United planes were told to secure cockpit

Other planes also didn't have the pilots killed as soon as the hijackers got into the cockpit. And at least one plane DID get a call off, just nothing understandable. ATC reported hearing struggling, "Get out of here!" repeated several times, and then other sounds.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Other planes also didn't have the pilots killed as soon as the hijackers got into the cockpit. And at least one plane DID get a call off, just nothing understandable. ATC reported hearing struggling, "Get out of here!" repeated several times, and then other sounds.

And as stated at least 1 plane, flight 77 the pilots were not killed according to call made by flight attendent, the pilots and flight crew were taken to
the back of the plane.

Also flight 93 had received a secure cockpit warning and a warning about the other hijackings, so how were they surprised by the hijackers ?

Having a warning to secure the cockpit, just means lock the door. Those doors were flimsy pieces of crap made out of plywood. And just because they have some vague warning telling them to secure the cockpit doesn't mean they won't be surprised. They asked for confirmation, but I don't remember seeing where they got any before it was taken over, so maybe they were still trying to figure out what was going on when it happened.

Not to mention this was the first mass hijacking in history that I'm aware of. So they probably heard that there was a plane taken over, and figured that was it, and nothing to worry about. There would have been concern over the crew and passengers of that plane that was taken over, but the prevailing attitude probably would have been one of "I'm glad it wasn't us."

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Having a warning to secure the cockpit, just means lock the door.

But they also had the warning of the other 2 hijackings so they had 2 different warnings. They should have been on alert, they should not have been that surprised and should have been able to get off a call or signal.

Also thats pretty high odds that out of 4 planes not 1 get off a call or signal. Out of 8 poeple not 1 could get of a call or signal, that sounds a little strange to me. How long does it take to punch 4 digits into the transponder ?


[edit on 5-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

But they also had the warning of the other 2 hijackings so they had 2 different warnings. They should have been on alert, they should not have been that surprised and should have been able to get off a call or signal.

Who are you to judge the actions of the people who most likely did the best they could in the extraordinary situations placed on them?

Have you ever been a pilot in a hijacked plane?

If not, why should we assume that their final actions on earth were either cowardly or suspicious, based on your opinon?

As has been stated, there were never hijackings that crashed on purpose, and there had never been multiple hijackings at once before 911.


It is unfair of you to call the pilots actions suspicious merely because you want to believe in a conspiracy.

All of these pilots we speak of died that day. How dare you analyze their actions and act like you would have acted differently or followed protocol better.

My God some of you are working awful hard to deny the obvious - which is that the whole 9/11 thing is very fishy and was orchestrated by somebody other than those found guilty (i.e. "terrorist")

Was it the government? Seems likely but even then it was only certain individuals within the government and even then we don't know what branches or affiliations they had. It is a mess and getting to the bottom of it will prove difficult. The only fact is that there is a cover up involved. What lies underneath is the question.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
As has been stated, there were never hijackings that crashed on purpose, and there had never been multiple hijackings at once before 911.


It is unfair of you to call the pilots actions suspicious merely because you want to believe in a conspiracy.

All of these pilots we speak of died that day. How dare you analyze their actions and act like you would have acted differently or followed protocol better.

Well for 1 thier have been planes hijacked that were to be crashed, look it up.

Second i am not speaking badly of the pilots thier is just way too many things that happened that are questionable, and have never been properly explained.

on the film 'flight 93' they received the order but took time confirming what they heard and didnt realise the seriousness of the message. by the time they realised it was too late. Hopefully future warnings will be taken heed of much quicker!

Crashing planes as weapons had APPARENTLY been TRIED twice before, but it had never HAPPENED. It should also be pointed out that both attempts to do so, were take overs of aircraft that were parked, NOT in flight. So flight crews kept with their training to give hijackers whatever they wanted, get the plane on the ground, and let someone negotiate for passenger release. As far as these pilots knew the same thing would happen here if they were taken over. Radio reports of hijacking usually come well after the takeover occurs. The first few minutes of a hijacking would have been trying to keep the hijackers calm, and keeping everyone alive. THEN they would have sent out a radio call. Getting on the radio and yelling that they were being hijacked would have been considered too risky, in that the hijackers might have hurt someone in response.

[edit on 4/6/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Crashing planes as weapons had APPARENTLY been TRIED twice before, but it had never HAPPENED. [edit on 4/6/2007 by Zaphod58]

BUT THE PPOINT IS THE FAA KNEW OF THOSE AND OTHER EVENTS. So they should have been prepared for the possiblity that planes can be used as weapons.

I am still waiting for a good reason why out of 4 planes not 1 could could get off a call or signal, specially with prior wamings. Pilots are trained over and over to handle an emergency and not freak out.

[edit on 6-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Those two incidents were 20 years apart. When you have TWO incidents out of dozens of hijackings, then you tend to not prepare for them, because statistically they are not likely, ESPECIALLY when neither attempt was successful. If you have a plane flying for 30 years, and two of them crash, 10 years apart because of a part failure, you don't sit there thinking "We had two planes crash in 30 years from this, we need to prepare for more of these!"

And what I said about not getting on the radio was very plausible, and quite likely. They didn't "freak out" and they were probably trying to handle it AS THEY WERE TRAINED TO. You keep the hijacker calm, and you don't do things to provoke them. Except in this case, they didn't have time to get on the radio before being removed from the cockpit. They would have tried to find out what the hijackers wanted, and/or get them out of the cockpit before getting on the radio.

Zaphod58

They prepare for things that are not even considered likely. It isn't even believable to start saying they wouldn't consider events like these, that is as unbelievable as when Bush was trying to sell 'no could have imagined this' and when Rice tried for 'We didn't know Bin Laden was going to attack in the States' even though the Presidential Memo in August 2001 said..Bin Laden to attack in the United States...

To have all that warning and say they weren't prepared is far fetched.

Ever worked with the FAA? They're the ones responsible for training pilots, and setting forth rules for how they handle hijacking situations. They do NOT train for things that are unlikely. They don't do a DAMN THING until AFTER something major happens, and then they take YEARS to make changes. They're NOT going to plan for something that had only been attempted TWICE.

A situation like 9/11 WASN'T precedented, so most people wouldn't consider it likely to happen. The closest thing that had even been attempted was Operation Bojinka, but that was to blow them up in flight, not crash them into buildings. Somewhere in the Pentagon they may have come up with a situation like 9/11, but that doesn't mean that A. the President knew about it, or B. the FAA was even involved with it, or C. that it had even been looked at in years.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Those two incidents were 20 years apart.

I guess you forgot or did not know about the incidents in 1994 and 1995. Not 20 years ago.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Somewhere in the Pentagon they may have come up with a situation like 9/11, but that doesn't mean that A. the President knew about it, or B. the FAA was even involved with it, or C. that it had even been looked at in years.

Not to derail this thread, but (I'm going to anyway) didn't the pentagon have a drill about planes flying into it about a year prior? And wasn't the pilot in the flight that hit the pentagon involved in that drill somehow?

Now, back to topic.

The first incident was 1974, the next was 1994. Operation Bojinka's second wave was a little known bit of information and was never passed onto the people that could have used it. It wasn't even shown in the FBI reports from the time.

I was good friends with the lead FAA investigator into the Philippine Airlines bombing, and he gave us a very interesting briefing about the investigation, and never once mentioned the second wave of the attacks. I spoke to him after 9/11 and he had just found out about it himself AFTER he had transferred from the FAA to the JTT.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The first incident was 1974, the next was 1994. Operation Bojinka's second wave was a little known bit of information and was never passed onto the people that could have used it. It wasn't even shown in the FBI reports from the time.

Thats strange, because this whistleblower stated it to the FAA.

www.globalsecurity.org...

As a former Team Leader of the Red Team it was my sole job to execute this mandate. Some of my colleagues and I, using Red Team type tactics, did find major vulnerabilities in aviation security. We reported these through our chain of command. The managers in FAA (including the highest offices in FAA) deliberately choose to ignore our warnings. This is particularly grievous in light of the ever-growing terrorist threat of which they were also aware. For example, FAA issued 15 terrorism warnings to the air carriers in the year prior to 9-11. On April 6, 2000 the Associate Administrator of FAA for Security stated in open testimony before the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation Security, "…[M]oreover, members of foreign terrorist groups and representatives from state sponsors of terrorism are present in the United States. There is evidence that a few foreign terrorist groups have well-established capability and infrastructures here…."

Coupled with this; virtually every expert on terrorism for several years prior to 9-11 had been screaming about the ever growing threat to the United States by a new breed of terrorists willing to inflict mass casualties on civilians. The first major wake-up call occurred in 1994, when terrorists planned on blowing up a dozen US commercial aircraft over the Pacific Ocean. This was thwarted by an accidental fire in the apartment where the bombs were being constructed. The second major wake-up call occurred in 1995 when terrorists planned on crashing an airliner into the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Only quick and decisive action by French commandos prevented this disaster. There were also additional indicators.

The specific issues I outlined in my Whistleblower Disclosure included the following:

In 1996 I worked on a 6-month project in which we injected simulated bombs through the checked baggage system at a major European airport. We were successful in getting 31 out of 31 of these simulated explosives on US commercial aircraft. No action was taken to remedy this security problem and we have never been back to this airport to re-test security. In fact our results were so deplorable that FAA prevented us from testing in this manner at any foreign airport ever again.

In year 2000-01, in other testing conducted at a different major European airport the Red Team obtained equally abysmal results, even though this airport had the latest bomb detection equipment. FAA Security management was equally remiss in not correcting these problems.

In 1998, I was the team leader testing the access control system at a major domestic airport. We were successful in breaching their multi-million dollar computer controlled access system approximately 85% of the time. No action was taken to remedy this security problem and we have never been back to this airport (or any airport) to re-test access control security.

In 1998, the Red Team completed extensive testing of screening checkpoints at a number of domestic airports. Basically our test results were the inverse of the results FAA field offices achieved (i.e.: where a field office reported an airport having a 90% success rate in detecting FAA test objects; we would report a success rate of about 10%. In one case we even had documented an airport detection rate of about 3%).

In the 1997-8 time frame, I was the team leader for some testing at another major domestic international airport. Purely by accident we conducted testing at an extremely busy time when cruise ships were loading and unloading passengers at the same time. The airport was extremely overcrowded with people. Security simply broke down in these conditions. After failing all of our tests and reporting this fact through my chain of command, I reported this abhorrent state of security to my immediate manager. He ordered me not to make a written report on this, and to stop all further testing at this airport.

Since 1998, almost all of our domestic work had been limited to testing the CTX explosives detection machines. By August of 1999, our test results were so poor that my boss ordered us to no longer do surreptitious (i.e.: unannounced) testing. Instead, we were ordered to notify the appropriate FAA field office a couple of days before we were to commence our "secret" testing. My first 2 missions after receiving these instructions resulted in both of these airports achieving a 100% success rate regarding our testing. I stopped notifying the field after that, and the results returned to their normal low success rates.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Somewhere in the Pentagon they may have come up with a situation like 9/11, but that doesn't mean that A. the President knew about it, or B. the FAA was even involved with it, or C. that it had even been looked at in years.

Not to derail this thread, but (I'm going to anyway) didn't the pentagon have a drill about planes flying into it about a year prior? And wasn't the pilot in the flight that hit the pentagon involved in that drill somehow?

Now, back to topic.

It was an ACCIDENTAL crash of a plane attempting to land at Reagan National, and contrary to what Loose Change and others would have you believe Charles Burlingame was NOT involved in that MASCAL exercise in 2000. He stopped working at the Pentagon in 1996 when he completely retired from the Navy. They don't know what year he actually worked on MASCAL, but it was NOT the 2000 exercise.

Where does it say that he notified the FAA of the planned second wave of Bojinka? The only mention it makes of it at all was the planned bombings, nothing about hijackings with OB.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Where does it say that he notified the FAA of the planned second wave of Bojinka? The only mention it makes of it at all was the planned bombings, nothing about hijackings with OB.

The second major wake-up call occurred in 1995 when terrorists planned on crashing an airliner into the Eiffel Tower in Paris.