This is more a summary of thoughts and not my final conclusion but based on what I've read the main rebuttals to this particular post in favor of the
official story of the plane takovers are:
1)Box cutters are lethal enough to have done the job - I have no doubt they are. I've done some pretty serious damage to myself with one of those. I
would have felt adequately threatened into inaction especially since the hijackers were reported to have injured or killed someone on every flight en
route to the cockpit.
2)the pilots wouldn't have been able to fight back - I'm with the thought that they were heavily strapped in and facing the wrong way in a tight space
and completely vulnerable. Based on the recording of the takeover of flight 93 however these attacks weren't necessarily as swift as is presumed in
some of these comments. On flight 93 CVR for example, from the original pilot "mayday" to the pilot comment "hey get out of here! Get out of here!" 35
seconds had elapsed. To me that shows they did everything they could to defend themselves.
2)the cockpit was too small for them to adequately defend themselves - I put this as a separate point because it does add more towards the
helplessness of the pilots but it does ask the same question of the hijackers. It would be with great difficulty that anyone in those types of
quarters would be able to remove all the aforementioned straps and belts and physically remove not one but two at the very least unconscious grown men
without knocking the controls and potentially losing the flight. What this means I don't know. Just pointing out that this environment affects both
3)The cockpit door isn't always locked - I remember being on a flight when I was younger and more than once being invited up to take a tour of the
cockpit while in flight. Pre 9-11 no one was worried about hijackings because the last one had been like a decade before.
4)receipts were found for box cutters after the fact - actual box cutters were also found during a security sweep of the parking garage at Logan
airport on sept 13, and another one in the Toyota left at Dulles airport, with a third discovered two days PRIOR to 9/11 at a Florida hotel room. It
appears they really wanted people to know they used box cutters.
5)box cutters were mentioned in most phone calls - arguments persist that cell phone calls were not possible. That is an argument for another thread
and not really that relevant to me. What's more important is that only 2 calls are credited to cell phone calls. Look at the presentation of the
evidence of the calls themselves and how the information was acquired. Your opinion of faith in the source should be the guide on that issue, not the
6) passengers mostly reported bombs and box cutters and were told that if they remained calm and didn't do anything stupid they would be fine, with
the exception of flight 93 where they had knowledge of the other incidents and chose to act- if you listen to Betty ong's call on the very first
flight, she gives all the information a person could ask for. She knows the hijackers don't speak very good English because she heard them talk. She
described their seat locations and knew all about the mace and bombs and events up front. She was intimate with the whole initial situation but she
never one time talks about what they communicated to her even when asked if she knew who or why. She never answered "they said they were going back to
the airport" or "we were told to stay calm and we would be fine." If someone that involved in the action was never given that impression I doubt
anyone else on that flight was. People argue that the pilots went over the intercom and announced that message. However the commission report itself
says "the FAA heard the we have some planes, nobody move or you will endanger yourself and the airplane message, Betty Ong did not." That's mainly why
they assume the pilot accidentally keyed the wrong mic. If Betty Ong had no idea these were the instructions then it's likely the majority of the
passengers didn't either. In fact, Ong says she's pretty sure most people in the plane think there is a simple medical emergency. The passengers
didn't revolt and I don't blame them, but I DJ believe that in the case of flight 11 it was because they thought they would be safe if they did
edit on 13-4-2015 by TheBolt because: (no reason given)