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.

 

Boeing spokesperson laughs at the idea of a Boeing 767 going at 500 MPH at 700 feet

page: 11
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The following are some of the most blatant discrpancies I found concerning the "official" reports of Betty Ong. I originally posted it in the discussion dedicated to Betty Ong. They are not the only discrepancies I found directly related to Betty Ong. I posted more in that discussion.

For someone so scared, that is beyond belief of professionalism in such extraordinary circustances. First, she says she is on 12. I can believe that since Flight 11 was not scheduled by BTS to fly out on 9/11/2001. At least, not until 2007 when that changed.

Then they have 5 more people, called hijackers, not affected by mace. So 5 more people had to cram into the cockpit of a 767. Now, they have some room in that cockpit to maneuver in low numbers of people. But 5 more people would be sitting on one another in the cockpit of a 767.

The pilot would not be able to even get out of the seat to switch with anyone, if that many people were in the same cockpit of a 767, filled with instrument panels and equipment. They are very narrow and so is the area for getting into and out of the pilot's seat.

There are many, many impossible to happen inconsistencies in that short 4 minute voice tape.

In order to hear the tape, the Betty Ong discussion has to be accessed. It is still on the first page.




posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


OrionS,


I have tried very hard to explain to the board how a crewmember like Ms. Ong might tend to fly the same trip over and over again.

Perhaps I didn't provide enough personal experience, not at AA, but at another airline...I have come across Flight Attendants, who are used to flying trips that build up hours for them, since they ARE NOT CONSTRAINED by the same rules that pilots are, as relates to flight hours and duty limits.... good trip for a Flight Attendant that hs the senority to bid it, is a transcon round trip...Leave in the AM of the first day, home by the PM of the second day. If you bid this trip, over and over again, it is logical to be confused about the flight number, especially when stressed...

Ms. Ong was not Lead, or Purser, or whatever term AA used at the time to desigate positions....she identified herself as #3. Despite each F/As assignment, which will vary by airline, they are nonetheless responsible for certain duties.....not the least of which, is to be responsible for each exit. These duties SUPERCEDE any sort of perceived duties to provide INFLIGHT service!!!

When Ms. Ong told the Reservations Rep that she was F/A 3....the Rep had now idea waht Ms. Ong was talking about, and this is completely normal, in the airline industry.

I have mentioned this already, it may have been buried in the thread...

Ms.Ong, under the stress of the moment, used, since she could not get the Flight Deck to answer, she used the best available tool at her disposal. I doubt AA had a direct link, then, to SOCC from an airphone. Ms. Ong tried to convey the situation to, at first, s reservations Rep who had to pass the call onto his Suporvisor....still in Reservations....and the Suporvisor was trained to handle, and this is where IvanZana comes in...see, they had training to handle hijackings...not just 'mock' hijackings, but real ones...so she confrenced in SOCC...in DFW.

You cannot, and must not, use the words of those from the transcript who were not ON THE PLANE!!!

The Res Agent, Nydia...she is TRAINED to be polite!!! She used the term 'gents', and you all think it was fake?!? MAYBE she thought it WAS a training excercise! But, guess what...once SOCC got involved, they knew it was serious. Because SOCC could talk to ATC.....

This is how REAL airlines work.

Sorry, unless you know more than you let on, I will tend to discount your 'proof'....



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


OrionS,


I have tried very hard to explain to the board how a crewmember like Ms. Ong might tend to fly the same trip over and over again.

Perhaps I didn't provide enough personal experience, not at AA, but at another airline...I have come across Flight Attendants, who are used to flying trips that build up hours for them, since they ARE NOT CONSTRAINED by the same rules that pilots are, as relates to flight hours and duty limits.... good trip for a Flight Attendant that hs the senority to bid it, is a transcon round trip...Leave in the AM of the first day, home by the PM of the second day. If you bid this trip, over and over again, it is logical to be confused about the flight number, especially when stressed...

Ms. Ong was not Lead, or Purser, or whatever term AA used at the time to desigate positions....she identified herself as #3. Despite each F/As assignment, which will vary by airline, they are nonetheless responsible for certain duties.....not the least of which, is to be responsible for each exit. These duties SUPERCEDE any sort of perceived duties to provide INFLIGHT service!!!

When Ms. Ong told the Reservations Rep that she was F/A 3....the Rep had no idea what Ms. Ong was talking about, and this is completely normal, in the airline industry.

I have mentioned this already, it may have been buried in the thread...

Ms. Ong, under the stress of the moment, used, since she could not get the Flight Deck to answer, she used the best available tool at her disposal. I doubt AA had a direct link, then, to SOCC from an airphone. Ms. Ong tried to convey the situation to, at first, a reservations Rep who had to pass the call onto his Supervisor....still in Reservations....and the Supervisor was trained to handle, and this is where IvanZana comes in...see, they had training to handle hijackings...not just 'mock' hijackings, but real ones...so she conferenced in SOCC...in DFW.

You cannot, and must not, use the words of those from the transcript who were not ON THE PLANE!!!

The Res Agent, Nydia...she is TRAINED to be polite!!! She used the term 'gents', and you all think it was fake?!? MAYBE she thought it WAS a training excercise! But, guess what...once SOCC got involved, they knew it was serious. Because SOCC could talk to ATC.....

This is how REAL airlines work.

Sorry, unless you know more than you let on, I will tend to discount your 'proof'....

[editting for clarity]

[edit on 12-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars
 


OrionS,


I have tried very hard to explain to the board how a crewmember like Ms. Ong might tend to fly the same trip over and over again.


Yes, I am well aware you have told me a great deal of this and that. However, I require substantiation. Since none of us were there, we have no idea what actually went on, if anything, except from hearsay inaccuracy in "official" reports and media coverage. Which is why the multitude of "official" reports discrepanices, according to logic, do not make logical sense.

It is a fact. Seven to eight people are not going to cram themselves into the cockpit of a 767, shut the door, and still expect to have free movement. Those are the same type of numerous illogical discrepancies the utters, of the "official" and media reports, expected us to take at hearsay face value. I did not and will not do that.

You are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to insist I have to accept your opinions on your say so and nothing more.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by OrionStars
 


OrionS,


I have tried very hard to explain to the board how a crewmember like Ms. Ong might tend to fly the same trip over and over again.


Yes, I am well aware you have told me a great deal of this and that. However, I require substantiation. Since none of us were there, we have no idea what actually went on, if anything, except from hearsay inaccuracy in "official" reports and media coverage. Which is why the multitude of "official" reports discrepanices, according to logic, do not make logical sense.

It is a fact. Seven to eight people are not going to cram themselves into the cockpit of a 767, shut the door, and still expect to have free movement. Those are the same type of numerous illogical discrepancies the utters, of the "official" and media reports, expected us to take at hearsay face value. I did not and will not do that.

You are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to insist I have to accept your opinions on your say so and nothing more.


"seven to eight people??!!???"

OK, you have lost all credibility, I am sorry. I have given you respect, until now.

Seven or Eight people in the cockpit....your words, not mine...and NO WHERE, NO HOW did any of us claim there were seven or eight....(pardon me while I laugh) people on the Flight Deck ( you call it the cockpit) at the same time....

yeah, I WILL give you this....WAS called the cockpit, still is here and there...but lwsuits notwithstnding, it is now the 'Flight Deck'....see, some people found the earlier term to be sexist....

But, my job is to educate, and to hopefully move on.....

Seven or eight people on the Flight Deck!!!??? Where Do you get your misinformation?????

[edit for one typo]

[edit on 12-2-2008 by weedwhacker]



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
See, Orion

You are coming at this event from a completely opposite view!!

WHy on EARTH do you think that the FIVE terrorists would all CRAM into the Flight Deck???

Didn't you get the Al Quada memo?!?

ONE to fly the airplane...one out of FOUR!!!

ONE to guard the Flight Deck door, after the take-over (or commandeering, as I call it)

And, three more to subdue the cabin....

NO WHERE in this scenario needs, nor would it be strategy, to have EIGHT in the Flight Deck!?!?!?

Where do you come up with these fantasies??????

AND, why do you put these nonsense beliefs on the Internet, in case others see them?

See, a lie can be 'round the World 100 times, before the truth gets its Boots on, nowdays....



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   
So where does Betty Ong state the airspeed of the plane? I missed that part. Could you give me a time tag, because I truly can't find where she makes mention of what speed they are flying.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Didn't you get the Al Quada memo?!?


So you believe the hijackers got into the flight decks and took out the pilots in under 4 seconds (time it takes to set the transponder codes) on all 4 planes ? Oh by the way it only take 1 second to key the mike and make a call.

Oh and do not forget the pilots on flight 93 were in direct communicaiton with the airlines (answering the "secure cockpit door" message) so why couldn't they get off a hijack message ?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   
This thread is not about:

1. Where the f***ing APU is on a plane.
2. Pearl Harbor
3. Betty Ong's phone call.
4. How many people you can cram in a cockpit.
5. How long it takes to subdue a pilot.
6. Or whether you have to have "master hot-dog rating" as a pilot.

That's just a partial list of off-topic crap that has polluted this thread and extended it to far more pages than it needed to be and is destroying what otherwise could be a very interesting thread that could lead to some valuable information if THE ORIGINAL TOPIC WERE PURSUED.

But - no - you guys want to spin an argument in an off-topic direction for the sake of winning it.

This thread is about whether a Boeing 767 can fly at speeds of 500 and above. The original phone call linked to the OP was an attempt to investigate whether the speeds published in the official record are achievable BY THE AIRCRAFT. No where in the phone call is the subject brought up as to whether a pilot has to have exceptional flying skills to pull it off, whether Betty Ong was real, whether we were lied to about Pearl Harbor, where the APU on an aircraft is located, how many terrorists can you pack in a cockpit, whether 4 seconds is enough to take some down, but it is in regards to WHETHER THE CRAFT COULD PERFORM AT THOSE PUBLISHED CONDITIONS.

Is there anyway possible you guys could get back on topic?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
This thread is not about:

1. Where the f***ing APU is on a plane.
2. Pearl Harbor
3. Betty Ong's phone call.
4. How many people you can cram in a cockpit.
5. How long it takes to subdue a pilot.
6. Or whether you have to have "master hot-dog rating" as a pilot.



But it is a small, partial list of things to show how its very hard to believe anyone could still believe the official story.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But it is a small, partial list of things to show how its very hard to believe anyone could still believe the official story.



So what - the point of this thread is not to compile that list. Go start another thread and compile your list. Let's get back to a topic that was actually worth us spending time on.

If you want to see how ludicrous it looks from an objective standpoint try this one for size:

They lied about Pearl Harbor so there's no possible way a 767 can fly that fast.

You can't get eight people in a cockpit so there's no possible way a 767 can fly that fast.

Do you know where the APU is on a totally different aircraft? Well, then, of course the plane was flying that fast.

Sorry I couldn't think of two examples of utter nonsensical unattached if thens on the official side - but the APU one is ludicrous enough it counts for two. So I feel a represented evenly.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
They lied about Pearl Harbor so there's no possible way a 767 can fly that fast.

You can't get eight people in a cockpit so there's no possible way a 767 can fly that fast.

Do you know where the APU is on a totally different aircraft? Well, then, of course the plane was flying that fast.


Well if you are going to quote thinga at least get the right.

1. Pearl Harbor is just 1 historical example of the government letting things happen and then trying to cover it up. The USS Liberty is another. But you would know that if you kinew what really goes on in the world.

2. No one is even talking about 8 people in a cockpit.

3. Yes i do know or can find out where APUs are and it has nothing to do with the speed of an aircraft.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Don't get cocky with me Ultima - you damned well I study the historical record - both official and alternative.

If you are posting about Pearl Harbor in this thread then it necessarily has to be related to the topic of whether a 767 can go 500 mph or more at 700 feet. Up until this point I've just thought the lot of you were squirrelly enough to think there was a connection between Pearl Harbor and the speed of a 767. But now you are telling me you knew when you did it you were going off-topic.

I think that's against the T&C actually.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Up until this point I've just thought the lot of you were squirrelly enough to think there was a connection between Pearl Harbor and the speed of a 767.


No just more connections to prove the official story is wrong.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
See, Orion

You are coming at this event from a completely opposite view!!


That normally can happen when what is opined by others is in complete logical fallacy contradiction to logic. At least, it always does that to me.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

2. No one is even talking about 8 people in a cockpit.




Actually, I did. I said it was impossible to cram that many people in the cockpit of a 767 and still have free room to move. If not all in the cockpit, where were all 5 during that alleged time? I not asking you. I am asking those, holding fast to the "official" reports, to give us some logical explanation of alleged "hijacker" location in the alleged 767 up to the alleged end.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Actually, it is history repeating itself. Proving once again government bureaucrats will lie when they want everything their way and no other. It is all relevant to the lie told concerning alleged planes penetrating and being "swallowed" whole by buildings, or "vaporizing"/being shot down (Rumsfeld) not leaving peer reviewed validated forensic evidence on the ground.

The "official" reports make little to no logical sense. Many points of arguments have transpired, in these discussions, to validate that. I have pointed out numerous logical fallacies in the "official" reports, during more than a few discussions over the past few months. I also substantiated my own writings. So have others very effectively done that as well.

People can reject what they do not wish to believe. However, it is illogical to reject out-of-hand what one cannot validly refute.



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

"seven to eight people??!!???"


Let us start counting, shall we?

How many cockpit crew members? Pilot, co-pilot, and navigator? 3

How many hi-jackers? 5

Leave out the navigator or co-pilot, that is 2. 2 + 5 = 7
Include the navigator or co-pilot, that is 3. 3 + 5 = 8

Or do you subscribe to a completely different type of math calculation?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by weedwhacker

"seven to eight people??!!???"


Let us start counting, shall we?

How many cockpit crew members? Pilot, co-pilot, and navigator? 3

How many hi-jackers? 5

Leave out the navigator or co-pilot, that is 2. 2 + 5 = 7
Include the navigator or co-pilot, that is 3. 3 + 5 = 8
\

Orion, it has been stated by me, and many, many others already what the crew complement of a B757 and B767 is TWO people. There is no such thing as a 'navigator' anymore...hasn't been for decades.

Do you actually think ALL 5 hijackers would try to enter the cockpit? They had to have some of them stay in the cabin to control the passengers and F/As!!

I have pointed out, often, that four people can fit comfortably in a B767 Flight Deck...there are two extra 'jumpseats' in there, in addition to the two pilot seats. I have been IN a real cockpit, on real flights...have you?
Or do you subscribe to a completely different type of math calculation?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I have pointed out, often, that four people can fit comfortably in a B767 Flight Deck...there are two extra 'jumpseats' in there, in addition to the two pilot seats. I have been IN a real cockpit, on real flights...have you?
Or do you subscribe to a completely different type of math calculation?


That is avoiding what I presented. What can be and what the "official" reports claim are not dealing with an assumed only 4 people, are they? They are dealing with 7 to 8 people not 4.

Exactly where were 5 alleged hijackers located at all times, particularly, if as Betty Ong claimed mace had been fired off in at the front of the plane? There are still 7 to 8 people all wanting to occupy the cockpit. Which ones were not doing that? How do you know for certain they were or were not doing that?

Hearsay, from someone else, is not a certainty - ever. The "official" reports are all hearsay without any validation from anyone else to prove the claims. They wanted no independent peer review of any Bush administration claims, of no logical reasoning to them.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join