Were These Really Used To Take Over 4 Plane's ?

a reply to: andy06shake

Agree 100% with that post.

Think of it this way. If you can touch him, he can touch you, the difference is he has a blade and you don't. As many times as you touch him he's cutting you at the same time. The odds are overwhelmingly on the side of the guy with the blade. Hence why most people including people on their way to their death will attempt to mess with a armed individual. It's no surprise that a bunch of dudes with box cutters were able to control a whole plane and their population.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Box Cutters are not particularly good as a stabbing weapon, more of a slashing implement, so you do indeed want to get in close. Trust me i have been slashed, better to grab them and latch on that way you can do your own damage. If you wish to go for the ranged option one of those wee cans of juice (unopened) thrown at the idiots head would do considerable damage, need good aim all the same.

At some point during those flights according to the OS the pilots were removed from the seats and I doubt very much they were dead during this process. As Zaph has said numerous times on this thread the seats are a tight fit.
So if they were not dead then they could have and should have fought right then and there in my opinion only.
Yeah I know I was not there, but if I was driving my car with my wife and something like that happened I would have realized that unless I act we are dead. That would be just logical that this little knife is going to hurt but yet I am going to get control of this situation no matter what.

The "No room in the cockpit" for fighting goes both ways......If you can't fight then it would be damn hard to forcibly remove both pilot and co-pilot from the cabin whilst there is no space to do so.

I can't imagine getting a dead body or an unconscious one out of a four point harness let alone jump into the seat with blood everywhere.
Was a Box cutter responsible for the passive response involved during those supposed attacks? ....Thanks to the OP and S&F
Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: Vaedur

Larry said "pull" as in "pull" the emergency personnel from the building and stop fighting the fire IMO. he was talking about all the people who died, so they just pulled the firefighters off building 7.

This is what Larry said as a later explanation. Can anyone show where this was corroborated by the fire department? I don't believe for a second he meant "pull" the detonators of pre-rigged explosives and that he simply made an unfortunate choice of words, but I do wonder why the fire department would care much what any civilian thought they should or shouldn't do concerning the lives of their men. Also, there was no one in the building at that time. They were not fighting the fires so why would they need to pull anybody?

a reply to: Zaphod58

So how did they pull the switch off? They would have had to have some way to get the aircraft on the ground, and somewhere it wouldn't be suspicious to hide the duplicates.

Not that I particularly endorse the plane swap theory, but this is easily done in midair without anyone watching the radar noticing. This was easily done as early as the 60's so I'm thinking even easier in the 2000's.
Also, they would modify the planes OR dress up whatever remotes they were using to look like regular commercial liners. The argument that too many eyewitnesses saw all the planes is actually countered very well with this argument too because if they really were regular 757 and 767's then that only explains the witnesses who said that's what they saw and means everyone else is mistaken or lying whereas if it was something else dressed up or a modified 757 or 767 then that explains every single eyewitness account, even ones that differ.
Like I said I don't endorse it for other reasons, but I can't fully dismiss it.

a reply to: lambros56

Bull. Go read the quote I put up earlier from the ALPA. It clearly says, do not escalate. That's how they were trained on 9/11, and that's exactly what they would have done.

a reply to: TheBolt

Except they were able to go back and track the flights on the radar tapes. Every flight that was near them was an accounted for commercial flight.

a reply to: andy06shake

During a training class for flight attendants one of the instructors held another instructor as a hostage, and demonstrated how fast it would be. It took him two seconds to cut three arteries.

Regardless, yet again, on 9/11, crew training was to go along and do not escalate the situation.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bilk22

The average untrained person can land 6 full power slashes with a knife in one second to completely different targets on the body. Yeah in one second. Good luck dodging 6 strikes a second with some carry on luggage.

lol show us where you got that stat lol Please, your attempts at defending this
oS are getting embarrassing. I've been in the construction industry since I'm 17 - 34yrs and have performed every trade there is. A box cutter is probably one of the safest tools I've ever used - especially if it's the type pictured somewhere in this thread. A locking utility knife would be a much better weapon and even that would be easily defended against with an old valise between me and the attacker. I could have done a job on the guy with some old lady's cane. That box cutter doesn't lock. And unless it was a positive locking utility knife, would be like trying to hijack the plane with a sharp pencil. Your sharp edge isn't useful in combat. It will fold, break or retract. Now you want to argue like others that the passengers never assumed they were on a suicide mission? OK that's a different argument. If I saw a guy brandishing a box cutter I'd laugh in his face and then knock him out with my fist or a blunt instrument.

a reply to: Bilk22

I've been in the construction industry since I'm 17 - 34yrs and have performed every trade there is. A box cutter is probably one of the safest tools I've ever used

I also work in the construction industry and I would argue that my utility knife is the most dangerous tool I use on a daily basis. I don't think I cut myself as much as some of these other people admit to(lol, seriously people, take a course or something) but cuts with these knives happen so quickly and cleanly. It's rarely a "knick", it's ALWAYS painful and even the smallest incisions usually draw a lot of blood. Having said that, obviously as someone pointed out the argument here is that these people had no idea what the alternative was.

How do we know they had box cutters anyways? didn't all the witness die?

a reply to: jlafleur02

Because people such as flight attendants made air phone calls before they crashed and mentioned them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't really know why I'm dragging the switch theory on and encouraging it because I don't believe to happened. I'll end it there for you and stop wasting time.

a reply to: [jlafleur02]

Whoops, this was meant for Jlafleur02.

Because people such as flight attendants made air phone calls before they crashed and mentioned them.

Most of the story is laid out in little fragments from phone calls from the planes and some evidence discovered in hotel rooms and vehicles that the hijackers rented. The evidence to support the box cutter story is there. There are two questions that need to be asked with the first being "did these events happen at all?". That's the question most people focus on and it makes it easy for people to get on the defensive as you are essentially questioning their intelligence by asking them this. It becomes a personal attack. One has to choose a side and they are forced to dig in and defend it for fear of being tricked or fear of being wrong. The second question which I feel is more important anyway is "did the events happen AS WE WERE TOLD AND AS IT WAS PRESENTED?". This question doesn't put the onus on an individual but on the story itself. It is possible to have doubts on some of the story but still reasonably believe it or not believe it overall. I personally think that no matter what you believe, a significant portion of the official story is true and that makes it hard to figure out what is or isn't true.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Simple fact remains most people would rather have 3 arteries slashed than go into those towers.

I relies training would make the crew comply with the terrorists demands. But passengers are a different story, and as to instructors demonstrating what may or may not have happened or indeed how fast an untrained terrorist can incapacitate a crew member is simple supposition.

End of the day its a tragic event. And if they did manage to down those planes with nothing more than box cutters it only adds to the tragedy because it could have been prevented before it escalated beyond control.

Another thing that bothers me about those planes is where were the Sky Marshals? That programs has been around from the 1970s how come there were none of them present on any of those flights?

Edit: I can see now that flights per day over the U.S were not that well policed prior to the Twin Towers event.

a reply to: andy06shake

The passengers had no idea. All they would have wanted would be to be rescued after they landed. The ones yay actually paid attention to these events would have been expecting to land. The others probably were wondering what was going on.

originally posted by: TheBolt
a reply to: Bilk22

I've been in the construction industry since I'm 17 - 34yrs and have performed every trade there is. A box cutter is probably one of the safest tools I've ever used

I also work in the construction industry and I would argue that my utility knife is the most dangerous tool I use on a daily basis. I don't think I cut myself as much as some of these other people admit to(lol, seriously people, take a course or something) but cuts with these knives happen so quickly and cleanly. It's rarely a "knick", it's ALWAYS painful and even the smallest incisions usually draw a lot of blood. Having said that, obviously as someone pointed out the argument here is that these people had no idea what the alternative was.

Sorry to hear that. Maybe some better training is needed. Maybe heavy work gloves are needed so you don't hurt yourself. Sheetrock knives are usually the least dangerous tool to anyone on a job, but also one of the more versatile. I can cut luan, other thin board stock and even thin metals with one.

If you were in need of defending yourself on the job from some attack, would you grab your utility knife or a hammer? Heck, you can do more damage with a good sized slotted screwdriver than a utility knife. You can slash and stab with that. You have better reach as well. A shot in the face with a fire extinguisher, either from the spray or used as a blunt force weapon, would take out an idiot with a box cutter. A small carryon suitcase is a good foil from any attack with a utility knife. A coat or towel wrapped around your fist would work too.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well that's the crux of the matter, the terrorists managed to do what they did down to fear and confusion which resulted in inaction from passengers and crew. Simply a recipe for disaster if ever there was one.

One question that springs to mind however is why the passengers and crew were willing to accept that these box cutter wielding individuals also had access to bombs? If you have a bomb then you don't need a box cutter. And one is rather disproportionate to the other, certainly bring doubt to mind.

a reply to: Bilk22

Tell you what. You put on a white shirt you don't care about. Go buy or find a red sharpie or marker. Grab your favorite luggage bag or lap top. Now give the marker to your buddy and ask him to play fight with you. Tell him to treat the marker like its a knife. Have a quick go at it. Now look down and see how many red marks and lines you have all over your body. Then you will understand just how ineffective your self defense with a purse or laptop scheme will be.