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

reply to post by Beldy


At the time of the flight they were at, the crew would have still been strapped in. They were still climbing out, which company policy is to be strapped in until cruising altitude.

But let's say they weren't, or they just had the lap belt on....how exactly are you going to get up, turn around, and fight back, without hitting the controls and putting the plane out of control?

Great example of a cargo plane crew fighting back. All that was risked there were some packages. Airline and cargo company policies are completely different, and always have been. Airline policy was get the passengers safely on the ground, and let negotiations end the situation. In 2001 there would have been no fighting back from the crew.

reply to post by Zaphod58


not to mention that the response is totally different in this type of highjacking. This guy was not trying to take hostages, or he would not have used a bludgeon that requires a big swing to be deadly. It was clear he was trying to kill the crew, so they responded rationally and fought back. If the same had happened on 9/11 perhaps we wouldn't be discussing this today.

It's too bad there were no 9/11 truthers on board those planes. I'm sure you guys would have just kicked those terrorists up and down the center aisle before securing them with duct tape.

No matter what side of the debate im on this is an awesome comment. Lol. Thanks. a reply to: DrEugeneFixer

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 sides.

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 possibility.

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 nothing.

I do not doubt that a box cutter could be a reasonably deadly weapon in the circumstances outlined but it does seem a little strange that so many hijackings went off without a hitch on the same day and the only plane that didn't make it was because someone heard about the others.

It also struck me as odd that the planes had so few passengers. I mean one plane was apparently only carrying 40 some people. Is it really economically viable to burn that much fuel to transport so few? This is coming from someone who has never flown so I'm just wondering.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Yes, because it turns back around, or continues to another destination as another flight. Redeye and early morning flights are still frequently almost empty, but have to go so the airline can position the aircraft in a better market.

The reason it was so easy is because on 9/11 the policy was still to give in to the hijackers. You give them what they want, and get the airplane on the ground. Once you're on the ground there are a lot more options.

I think a few of you are forgetting there was flight attendants on all four planes.
Do you think they`d do nothing ?
Looking at the photos of the supposed hijackers i reckon my missus could take one of them down.

You really believe all of these people were scared off by your average Joe` wielding a box cutter ?
Didn`t happen........no way .....I`m sorry but never in a million years !
Doesn`t say much for all those trained crew and attendants.

Ex flight attendant Rebekah Roth is on the right track when she says the people were removed from the planes in a "drill ".

She`s been doing more interviews over the past couple of weeks and i think she`s got some real good stuff to share.

a reply to: lambros56

They were TRAINED to do nothing. Airline and oversight agency policy (because it doesn't matter if it was the US, Europe, Asia, etc) was to keep the passengers calm, and get the aircraft on the ground in one piece. Once on the ground there were options.

Prior to 9/11 hijackings ended with the plane intact, on the ground, and most of the hostages released. There were only a few cases that didn't, and those were generally hijacker stupidity, such as the Ethiopian crash of the coast. The hijackers insisted the plane could reach Australia, and didn't believe the pilots when they told them they only had enough fuel for a short flight (the plane was on a domestic flight).

Well lets get real here. ANY bladed object will be plenty to put the fear of god into most people. It's primal, nobody likes to get cut, stabbed or even wants to imagine it. A guy with an exacto knife could probably hold a plane up.

What's wrong with the box cutter? Not big enough? Most guys that know what they are doing with a knife prefer 2.5 inch blade to max 3 inches for up close work. Box cutter is ideal for size. Not the best blade, but size wise it's just fine. General rule of thumb is that any stab wound 2 inches or deeper to the torso if gone untreated is terminal.

What could a determined person with a box cutter do? Well lets forget slashing. That's not the best unless you just want to hurt and terrify. But against a sitting target with their back turned to you, like a pilot. You couldn't ask for a better scenario for a person with a blade. So again what could the box cutter do? Well lets see right off the bat I would go for a stab to the persons left trapezius area, just above the scapula. From there if I only manage to get the blade buried 2 inches I will have one of the highest pay off targets in the human body for blade work. I'll immediately sever the transverse cervical artery. It feeds the cerebellum region, which is responsible for motor movements. Cut that and the person can not fight back, or scream after a few seconds. Dig the blade around just a tinsy bit more and you have now knicked or punctured the sub clavican(sp) artery and brachial artery that feeds the left arm. This is a terminal injury. These two arteries feed directly off the aorta. The person will exsanguinate quickly, long before they can get any medical help. You can not treat this type of wound easily or at all in most circumstances. Best part all of this is accomplished with just one stab and all the blood stays inside the body. No smelly sticky slippery mess to deal with. All that from just a simple box cutter.

As a person who has faced a knife in an altercation and was tagged with it 3 times I can tell you a little box cutter is a plenty effective weapon. And I have half a life time of studying south east Asian martial arts that focus on blade work. I'm comfortable around knifes. And even I would turn tail or be submissive if I could if a guy pulled a knife against me. Getting cut sucks.

SO I personally believe that it is very plausible that a dude with a box cutter will take over a plane of generally docile submissive people.

I never understood why someone didn't snap a CD in half and go at them. If the terrorists had projectile weapons, I could understand not doing anything. But, someone could have passed a note quietly around asking for people with CDs to break them in half and be ready to charge.

I mean, if a plane I was on got hijacked by a dude with a box cutter who took control of the plane, I would assume I was going to die anyway, what else do I have to loose?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

There was no reason to assume they were going to die. Those four flights just about doubled the number of hijacked planes that didn't land somewhere and make demands. If the passengers had tried something on the first three the crew would have stopped them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I guess if everyone assumed they were going to fly to Cuba or something the passengers would be pretty docile. But in hijacking cases prior to 9/11 -- were the pilots killed? I think for me that would be very telling. It's not easy to learn to fly a big jet like that, so some foreign guys with boxcutters piloting the plane would probably make me suspicious about my chances.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Some had one pilot killed, most didn't. On at least one flight that day they weren't sure the pilots were killed at first. They knew a flight attendant was, but not the pilots.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It's been to long since I've flown I guess...

I mean, unless you're in first class I suppose it would be hard to ascertain what the heck was going on at the front of the plane.

But, if they killed the pilot, they'd have to move the body out of the way to fly the plane. Those cockpits aren't very big. If I saw them haul out a dead pilot and climb into the cockpit I'd be pretty uneasy...

a reply to: Zaphod58

If the passengers had tried something on the first three the crew would have stopped them.

Crew? There's pilot and co-pilot, stewardesses and marshal. Maybe few more undercover?

How will they be able to stop passengers in fear for their lives who has a plan? Maybe I am missing something?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Planes that size carry four to six flight attendants. And with the loads they had that would have been enough crew to stop an attempt by passengers.

People back then listened to the crew. If they told them it was going to be OK, they believed them. As far as the crew knew they were going to land and at worst the plane would be stormed.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

On American 11 Betty Ong reported they used pepper spray near the front of the cabin and they couldn't get close to the cockpit, or see what was going on, and they couldn't raise them on the interphone.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I don't think there were Air Marshals back then...?

a reply to: Zaphod58

a reply to: MystikMushroom On American 11 Betty Ong reported they used pepper spray near the front of the cabin and they couldn't get close to the cockpit, or see what was going on, and they couldn't raise them on the interphone.

Yes. There are a couple of things about that call that are peculiar but that's for another thread. Bottom line is she also said a flight attendant was stabbed. That would make a lot of people, myself included, second guess any form of heroic prevention. Furthermore the commission report says that she never heard the infamous "we have some planes transmission or a second one, and therefore likely none of the passengers did either. Finally, she said she thought most of the passengers were unaware of the truth of the situation and that they thought there was just a routine medical emergency. Lots of reasons for the passengers to understandably choose inaction.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I dont know. My friends and I were robbed once in HS by a single guy with a box cutter. My close friend and I were only able to chuck our back packs into a bush before the guy with a box cutter to this other kids throat we were walking with finally notice us too. We just said we didnt have anything and showed him the contents of our pockets. We would have given him everything we had. The kid with the blade to his throat did give him everything. Three young guys, two of which were not runts were basically one guy with a box cutters bitches.

You dont know the fear you feel for someone else with one of these things to their throats. They are effective weapons. Being sharp as hell and already touching skin make them as effective as a sword in the hands of someone standing far away from you.

The fear is paralyzing since you know a flick of the wrist is all it takes to kill someone with them.