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.

 

Flight 11 hijacked before take-off?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Michael Bellone was a ground worker at the 9/11 WTC demolition site involved with the clean-up operation. He is known to have claimed that three black boxes were recoved by the FBI. However, on the show "Conspiracy Theory" in episode 2, he makes a new and particularly outrageous claim. First (according to the show), he claims to have friends who's job involved the phone lines for American Airlines. Second, these friends claim that "the hijackers [of Flight 11] were in the cockpit of American Airlines before it took off". That is a really big claim because if true it would mean the FBI & 9/11 investigators have been badly lying about what happened.

It seems very strange that Bellone would know these people... what would flight phone operators have to do with the 9/11 clean-up crew? And in the video (see Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory episode 2) he further claims these American Airlines workers are being harassed by the FBI and shockingly refers to them as "on the run"... which would seem like it may be an exaggeration. He claimed they were planning to speak up about what they knew but "feared for their lives" so changed their mind.

It is implied in the video though not stated that Bellone shared contact information with Jesse Ventura and that in the investigation Jesse Ventura calls at least one of these former American Airlines employees.

Back to the claim though, it seems ridiculous that the hijackers would be allowed to take off after entering the cockpit. First of all, it would be clear to the ground worker who directs the plane to back up. It would be clear to the people inside the airport looking out as the plane takes off. And lastly, even American Airlines employees would be alerted, who in turn would have immediately notified the designated authorities.

Is Bellone crazy? I don't know, but he was a recovery worker at the WTC clean-up site which would mean he probably is not. I think his claims should be looked into.




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 



Back to the claim though, it seems ridiculous that the hijackers would be allowed to take off after entering the cockpit.


This will turn out to be just another in a long line of steaming piles of moose droppings.

This is ludicrous from the get-go, it is so outrageous it doesn't even bear examination.

There is NO WAY this is true. Absolutely not. Zero possiblity.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I watched the show. How or why is the MSM and the PTB allowing this to be shown? Pretty great stuff though. I'm going to watch the "Govenor" every wednesday night! PEACE



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
So your only problem is that the Hijackers flew the planes from takeoff? Then you don't have a problem with this being a "False or Black Flag Operation"? If your answer is immediate and without consulting your intellect or intuition, then it is an emotional answer. Think about it again, feel it again. You really can't believe that your Government is capable or such a thing can you?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by truthquest
 



Back to the claim though, it seems ridiculous that the hijackers would be allowed to take off after entering the cockpit.


This will turn out to be just another in a long line of steaming piles of moose droppings.

This is ludicrous from the get-go, it is so outrageous it doesn't even bear examination.

There is NO WAY this is true. Absolutely not. Zero possiblity.


If you are right it does not merit looking into, that means either you are 100% sure the guy is either insane or a disinfo agent. Which do you think it is? I just can't bring myself to completely write off someone who was unquestionably at the 9/11 clean-up site.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 



...that means either you are 100% sure the guy is either insane or a disinfo agent.


Can't judge someone insane, based on this. Besides, not qualified to do that.

I don't like "disnfo agent" either...that is something that's been made up, and besides....after eight years?? Seems odd to suddenly come out now, doesn't it?

We can only speculate as to his motives. Seems, only my opinion, that he craves attention. Recall, this is the guy cliaming that the Flight Recorders were found. Sometimes all it takes is a rumor of a rumor, and someoen hears that, and they're off to the races with what they believe is concrete "proof".


I just can't bring myself to completely write off someone who was unquestionably at the 9/11 clean-up site.


Well....just because he worked on the clean-up site doesn't make him a saint.

Should read the book "Unbuilding the World Trade Center". The author was there, on site, and has lots of interesting interviews and first-hand accounts.

NOT the rash of innuendo and falsehoods (lies?) that are so popular today.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Klaatumagnum
 



So your only problem is that the Hijackers flew the planes from takeoff?


Not my 'only problem'. BUT, in this one aspect, there is certainty that the hijackers were NOT in the cockpit for take-off.

I can only speak from experience. NO airline pilot would let that airplane take-off under those circumstances. No way. It is just obvious logic, anyways...always safest place to be is on the ground, isn't it??



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




I can only speak from experience. NO airline pilot would let that airplane take-off under those circumstances. No way. It is just obvious logic, anyways...always safest place to be is on the ground, isn't it??


Isn't the idea of hijacking to overpower the pilots?

If the pilot "wouldn't let the airplane take-off", don't you think all the 9/11 pilots "wouldn't have let the hijackers in" in the first place?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 


I think he said that he volunteered shortly after 9/11 to assist in the clean-up. He didn't mention what his previous job was but that doesn't rule out him not knowing these guys prior.

Please correct me if wrong. Thanks



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Saw the show,do not think this guy is some attention starved teller of tall tales.Jesse ought to include a lie detector is my only criticism.

Paying close attention to the debunkerery.Imagine being an accessory after the fact of treason,no statute of limitations for all the murders as well.Tha's some serious shizzle.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
What clicked in my head was the discussion regarding the other black box records found by pilots for truth that indicated the cockpit door was closed the entire period of the flight. I hadn't looked into either subject matter at all...it's just stuff I read on these boards that almost seemed like they complimented each other.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by scraze
 



Isn't the idea of hijacking to overpower the pilots?


In the history of airliner hijackings before 9/11, the common thread had always been one of three different motives:

1) Political extortion
2) Financial (extortion)
3) Insane/mental instability


TWA 847, in 1985, for example. The hijackers were of Lebanese descent. Their motives aren't clear in the Wiki article I just looked at, but you can be certain it had something to do with the simmering Middle East tensions that have existed for centuries.

The Captain (Testrake) was in a hard dilemma. For hijackings that occured within the USA the "Common Strategy" (at that time) was to 'fake' a mechanical problem with the airplane, since it was assumed that the hijackers would A) Not be familiar with the operation of the airplane and, B) Be naturally afraid of dying. By setting up a "failure" that would look dangerous, it was an excuse to get on the ground where an experienced team could be in place to handle hostage negotiations.

However, TWA 847 was in hostile territory, and the flight crew HAD to acquiesce (in their opinion) out of abundant caution for the hostages.

THAT incident was a watershed, of sorts. Afterwards, the 'Common Strategy' underwent some modifications. Al is moot now, of course.

Essentially, there was criticism of the crew for taking off after they had already been commandeered, landed....and told to fly elsewhere. I won't be one to pile on to the Captain, he did his best under difficult circumstances. Hindsight is 20/20, as they say.

The most famous financial extortion motive is the story of "DB Cooper".

1971. He never accessed the cockpit, he claimed to have a bomb and his demands for money, and two parachutes was met. He was thought to be familiar, at least, with airplnes, since he had chosen a Boeing 727...the only airplane at that time with the aft airstairs. Back then, there was nothing to prevent them from being opened in flight. It was not something you'd normally do, so no thought went into disabling the stairs in flight.

Anyway, there is a lot of history to many hijackings, and tactics were planned based on historical experience with them:

Hijacking Article.

The Hijacking Dilemma

The 1960s and early '70s were the heydays of hijacking. More than 500 incidents of air piracy have been reported around the globe over the past 70 years, and about two-thirds of them happened from 1960 to 1973.

America has suffered its share—115 successful hijackings in 225 attempts against commercial airplanes owned by U.S. firms, according to the federal Transportation Safety Administration. The first reported airplane hijacking happened in 1931 in South America, when a Pan American mail plane piloted by an American was commandeered by revolutionary political faction in Peru. The commandos wanted to use the plane to drop propaganda leaflets. The pilot refused to fly, and the plane sat at an airfield for 11 days before the revolutionaries scratched the plan.

Political ideology played a role in most early hijackings, including about 25 airplane takeovers from 1947 to 1958 by Eastern Europeans attempting to flee Communism.





If the pilot "wouldn't let the airplane take-off", don't you think all the 9/11 pilots "wouldn't have let the hijackers in" in the first place?


Now we have to understand the reality (back then) of the cockpit door, AND the geometry and vulnerablity of the pilots, who sit with seatbelts ALWAYS on, and with backs to the door.

The doors were flimsy...weight is always a premium on an airplane, so the doors were light honeycomb composites, almost exactly the same as the lavatory doors you see today. (They have of course been reinforced since 9/11).

On the Boeing 767 the doors open inward. It would be easy for two dedicated terorists to rush in, while a Flight Attendant was in the act of opening the door. It would be so unexpected, back then, as to be a very successful tactic.

The B-757 doors open outward, much like on the B-737. The area there is more confined, but still...two dudes against one Flight Attendant, standing there while the door is unlatched? I'd say the odds are the dudes would gain access.

Pilots would have barely enough time to turn their heads around, to see what the commotion was...and who knows what happened next. I doubt it occured to any that the intruders would be suicidal murderers. I'd also guess that the pilots were dispatched rather swiftly. Even a small knife blade would do terrible damage.



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 



What clicked in my head was the discussion regarding the other black box records found by pilots for truth that indicated the cockpit door was closed the entire period of the flight.


@ExPostFacto:

That little bit of nonsense that's been promoted by the pilots for "truth" (
) has been thorughly discussed here on ATS:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'd suggest looking at the most recent pages, near the end...it has grown into a long thread. But, if you have time, then by all means read the whole thing.


[edit on 11 December 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Look, if the Barbara Olson call was "fake" and she is the one who spoke about "box cutters" and there is real doubt on some of the other calls, then what we are now hearing about the hijackers may in fact be true.

There is something about them overpowering the crew the way they did that never seemed true and the fact that the planes didn't get off a code seems questionable. Also, who really believes that Hani Hanjour flew flight 77 the way it flew?

Don't forget there was a Korean Air Jet that flew over Alaska, that actually "did input the hijack code" on 9/11, but then officially we were told it was a "language error!"

Then we found out that there was a drill very near that date of a Korean Air Jet being hijacked over Alaska!

So does it really now sound odd that we find out the hijackers were in the cockpit?

[edit on 11-12-2009 by talisman]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
Don't forget there was a Korean Air Jet that flew over Alaska, that actually "did input the hijack code" on 9/11, but then officially we were told it was a "language error!"

Then we found out that there was a drill very near that date of a Korean Air Jet being hijacked over Alaska!


This cant be an error, Universal Lang in air traffic is english I am told.( I donno where I heard this it was a very long time ago prior to 9/11.. I think my aunt in the AF said this to me.)



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


I'm a little confused on your points...


Look, if the Barbara Olson call was "fake" and she is the one who spoke about "box cutters"...


No. It is not firmly established that Olsen's call is "fake". That is another distraction by those who wish to hand-wave away the actuality of those events.

As to the box-cutters, there were many AirPhone calls (not to be confused with the one or two cellphone calls that briefly connected).

It is drilled into flight crews, as part of the old "Common Strategy" to verify and identify the 'weapon'. Whether a bomb, gun, knife or whatever. Point being, some hijackers try to 'bluff' (like DB Cooper, meantioned above.)



...and the fact that the planes didn't get off a code seems questionable.


That's because you don't understand the concpet of the transponder 'hijack' code, and its purpose. It was meant ONLY for covert communication tactics. AND, it was not something that could be done quickly. You had to change, physically turn knobs, to alter four separate numbers.


Also, who really believes that Hani Hanjour flew flight 77 the way it flew?


YOU could do that, if we could get you into a simulator. There's a link to a Dutch program somewhere...it's on YouTube...that shows them doing that, with non-pilots.



So does it really now sound odd that we find out the hijackers were in the cockpit?


That's why your post confused me...because they WERE in. They commandeered the airplanes after takeoff. ATC tapes, the surviving CVR, the radar tapes...ALL show this to be the case.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I think this is a red herring, or disinfo. Why now after 8 years?
Not saying JV is a disinfo agent, but he could have brought out a lot more documented evidence, other than hearsay.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

No. It is not firmly established that Olsen's call is "fake". That is another distraction by those who wish to hand-wave away the actuality of those events.


Can you prove her call was real?


As to the box-cutters, there were many AirPhone calls (not to be confused with the one or two cellphone calls that briefly connected).


Which calls exactly? Can you please cite a source?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Can you prove her call was real?


Easy- She called her husband Theodore and he talked to her. Her husband is the most qualified person in the world to know it whether or not it was Barbara Olsen he talked to.

Go ahead, say that Theorode Olden is a disinformation agent and he's lying. I triple dog dare you.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Lillydale
Can you prove her call was real?


Easy- She called her husband Theodore and he talked to her. Her husband is the most qualified person in the world to know it whether or not it was Barbara Olsen he talked to.

Go ahead, say that Theorode Olden is a disinformation agent and he's lying. I triple dog dare you.


And he has no conflict of interest at all? There is no reason he might be willing to lie?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join