Flight 11 hijacked before take-off?

reply to post by Lillydale


I know that I shouldn't take the bait here, as I have seen a certain tactic repeatedly displayed....however:

Originally posted by Lillydale
Which calls exactly? Can you please cite a source?

Errmmm....not sure why it should be ME doing this, when it is very easy to go to Google, or any other of your favorite search engines, and do the exact same thing. But, I guess this how some play their games...
_____________________________________________________________

On edit, because after doing the research, and posting a link, I realized it wasn't on topic.

I almost fell for the game......







[edit on 13 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

I know that I shouldn't take the bait here, as I have seen a certain tactic repeatedly displayed....however:

Originally posted by Lillydale
Which calls exactly? Can you please cite a source?

Errmmm....not sure why it should be ME doing this, when it is very easy to go to Google, or any other of your favorite search engines, and do the exact same thing. But, I guess this how some play their games...
_____________________________________________________________

On edit, because after doing the research, and posting a link, I realized it wasn't on topic.

I almost fell for the game......

I am really not sure what game it is you think you fell for here. If you thought I was trying to trick you into posting off topic then why did you continue to post off topic? The only thing you left out was the link I asked for. I was legitimately asking for a source and I have no clue why you think I would then yell "off topic" when you actually responded but your post is about as insincere as it gets.

You go on and on off topic about how easy it is to offer up a link and then you stop just short of the actual links because then that would be off topic? I think 9/11 debunker paranoia is setting in nicely.

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.

hey slow down there.. It's not science to draw conclusions before constructing and examining your tests and evidences

It's just - silly! Of all the things - to prejudge like that without giving a reason- it's at least as bad as making up your so called steaming piles of moose droppings ; that is, to dismiss moose droppings before you have defined them in any way - one may do well to stay silent - but to talk and give no reasoning - can only be of the same caliber of madness as the moose droppings itself!

It's true that you may pick up I don't like people like you.

If more theists and atheists stopped throwing stones at people and their ideas and started throwing the stones at the experiments - like they are supposed to - the world would change instantly

Since thats not going to happen I'm going to pop my head back around the corner and hibernate!!!

Ufo Abductee

PS: It's true I can be over pedant. so Let me try again;

One big thing for me to say there is 'zero possibility' of something before considering the new data - is even more moronic than making lying - at least the the truth has been considered at some point.

[edit on 13-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

[edit on 13-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

reply to post by Lillydale


9/11 passenger/crew phone calls timeline

I think 9/11 debunker paranoia is setting in nicely.

That's rich. Rich.

Used to be, the people now referred to as "truthers" were "9/11 debunkers".

But, you're right about the paranoia thing.

Just have it misplaced, that's all.....

[edit on 13 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

9/11 passenger/crew phone calls timeline

Source of those phone calls? telephone company?? Department of Defense? FBI?


It matters.

Abductee

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

9/11 passenger/crew phone calls timeline

Was that so hard? Please let me apologize for asking you for some more detail about something you brought up. Sometime you will have to tell me all about this little game you think you were playing with me though. That sounds fascinating too.

reply to post by UFOabducteebe


OK, I'll bite:

One big thing for me to say there is 'zero possibility' of something before considering the new data - is even more moronic than making stuff up - at least the stuff being made up has been considered thoroughly.

What "new data" is there to suggest AAL 11 was hijacked "before takeoff"?

reply to post by UFOabducteebe

Source of those phone calls? telephone company?? Department of Defense? FBI?

Link tells the source. Did you follow the link?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by UFOabducteebe

 

Source of those phone calls? telephone company?? Department of Defense? FBI?

Link tells the source. Did you follow the link?

Yes, the link does not work unless "page not found" is your source.

Or Firefox was blocking that server for a while. My apologies as it works now.

[edit on 12/13/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by UFOabducteebe

 

OK, I'll bite:

One big thing for me to say there is 'zero possibility' of something before considering the new data - is even more moronic than making stuff up - at least the stuff being made up has been considered thoroughly.

What "new data" is there to suggest AAL 11 was hijacked "before takeoff"?

Ok bite away but my my point is simple - that you already did 'bite' - dismissing something and providing absolutely no more explanation whatsoever in opposition!

i.e. you provided the same amount of dung you claimed the OP was posting. If anything I was biting you to say how needless and unscientific that is,

e.g. if you expect scientific evidence in the place of dung and the OP isn't providing it.. you are going to have to provide more than equally groundless accusations.

That's what that statement says. I'm not arguing whether the case exists or not, because you immediately dismissed it as goose droppings without giving any initial reasoning....

UfoAbductee

ps: this means i do not like knee jerk reactions and accusations any more than you do!! Especially the unfounded kind

[edit on 13-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]
ps. how about establishing a motive for the claimants to lie? It's good enough in a court. That is if it gets there .

[edit on 13-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

reply to post by UFOabducteebe


Without bothering to pull quotes, since they're right here....

From the tone of your diatribe it appears that have not actually read my responses.

Sorry if it isn't obvious to all how ludicrous the assertion of "hijacked before takeoff" is. I've done my best to point it out, in several ways, via my posts.

The OP makes (or, more specifically, the OP is just a messenger, someone ELSE makes) incredible claims, with no actual backing or substantiation.

What is most troubling is, some people might casually glance through that first post, and take it to the bank as a new "fact", when it has no basis in fact whatsoever.

Just to repeat: Anyone with any knowledge of how the airline business works can immediately see this claim to be pure bunk. Why is this man trying to get this attention? I don't know, I am not a psychiatrist.

Why, and how can I be certain it is bunk? Because of the preponderence of other evidence that shows the operation of American Flight 11 that moring was perfectly normal until the time indicated, by the ATC tapes, when it stopped responding to the controllers radio calls, and shortly after that the transponder signal was ost, and the airplane deviated from course.

Any reasonable, thinking and intellectually honest person would understand that simple concept, and there would be little need to entertain the idea at all, it is ridiculous on too many levels.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Although I did read your response. Your initial response was enough to show me that you were making assertions of your own you felt there was no need to backup.

If you can point out one assumption I've made you will, I'm sure get a bunch of stars for it

Diatribe? Says the man who is prepared to judge an idea before its examined? read the second post in this thread. Says it all IMO

You started with the diatribe, but i'll be sticking to the facts if that's okay!

Peace,
Abductee

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by UFOabducteebe

 

Sorry if it isn't obvious to all how ludicrous the assertion of "hijacked before takeoff" is. I've done my best to point it out, in several ways, via my posts.

To answer a little gem, about the credibility of the importance of asking and examining this closely, with science.

The chance of hijacked before takeoff is about as unlikely as not finding 2 virtually indestructible black-boxes at the 9/11 crime scene. But plenty of DNA was found just fine, bone, even passports.. body parts that is easily believed.

It just so happens, this is the same man who says he's seen 1 of them and claims to know 3 were found.

I really don't think I could compare that with finding 0. That is what the 9/11 commission report expects people to believe.

e.g. the 9/11 commission report expects us to believe that 2 worlds firsts happened, at ground zero - that my friend is most ludicrous



[edit on 13-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

[edit on 13-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

reply to post by UFOabducteebe

The chance of hijacked before takeoff is about as unlikely as finding no black boxes at the site. But plenty of DNA was found just fine, bone, even passports.. body parts that is easily believed.

Sarcasm?

To expect the Flight Recorders to survive the crushing forces of the mass of the building falling on them is unreasonable.

DNA is microscopic...and of course within each person there are how many sources? A quadrillion?? I don't know, but DNA, out of all of the components able to be analyzed, seems to have been the most abundant.

Passports? I believe the reports mention one found on the street somewhere below. A light item, easily blown about in the chaos of the incident. There are numerous reports of the papers fluttering down post-impact, presumably from the offices. It is NOT unreasonable to imagine such an event, something as minor as a passport being ejected in the crash sequence.

Very, very other strange things have been documented, in many, many different accidents and incident scenarios.

How about the fact that a young child was the sole survivor of a horrible plane crash in Detroit, Michigan? 1985. Northwest Airlines.

No one EVER came out to say that the little girl was "planted" in the wreckage, that it was impossible for her to have survived, etc, etc.

NO, you see....only those who wish to poke sticks and try vainly to search for anything that doesn't fit their world-view paradigm as relates to events of 9/11....those are the sorts who continue this pointless excercise.

The manic mumblings of many have thoroughly tainted this subject, almost beyond repair. There is so much misinformation out there that gets into a sort of "truther" rumour mill --- and any speculation, no matter how poorly supported in any way by reality, gets traction and before too long is another new "truth", just another in the cog of the wheels of the illogic bus.

There are other stories of incredible survival, and they occured in the WTC collapse event. People who were IN the building, still evacuating down the stairs, who lived simply by sheer luck and circumstance. They were right place, right time, as the building fell around them.

Heck, they even made a motion picture about the true story of some NYFD survivors!!! Nicholas Cage was in it...

SO...the core basic facts are: Four airplanes were hijacked through a co-ordinated effort by four temas of men who had an ideological motive for the deed. Based on a twisted interpretation of what is said to be a "peaceful" religion --- now, who can honestly say that another certain religion hasn't ALSO done things under its own banner that are, shall we say, less than sticking to the original intent?

No, it is all too obvious that fanatics exist, and in their twisted view are willing to commit suicide whilst murdering others.

They merely took advantage of a new mode of weapon, using surprise and nearly simultaneous commandeering of four jets, in order to assure success because of the confusion factor.

This thread is not going to debate the collapsing of the WTC Towers, it is not the intent. There simply can be no denying the fact that those Towers were each hit by a Boeing 767 at abnormally high velocity. In a terrorist act. Instigated and palnned out, and executed almost flawlessly, from their point of view.

We were caught off guard. The audacity of the plan...FOUR at the same time!!!

Perhaps there were more, we may never know. Others that were foiled when all airplanes were grounded.

We've been made aware of other plans that never came to be --- blowing up as many as SIX airliners over the ocean, all on the same day, for instance.

Intel agencies are more alert now. The Airline industry is more alert, now. ALL of our training for the potentiality of hijackings that used to be taught? Modified because of this new tactic. Too late for those on 9/11, but we are prepared and alerted so it won't repeat.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Thanks for replying, you are right about some of the points you make here.

It's true that passports could have flown out landed on pavements, all of that. It's also true that DNA is extremely microscopic in comparison to say steel.

What isn't a could can't or maybe, is something very important regarding this issue, and this would be how entire limbs, heads, and torso's were being pulled out of rubble - but a steel box thousands of times more durable and compression resistant (brick wall at 600mph sort of durability), could be totally devoid from the entire crime scene.

There is no coulds, but's if's or maybe's. There is no conceivable way , short of high temperature explosives, that a black box could be destroyed beyond recovery, let alone recognition.

The fact there are experts saying this repeatedly (because it is grounded in fact) this is the first time any blackbox has not been recovered , another world first. Including the collapse of the buildings the 9/11 commission report gives.

You speak of a crash in which a girl survived an Air flight, what a wonderful story. Nobody questioned that, and why would they? Can you tell me why the 9/11 report felt it unnecessary to include the public testimony of several of the 23 survivors, some of which clearly claim they heard blasts 7 seconds before the plane hit the tower, coming from the basement. 9/11 commission did not include this information, in the report .

The question in fact is, why did the 9/11 commission feel that the validity and factual importance of this data should be questioned, removed - voided , annulled revoked or ignored? because that is what the 9/11 report shows - that there were no extra explosions like people who would have known have been saying.. but why?

we are not here to place blame

Indeed. Another possibility. But remember, in fact:

Just like you state it should be taken for granted the single girl survivors legitimacy is unquestionable and indisputable, the 9/11 commission is claiming coulds not facts that are diametrically opposed to such an ideal.

That Ideal being the pursuit of factual truth's. Not the removal of such.

In fact, not only is there no mention of what witnesses know happened. The 9/11 report expects us to believe dissonant theories, that contradict each-other in science.

If scientists proving foul play, in germany via hard drives, and England via chromatography are going to receive law suits, threats, and lose their jobs, it is no wonder that such ignorance is allowed to prevail indefinitely because the convenient dissonant facts cannot be questioned long enough for anyone to give consideration to the truth.

I will say this , to be fact:

There is a world first in one black box recorder not being found
2 is pushing ridiculous

There is a world first in 1 building like the WTC going down
2 is pushing insanity

There is a world first that in a supposed inquest, that there is 'no blame to be placed' - on the largest modern terrorist attack known to man

It was a world first on the BBC, which suddenly gained psychic powers in saying that building 7 had fallen - 20 minutes ahead of the time it did.

There are numerous witnesses, who were told the building 7 was coming down minutes before it did. Many are scared to speak, but some are, and they are being threatened.

It's a world first , that the owner of the building which was , according to 9/11 commission report damaged by fire - that the owner Larry Silverstein would actually state 'because of the tragic loss of life we had to pull - it'.

These are not just co-incidences. They are informational facts that when combined paint a very clear scientific picture.

However, you have to break away from that 'skeptic' #- if you are constantly looking to disprove something, all your time is spent ignoring proofs
UA

[edit on 13-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

..and fighting truths.


UA

ps. sorry, i just couldn't get it to fit lol

pss. to move towards why all the above co-incidences matter... why the above facts matter

because then one _could_ ask an important if, which is if the 9/11 commission was misleading about testimonies then what else were they misleading about?

and IF flight 11 was hijacked before take off, a motive is established for at the very least - one factual , scientifically based and foundable co-incidence.

This is a valid reason to begin proceedings to prosecute those responsible, something the 9/11 commission went out of their way from facilitating. Why? because the planes brought down the towers. apparently.

That is why I dislike snap decisions and accepting widely advertised theories without testing it against such facts.

This is why it would be unwise to write this off before considering it.. there is easily a definable legal basis to prosecute , the problem is only one group can be found guilty and that seems to be the FBI Database - called Al Qaeda.

I'm not convinced we have all the answers, which is why questions like these can't hurt. Most especially in the presence of motives..

I would put forward the notion it is not unreasonable to ask questions in the presence of mostly inconclusive evidences . It should be expected.


[edit on 13-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

I've worked in the airline industry for 25+ years...the flight wasn't hijacked before takeoff...the guy is either listening to someone who is pulling his leg or he's simply full of it.

Originally posted by bowlbyville
I've worked in the airline industry for 25+ years...the flight wasn't hijacked before takeoff...the guy is either listening to someone who is pulling his leg or he's simply full of it.

I don't disagree with you certainly, common sense says its highly unlikely all by itself.

You've worked in the industry a darn long time. The question for me is what's the chances of one black box not being recovered from an aeronautical disaster? Two? I'd sure appreciate if someone can put these claims to bed - I still think the best way to do that is to show definitively how 2 black boxes can be totally 'lost' due to a collapsing building, otherwise statements like ' flight 11 was hijacked on the runway ', are just screaming that there could be a motive to have 'lost' devices that are specifically designed to be recoverable no matter what the circumstance.

Please, i know some people here design them. I'd actually enjoy being shown the way.

I don't have the answers. I don't think any of us do, that is why questions should still be asked. If this is nonsense - then it is indeed detracting from more important things.

However, given there could be motive, I'm not going to put it to bed until I at least get some answers.
Abductee

couple of incorrect assumptions, here, regarding Flight Recorders:

I still think the best way to do that is to show definitively how 2 black boxes can be totally 'lost' due to a collapsing building...

It appears you aren't fully taking into account the MASS of the buildings, and the energies involved.

I see that there also seems to be the misconception that the Recorders are somehow completely impervious to desturction:

...'lost' devices that are specifically designed to be recoverable no matter what the circumstance.

No, they will not survive "no matter what the circumstance." That is an impossible goal. They are designed to survive what has been shown, historically, to be recorded from previous accident investigations.

They can withstand incredible amounts of G-force. Being solid state today, they will survive a lot of abuse....but immense crushing under hundreds of tons of hot debris? The metal casings are unlkely to survive that, intact. They were involved in a very intense fire, for a very long time. Longer than most airpalne accident fires burn, because there was so much additional material, in the buildings, to contribute to the blazes.

They are not impervious:

The design of today's FDR is governed by the internationally recognised standards and recommended practices relating to flight recorders which are contained in ICAO Annex 6 which makes reference to industry crashworthiness and fire protection specifications such as those to be found in the European Organisation for Civil Aviation Equipment documents EUROCAE ED55, ED56A and ED112 (Minimum Operational Performance Specification for Crash Protected Airborne Recorder Systems). In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates all aspects of U.S. aviation, and cites design requirements in their Technical Standard Order, based on the EUROCAE documents (as do the aviation authorities of many other countries).


Currently, EUROCAE specifies that a recorder must be able to withstand an acceleration of 3400 g (33 km/s²) for 6.5 milliseconds. This is roughly equivalent to an impact velocity of 270 knots and a deceleration or crushing distance of 450 cm. Additionally, there are requirements for penetration resistance, static crush, high and low temperature fires, deep sea pressure, sea water immersion, and fluid immersion.

Here is a picture of what they typically look like:



Here is a picture of a man holding one, for a size comparison (this is from an accident in Brazil):



Note the dent in the casing.

The case sustained a dent, in a "normal" crash. Imagine that same device buried under the WTC Tower rubble. Heated to immense temperatures, for hours...days even.

Here is what the Cockpit Voice Recorder from United Airlines Flight 93 looked like at the crash site:



No (or very minimal) fire in this case. Sudden stop from over 500 MPH, but into relatively soft ground.

Here's a Flight Recorder from SwissAir 111:



This hit the water off the coast of New Foundland. Not at any incredible speed, and of course no fire.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
couple of incorrect assumptions, here, regarding Flight Recorders:

I still think the best way to do that is to show definitively how 2 black boxes can be totally 'lost' due to a collapsing building...

It appears you aren't fully taking into account the MASS of the buildings, and the energies involved.

I see that there also seems to be the misconception that the Recorders are somehow completely impervious to desturction:

Right. Come on people. It is not like the black boxes were made out of pleather passport books or human DNA. Not that stuff is hearty! Maybe they should start making the black boxes from DNA and cheap plastic and paper.