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: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Haven't read all the replies, but:

Highly unlikely an aircraft would be hijacked prior to take-off as the pilot(s)
would have MEGA amounts of time to inform the tower (using code words),
and/or abort the take-off completely.

It would be incredibly unreal for the airplane to fly with several instances
of ATC communication and not once relay the distress code for a hi-jack.




posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedman

The only "zero possibility" is the flight recorders were not found.
Never in the history of aviation has a flight recorder not been found.

WRONG !!!!

AIR FRANCE 447


What should be more clarified and measured as it relates to the FDR issue in this case is regarding the circumstances and scenario.

To compare AIR FRANCE's scneario is silly and irrelevant.

the circumstances were unknown and entirely over water for one.

the odds BOTH fdrs at the wtc weren't recovered at all in that scenario is
next to if not ZERO as most experts will agree.

with that said, is there a percentage I might conceed as possible?? okay sure,,, maybe .0000000001% possible.


Originally posted by thedman
Here is another case of the flight recorder not surviving

Yemenia Airlines 626 - June 30, 2009

Paris: France's accident investigation agency says the black boxes from a Yemenia Airways flight that crashed into the Indian Ocean in June are damaged.

The Bureau of Investigations and Analysis, or BEA, says it's still trying to recover the information held in the flight's black boxes.
I supoose you will claim this is some conspiracy .....


WRONG... we will claim its also an entirely different scenario and impossible to compare since they found the fdr but the info was merely damaged for one. Two, There weren't two flights in the same scenario where BOTH fdr's weren't recovered. And three, that flight was not an american company/aircraft, it was over an OCEAN in another country which was most likely not investigated by a US agency.




[edit on 23-12-2009 by Orion7911]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Didn't read all the replies, so I don't know if this has been posted:

AA11 ATC Transcript



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale
 



You mean like getting a list of INSIDE the US exercises and listing the ones that were outside to pretend it did not fit?


Focus please, Lilly.

See the words....'exercise'....'exercise'...'exercise'...

Understand what that means, and how it actually applies to real-world scenarios.



I got "exercise" just fine. The issue is either with your reading comprehension, you ability to follow along, your honesty, or some mental disorder.

The claim was - here is a list of INSIDE THE US exercises. You responded that they were not inside the US by listing some that were indeed outside of the US. You convienently skipped the ones that were INSIDE the US and now you are trying to change the actual question.

You were wrong, WW. Why can't you just admit it? You shifting is so obvious. Who is it that you think you are fooling? Does it bring any of the 9/11 victims back to life when you just make things up and then pretend to be talking about something else when proven wrong? You said NORAD only looks out. You were offered proof that is not the case. You skirted that proof. I pointed that out to you. You respond by wanting to debate the difference between a drill and an exercise.

You should be trying to debate the difference between only looking out and also looking in. That is what the point was you were trying to get around.

Your attempts at deflection when cornered are not even entertaining or smooth. If you want to say things that are not true and you are faced with evidence to the contrary, just be a man and admit you were wrong. Do not try to lecture me on the difference between drills and exercises when that is not at all what I was talking about.



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Haven't read all the replies, but:

Highly unlikely an aircraft would be hijacked prior to take-off as the pilot(s)
would have MEGA amounts of time to inform the tower (using code words),
and/or abort the take-off completely.

It would be incredibly unreal for the airplane to fly with several instances
of ATC communication and not once relay the distress code for a hi-jack.


From what I've read and heard, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the planes were 'hijacked' in the literal sense where the real pilots sat down in the cock pit and then were removed with force.

The idea or theory in this scenario, is that whoever ended up flying the planes, simply walked into the plane and then into the cock pit. With no other pilots to get in their way, as it was all part of the planned 'drill'. No commotion, no fight, nobody killed on the ground.

[edit on 23-12-2009 by shasta9600]



posted on Dec, 23 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


Thank you, turbofan!!!!


Highly unlikely an aircraft would be hijacked prior to take-off as the pilot(s) would have MEGA amounts of time to inform the tower (using code words)...


You just said, in your layperson way, what I have been saying repeatedly!!!

Allow me to elaborate...and I will TRY not to reveal any secrets...

I'm willing to guess that just about anyone who Googles can learn, already, what the 'hijack' code is in the transponder. BUT, as I've said often and often...it does NOT mean, just because you put the four digits into the transponder that it IMMEDIATELY means, to ATC, "HIJACK!!"

WHEN you input the code, they assume you are intending to do it...and will ask, in coded language (which I will NOT reveal) IF you intended to actually 'squawk' the hijack code. This back-and-forth on the radio is designed to seem like a casual conversaton to those not clued into the "codes"...

It assumes that the pilots cannot speak 'in the clear', meaning, that their communications are being monitored because they are being coerced.

IF, on the otherhand, a hijacking is in progress AND the pilots are aware AND the cockpit has not been violated, THEN they will speak in plain English, to ATC, about their situation.

Is this clear?????



OK, back to what turbofan wrote.

It is no stretch, nor is it a violation of tactics to reveal this factoid: ANY airplane that is under a hijacking menace when it is ON THE GROUND will NOT, under current dictates, be allowed to take off.

OK??? Getting it now???

NO PILOT will willingly take off, under duress...because the consequences of such an action are FAR WORSE than the consequences any threat that might be perpetrated upon the hostages, in the airplane, as it sits on the ground.

ANY pilot can do a multitude of very subtle things to disable an airplane, once it's on the ground.

This mindset is NOT just a result of the events of 9/11 --- there is simply NO WAY, even on the morning of 9/11, that a jet liner could have been 'hijacked' and forced to behave as seen that day. it is ridiculous, and a lack of logic and understanding of how pilots think, and the realities of the airline industry to suggest otherwise.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Re-wording

[edit on 5-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


mike.....

I'm sorry, but you're confused here....

Look over your assumptions, and you'll see my point.

(Hint: Don't confuse American Airlines 11 with 77. Oh, and the ENTIRE assertion regarding American Airlines flight 77 and the cockpit door is PURE BUNK!!! That has been thoroughly discussed on another ATS thread).

review, again...and I think you'll understand your error...



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 





[edit on 5-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by turbofan
 


Thank you, turbofan!!!!


Highly unlikely an aircraft would be hijacked prior to take-off as the pilot(s) would have MEGA amounts of time to inform the tower (using code words)...


You just said, in your layperson way, what I have been saying repeatedly!!!



Aside from you insultive undertone you are somewhat correct. But......

On 911 there were multiple exercises which involved simulated and live life hijackings involving multiple aircraft. Why would they stop a simulated hijacking if it were planned? They wouldnt. They would let the plane take off to take part in the hijacking exercise.

Yes, on 911 there were multiple hijackings taking place that were in control of the military and were scheduled months in advanced under the watchfull eyes of the military, norad, awacs, Neads, ect.

I love thse official story peddlers trying to keep people in the dark with nonsensical ramblings.

So in conlusion. Flight 11 was hijacked before take off becuase it was part of the scheduled exercises. Why stop a scheduled mock hijacking before take off?


[edit on 5-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Only if the plane was part of the on going mil excersises on 911. And if the any elements of the ground crew, flight crew were involved that have not been discovered yet, then its a very plausible scenario.

I said before thqat I believe all of the planes were schedules to participate in the excerisise and this isn't unusual for commercial jets, houses in a neighborhood, barns, shopping malls and other civilian targets to be used as a sim scenario played out during such an event.


Shadow Herder beat me to it.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
SIMULATED HIJACKING EXERCISES INVOLVING LIVE FLY AIRCRAFT ON AND AROUND 9/11


The US military conducted a training exercise in the five days before the September 11 attacks that included simulated aircraft hijackings by terrorists, according to a 9/11 Commission document recently found in the US National Archives. In one of the scenarios, implemented on September 9, terrorists hijacked a London to New York flight, planning to blow it up with explosives over New York.

The undated document, entitled "NORAD EXERCISES Hijack Summary," was part of a series of 9/11 Commission records moved to the National Archives at the start of the year. It was found there and posted to the History Commons site at Scribd by History Commons contributor paxvector in the files of the commission's Team 8, which focused on the failed emergency response on the day of the attacks. The summary appears to have been drafted by one of the commission's staffers, possibly Miles Kara, based on documents submitted by NORAD.

www.scribd.com...
www.scribd.com...


and....

Hijacking Exercise on Day of 9/11

Although it is not listed in the document, there was also a simulated plane hijacking scheduled to take place in the Northeast US on the day of 9/11, and its timing overlapped with the real-world events. According to Vanity Fair, "The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a 'traditional' simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum."

When NEADS was informed of the first real-world hijacking, members of its staff initially assumed this was part of the exercise. For example, Master Sergeant Maureen Dooley, the leader of the ID section, told the other members of her team: "We have a hijack going on. Get your checklists. The exercise is on." Major Kevin Nasypany, the mission crew commander, actually said out loud, "The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour." Like the numerous hijacking scenarios described in the "NORAD EXERCISES" document, there was no mention of this simulated hijacking scheduled for the morning of September 11 in the 9/11 Commission Report.
www.911blogger.com...
www.vanityfair.com...



[edit on 5-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


mike, in all my years flying for a large major airline, I have NEVER heard of...


...and this isn't unusual for commercial jets..... and other civilian targets to be used as a sim scenario played out during such an event.


My experience regarding these "planned" exercises has been mostly that they are 'virtual' exercises, more to demonstrate communication effectivity and such. (Or to reveal flaws in such...)

Of course, some simulations involve actual mobilization efforts, such as disaster simulations, triage practice, etc...

BUT, as to "mock" hijackings, and such, those scenarios are conducted "on paper", not with live commercial flights!!!!!!

This is yet another of those internet fallacies that have cropped up lately....



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Then allow me to brief you...

EXAMPLE - Two pilots leave Shaw AFB in South Carolina for a practice bombing run. They plan out their route then use "targets" on the ground such as, shopping malls, homes, and other landmarks as their "targets". This is routinely done also using commerical airliners while airborne as well by fighter pilots practicing air to air manuevers.

That does not mean the fighter jets are anywhere near the airliner but they (fighter pilots) will & do use commercial airliners as "un-friendlys" to practice for a variety of aerial combat aspects.

Its routine. Its done nearly everyday. Just becuase YOU haven't heard of it does not mean that it does not happen or exist.





[edit on 5-1-2010 by mikelee]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mikelee
 


This is yet another of those internet fallacies that have cropped up lately....




Deny ignorance, not ignorance in denial.



On the very morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony

and

Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run
911proof.com...
www.fromthewilderness.com...

ON 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft POSING AS HIJACKED AIRLINERS.
www.fromthewilderness.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Another plausible reason the cockpit was breached....On all of the fights. One poster in another thread stated to the effect of, at some point the Pilot(s) would have come out to go to the bathroom, talk with crew/passengers etc. This makes absolute sense as I have travelled on many oversees & domestic flights and seen the Pilots/Co-Pilots out and about.



Additionally, during flights of any significant duration, the cockpit door will need to be opened in flight.


Source: Airlines Pilots Security Alliance



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mikelee
 


mike (and shadow herder)....

You are being fed disinfo....


This is routinely done also using commerical airliners while airborne as well by fighter pilots practicing air to air manuevers.


No, mike. NOT "routinely" with commercial airliners. No.

ANG practice? Again, I never flew in the military, nor of course in the Reserves, but there are plenty of ATS members you ARE active or retired...

In a nutshell, this is yet another interent meme that attempts to confuse the facts of that day...

A "wargame" scenario will never be confused with reality. This is an idea that comes straight from Hollywood fantasy movies....



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You are NOT in the know on this apparently. I know for a fact this is true and any ATS member who flys military and is familiar knows as well. If they don't then its simply because they fly transport planes rather than fighter jets.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by mikelee
 


You are being fed disinfo....


I dont doubt that for a moment wink wink. I am not hungry though.




[edit on 5-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   


ANG practice? Again, I never flew in the military, nor of course in the Reserves


I think your statement speaks volumes about any knowledge or, the lack of what I'm referring to on your part.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by mikelee]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join