absolute crap we are being fed as 'truth'...I am ready to get out of the US and live somewhere else.

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:21 PM
Originally posted by weedwhacker

How do we now use that to prosecute the REAL criminals?

Affidavits in support of the Qui Tam lawsuit are due January 28. The judge will then make a decision on whether or not the case has merit. If he decides that it does then depositions will start. If he decides the case has no merit everything stops and everyone will start arguing about Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States Disctrict Courts.

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:12 PM
This next video is about the remote control technology, history and it applications.... in the 40's

This is probaly a little bit before Lear's time

posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 10:18 PM
reply to post by johnlear


What is 'Rule 11' in the District Courts?

In other words, knowing that you testified and might be bound by non disclosure rules, can you tell us, without divulging your testimony, about the law as you understand it?

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:17 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Do you REALLY believe that FOUR sets of ' highjackers ' could and did rely on ' a moment of opportunity ' or on some other ' maybe ' to pull this off? The highjackings had to happen very EARLY in the flights, the least possible time to find an open cockpit door or other ' opportunity. There is NO WAY that a plan like this could all hinge on the highjackers being able to ' LUCK ' their way into all four cockpits. it is so far beyond unlikley it is nigh on impossible.

Would YOU allow the most critical part of the plan to be reliant on such ' maybe's ' as: Getting FOUR cockpits open, getting all EIGHT pilots killed or convinced to leave their cockpit, assume the controls, and then fly and crash the planes perfectly? HOW could LUCK manage to get all FOUR cockpits open within minutes of takeoff? Impossible in the real world.

The taking of the cockpits is a smoking gun of this event. The government will not even hazard a guess as to how it happened, as they know it cannot be realistic to asume that all four sets of highjackers got extremely lucky, all four times, and got into the cockpits and pull off a takeover without even ONE radio alert or even a passenger or crew member seeing them.

Recall the when you read the transcripts of the purported calls made from planes, not ONE call verified anyone actually seeing a takeover: The crew was guessing about a highjacking and had to assume because no one rrported seeing anything. The phony official story is ONLY believeable to those who want very badly to imagine that we are not really in the mess we are in....sorry to say, we are.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by eyewitness86

Sorry, eyewitness, I am working from a laptop at friend's house, and the connection is not good all of the time.

From what we have been told, the perps flew many times, on the same transcon flights...taking notes...observing the interactions between the forward galley and the cockpit.

As I have pointed out that I was on a flight, intra-europe, just three years ago, and saw, just about twenty minutes after take-off, the FA serving Breakfast to the cockpit. THIS was how it used to be, very standard...

THAT is how they could over-power, with surprise on their side...get it?

NOT going to happen now...we are more aware...that is why the doors are different (won't elaborate) and the procedures in flight are different (won't elaborate). Get it??

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:16 PM
Originally posted by weedwhacker


What is 'Rule 11' in the District Courts?

In other words, knowing that you testified and might be bound by non disclosure rules, can you tell us, without divulging your testimony, about the law as you understand it?

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules For Civil Procedure for the United States District Courts (amendments received to February 10, 2006) states that Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and other papers; Representations to Court, Sanctions, specifically states in (a)(3)” The allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery”.

I point this out because the Court, under Rule 11 (c) Sanctions, can “If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.

These sanctions include (Rule 11 (1)(A) (excerpt) “If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees”.

What this means, of course, is that if Morgan Reynolds, his attorney Jerry V. Leaphart & Associates., or I can’t prove our allegations against:

Science Applications International Corp.
Applied Research Associates, Inc. NuStates; Computer Aided Engineering Associates, Inc.
Datasource, Inc.; Geostats, Inc.;
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP;
Hughes Associates, Inc.; Ajmal Abbasi;
Eduardo Kausel; David Parks;
David Sharp; Daniel Venezana;
Josef Van Dyck; Kaspar William;
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.
Rosenwasser/Grossman Consulting Engineers, P.C.;
Simpson Gumpertz & :Heger, Inc.;
S.K.Ghosh Associates, Inc.;
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, LLP.
Teng & Associates, Inc.;
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.;
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.;

we are going to owe the above defendants a substantial amount of money in addition to which the Court may impose (Rule 11, (2) (excerpt) “directives of a non monetary nature, an order to pay a penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of some or all the reasonable attorneys’ fees and other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in