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.

 

BETTY ONG / FLIGHT 11 Was A Mock Hijacking Exercise.

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


OK Ivan. I'll bite. You said the FAA reguires a live mock hijacking every three years, then post a snippet about an incident in India?




posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


BTW Ivan, I don't appreciate being called a 'kid'. And no, despite your assertion, I was not providing 'proof' of any kind, just letting you all in on my knowledge and experience. As to your claim that anyone could find what I have written by Googling...well, NOW they can since they can just copy what I wrote!

I think an apology is in order.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


You can hear what someone wants the general public to hear. What is certified on that tape as being valid? Anyone can make a video simulation and put it on the Internet. Both sides are not immune to doing it when they are so determined to prove a case true which is so faked it becomes self-evident. That normally involves the fringes playing games with people's psyches. They do not care if they fake anything. They just want to play with people's psyches. It feeds their perverse pleasures.

What was done on 9/11/01 is not going to be determined by every video and voice tape someone wants to use to sway people's opinion. It takes more than reading the Internet to determine what most probably happened on 9/11/01. It takes science knowledge. That is a fact whether or not people choose to accept it.

There is not a structural or mechanical engineer with a PhD in his or her profession, who did not have to become highly versed in advanced physics and quantum mechanics constructing any buildings that would actually indefinitely stay up. Advanced physics classes are mandatory when majoring in structural and mechanical design engineering, particularly when people are going to use practical application of structural engineering and architectual design. Architects are structural engineers with advanced degrees in mechanical design engineering.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Oh yeah. Sorry about that, I had just got done posting on the Flight 93 thread and didn't catch my own mistake.

Here's a link to the Flight 11 air traffic control transcripts: newsmine.org

Here's a link that has both terrorist radio transmissions: debunk911myths.org



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Anyone care to comment on tghe evidence I linked on the preceeding page? it was about the Government insisting that one of the pilots actually cooperated and flew for the highjackers..until they supposedly killed him or whatever just before crash time.

I would think that it would matter to at least some interested person.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


The government never said one of the pilots was flying the plane.

Google Sandy Dahl. She believes her husband was in the left seat (Captain's seat) for the duration of the flight.

John Lear once said that there is no way the pilot would make a right hand turn like flight 77 did because the pilot can't see anything from the left seat when making a right hand turn.

Barbara Olson asked her husband what she should tell the pilot. That indicates that at least one of the pilots was in the passenger cabin on the flight. A US senator made a statement that Captain Burlingame died before the crash because of the wounds found on his body.

Some of the flight systems on flight 93 and flight 77 were manipulated from the copilot's seat.

Add all of these things up and they indicate that the hijackers were flying from the right seat.

My theory is that the hijackers made the copilot's on each flight get out of their seats and they took control the aircraft from there. After they got control, that's when they killed or disabled the pilots.

I'm sure you will dismiss all of this because it doesn't fit into your conspiracy and then you will go on a six paragraph rant making statements like "It boggles the sound mind".



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


I still say it had to be highly cramped in those cockpits with all those alleged hijackers in cockpits, and no one ensuring the passengers were not giving away their plans.

What bodies at the Pentagon? No alleged passengers were positively ID'd. We all got that from US bureaucratic spokespersons and nothing more.

There has never been any proof there were alleged passenger bodies or remains found in or around the Pentagon. Same with the other locations as well. There was no independent peer review which makes the bureacrats' contentions worthless for credibility. It is all hearsay. No certified crime scene photos. Nothing.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:26 PM
link   
The Betty Ong call is a strange one.

It seems whoever the woman was that was trying convince the operator that she was on a hijacked plane wasn't coached too well. She kept flubbing the script;
MALE VOICE: Which flight are you on? BETTY ONG: Flight 12. (a bit later, she's on a seat that doesn't exist) FEMALE VOICE: Okay, but what seat are you sitting in? What’s the number of your seat? BETTY ONG: Okay, I’m in my jump seat right now. FEMALE VOICE: Okay. BETTY ONG: At 3R. (There was no seat 3R on that plane. I checked to confirm this too)

Look at the time scale: The phone call begun "minutes after 8 am", lasted nearly 40 minutes and ended at 8:46; so we can conclude Betty rung up at about 8:08-8:10. This was BEFORE the hijacking began! (Of course, the story changed later, then they said it was 8:21 when Betty rung up).

There are so many intrinsic oddities in the call and contradictions to Amy Sweeney's call that for me it's obvious that both calls were faked and the women doing the masquerading flubbed it by not keeping their story straight.

The claimed times of the calls are way too long to be credible anyway, as if real hijackers were just going to sit around and let somebody chatter away for 25 minutes. Not believable. Also why make a phone call to alert of a hijacking? Why weren't the codes used instead. There are several places on the 757s and 767s where there's a keypad for pressing in the hijacking code (4-digits). Any one of the crew (pilots & flight attendants, etc...) could've pressed in that code in any one of several different places, yet we're expected to believe that suddenly the flight attendants and entire crew forgot all about pressing the buttons to alert the FAA of a hijacking. No way! I don't believe it.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
So first, shes too calm and too rehearsed....and then shes "flubbing" the script....which is it?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Also why make a phone call to alert of a hijacking? Why weren't the codes used instead. There are several places on the 757s and 767s where there's a keypad for pressing in the hijacking code (4-digits). Any one of the crew (pilots & flight attendants, etc...) could've pressed in that code in any one of several different places, yet we're expected to believe that suddenly the flight attendants and entire crew forgot all about pressing the buttons to alert the FAA of a hijacking. No way! I don't believe it.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:42 PM
link   
You enter the "hijack" code into the IFF transponder, and nowhere else to my knowledge. Do you honestly think that a hijacker, who has flight training, is just going to stand there when you start fiddling with the transponder?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


How about (d) - all of the above.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Ever notice that you have to continually change your standards to keep believing your conspiracies? Whereas, I dont have to?



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Do you actually think any pilot will give up a plane without a fight, and be herded with passengers to the back of any plane?

How many people will fit in the cockpit of a 767 or 757, and still be able to freely move in any direction?

How many people can effectively tolerate mace in confined spaces?

Yes, all of the above, plus much more, is involved the severe inconsistencies alleged by US bureucrats in the "official" reports.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


IvanZana...your question about the 'seat' that Ms. Ong was in, and your claim that there is no '3R' is where you have been confused. You see, Betty Ong called on the airphone...one of those horrible cordless ones, before they were built into the seatbacks as they are now.

What's more, she called the Raleigh Reservations Center for American Airlines...they assumed she was a passenger...you see, it is a FREE call to Res for passengers!!! She was stressed, and told the guy on the line that she was in her jumpseat and THEN he realized she was a crewmember. You have to listen, and listen carfully...then you will get it.

She told him, the Res agent, she was at '3R'. He didn't know what that meant, because it is a reference to which jumpseat/door position she was at. '3R' means, to crew, "door 3 right". IN AA designations, it is the aft-most door, right side (where the galley is). At my airline, we called it '4R', but that was because it conformed with other airplane variations, and it avoided confusion...



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Changed my standards? I have no idea what that means. I predict you will go down fighting to prove illogic is logic and logic is illogic - up is down and down is up - day is night and night is day, etc. etc. etc..............



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Until 9/11, pilots were trained to cooperate with hijackers, period. You spout off about "giving up control without a fight" like they were EL AL pilots. They werent, they were trained to cooperate in order to get the planes on the ground as soon as possible. For all we know, the hijackers held a knife to the throat of a child and told the pilots to get out of their seats....or they just stabbed the pilots in their seats (kinda of hard to fight off an attacker from behind)

Your "inconsistancies" for the most part are your failure to understand the facts.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


You certainly are willing to give that motley neophyte aeronautics crew of alleged hijackers far more credit for intelligence and perfection, in a first time hijacking caper, than many people. It is not as if we have had numerious reports, the same alleged people were flying all over the world practicing hijack technique in flying commercial jetliners.

You give the alleged pilots no credit at all for intelligence, experience, solid nerves and professionalism in extremely stressful situations, such as real hijackings or combat missions.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



And you continue to show American arrogance at its finest. "there is just no way an ARAB could hijack an airplane....."

BTW, there was at least ONE report of the 9/11 hijackers on a pre-9/11 flight acting suspiciously.

As for the pilots that day, their families have always had my deepest sympathies. They were not prepared for the situation they faced that day, because prior to 9/11, you did not train for suicidal hijackers. Its not any kind of stain on the pilots or their skills, its just a statement of fact.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


Orion,

No! No pilot would give up without a fight.

Three against two? With our backs turned before the assault, and seat belts on? Even two against two, with the element of surprise...believe me, I've thought about this long and hard. With sufficient warning, yes there are measures the pilots may have employed in defense...

Anyone remember the disgruntled FedEx pilot several years ago?

He was about to be fired, he was under discipline for something...he decided he'd take revenge on the Company.

He was still active, and was on the 'jumpseat' on a FedEx DC-10...since they are all cargo, they have a few seats just aft of the Flight Deck, but since he was an employee, they didn't need to close the door.

He attacked, and mind you, this is ONE man against three...with the intent of taking over and suiciding into the FedEx hub in Memphis.

The Flight Engineer was the most severly wounded...he survived, but never flew again. The pilots up front used the airplane to throw off the attacker...by using the controls in an extreme manner, he could not keep his balance. The two up front each suffered injuries, but eventually the guy was subdued and the airplane landed. (I have to look it up, but I think the FO brought him down and the Captain landed the airplane. It's in an NTSB report, if you doubt my story).

I have seen the photos of the cockpit afterward...blood was everywhere (sorry to be graphic).

So, being taken by surprise? Very plausible. Flying an airplane full of cargo, wouldn't hesitate to do what it takes to throw a bad guy off his feet, if you have the chance.

ON AA or UA? Not sure the real pilots had that chance...the Saudis on UA93 sure did though, when the passengers were trying to break in.

BTW...let's remember the B757 Flight Deck door. Opens outward, or aft. If only those passengers had known...throwing a beverage cart at it just won't work, not at first..(even though a bev cart can weigh 200-300 lbs)...doesn't work when you have a guy intent on suicide at the controls.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join