How Were the Cockpits Taken ? Examining the Logistics

reply to post by PersonalChoice


Chill out. It's just the first and last sentence of your post. I didn't see the point of quoting the whole thing, but I'd already pressed "quote" instead of reply so I just chopped it. My response is to your entire post.

The fact is that you make a series of suppositions that you ask us to take as fact. You subsequently garnish these in your next post, asking us to surmise the state of mind of the pilots when we can't possibly know it.

To reiterate. Even if - and it's a big if - they knew that a hijacking had taken place, there is no reason why they would assume they were at risk of one as well. Multiple hijackings are almost unheard of in the history of civil aviation. They must have heard the plural "planes" in Atta's transmission? So what? It's an enormous leap to suggest that they thus might have thought they were at risk - from a hijacking on another plane that we're not even certain they knew about.

And your reference to Ed Ballinger is deeply confused. If he was informing everyone of the hijacking and "everyone knew what was going on" by then, then why did he try to talk to 175 after it had hit the WTC? Your timeline is off.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


I'm not confused, the timeline isn't off. I never said f175 got a warning from Ballinger, only flight 93. Here is a quote from History Commons

His text message reads: “Beware any cockpit intrusion… Two aircraft in NY hit [World] Trade Center builds.” Because this message is sent out to Ballinger’s 16 aircraft in groups, it is not until 9:23 a.m. that it is transmitted to Flight 93. [9/11 Commission, 1/27/2004; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 26 and 37 pdf file] The warning is received in the plane’s cockpit one minute later. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 11] Then, at 9:26, Flight 93 pilot Jason Dahl responds with the text message, “Ed confirm latest mssg plz [message please]—Jason.” Apart from a routine radio contact with the FAA’s Cleveland Center a minute later (see 9:27 a.m. September 11, 2001), this is the last normal communication made from Flight 93’s cockpit before the hijacking occurs. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 38 pdf file]

Edit:Add link: www.historycommons.org...

[edit on 18-6-2010 by PersonalChoice]

So they sent back a message that clearly show they didn't understand what was going on on 93. 175 had already crashed, the state of mind or knowledge of its pilots completely unknown to us. And yet you want us to believe that everyone was ready for the nutters who were about to burst in and murder them. There just isn't the evidence for that.

"They must have heard the plural "planes" in Atta's transmission? So what?"

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the transmission from Flight 11 stating "We have some planes" allegedly occurred at approximately 8:25 A.M. So what, you say?

Obviously, since this transmission was made by one of the alleged hijackers, why did he say this, since he obviously had no way of communicating with the other alleged hijackers at the time?

Secondly, if he did have a way of communicating with the other hijackers (highly unlikely), this statement was made well before the other three airplanes were allegedly hijacked.

In other words, only one plane had allegedly been hijacked at the time and the hijacker of that plane stated "We have some planes". What's up with that?

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


I imagine he assumed that the others had been, or were about to be, successful as well. This seems an amazingly trivial thing to pick up on.

"I imagine he assumed that the others had been, or were about to be, successful as well."

That's quite an assumption to make. Besides that, why would he tip off the authorities prior to knowing if these planes had been hijacked or not? Wow, what a criminal mastermind we have here.

"This seems an amazingly trivial thing to pick up on."

You label verbal self-incriminatory evidence from an alleged hijacker as being " amazingly trivial"? He's basically advertising to authorities the fact that other airplanes will be hijacked and you call this trivial? Go back to sleep.


[edit on 20-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 20-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

That's quite an assumption to make. Besides that, why would he tip off the authorities prior to knowing if these planes had been hijacked or not? Wow, what a criminal mastermind we have here.

He isn't a criminal mastermind. They only really have them in films, which I'm sure is where your worldview is largely formed.

It's pretty easy to surmise from what happened that he made an error and was intending to speak to the passengers - why else would he say "Just stay quiet... we are returning to the airport"?

Note that the controller who heard it didn't identify the content of the message with any accuracy. There hadn't been a multiple hijacking in 30 years, and you're asking why he didn't act decisively straight away? In response to a garbled message that he didn't understand?

Actually I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. What is suspicious about this?

You label verbal self-incriminatory evidence from an alleged hijacker as being " amazingly trivial"?

Not at all. I label your analysis of it amazingly trivial.

[edit on 20-6-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

"He isn't a criminal mastermind. They only really have them in films, which I'm sure is where your worldview is largely formed."

Unlike you, I do not watch films, which is obviously the source of your world view.

"It's pretty easy to surmise from what happened that he made an error and was intending to speak to the passengers - why else would he say "Just stay quiet... we are returning to the airport"?"

Are you saying the passengers and the flight crew had no way of contacting the authorities? So, this guy was an expert airplane pilot (who could not keep a Cesna in the air), but he did not know how to use the airplane's intercom? Yep, sounds about right.

"Note that the controller who heard it didn't identify the content of the message with any accuracy. There hadn't been a multiple hijacking in 30 years, and you're asking why he didn't act decisively straight away? In response to a garbled message that he didn't understand?"

Where did you see that I asked why didn't the controller act decisively? If you want to shove words in people's mouths, you may want to stick to doing that with the morons who believe the 9/11 fairy tale.

"Not at all. I label your analysis of it amazingly trivial."

Yeah...sure...my analysis is so trivial that you're sitting here wasting your valuable time responding to it? Or just maybe, your time isn't that valuable, which would then make your actions and your opinions quite understandable.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

Unlike you, I do not watch films, which is obviously the source of your world view.

You should try. Although you might wind up frightened of Skynet or trying to use the Force, given your inability to tell fact from fiction.

Are you saying the passengers and the flight crew had no way of contacting the authorities?

No. Where did I say that? What's it got to do with this?

So, this guy was an expert airplane pilot (who could not keep a Cesna in the air), but he did not know how to use the airplane's intercom? Yep, sounds about right.

Where's the intercom switch a in a Cesna (sic)? Is it in the same place as the one on a large passenger aircraft?

And your implication that a man who had qualified for a commercial pilots license couldn't fly a plane is pretty strange.

Where did you see that I asked why didn't the controller act decisively? If you want to shove words in people's mouths, you may want to stick to doing that with the morons who believe the 9/11 fairy tale.

As I wrote subsequently, I don't know what you're saying. I'm having to work it out from a mess of half-truths, distortions and implications. I invite you to make your point. Perhaps you can manage something more substantive than "this looks odd... anyone who don't think it's odd is stoopid."

Yeah...sure...my analysis is so trivial that you're sitting here wasting your valuable time responding to it? Or just maybe, your time isn't that valuable, which would then make your actions and your opinions quite understandable.

The value of my time is neither here nor there, and has nothing to do with your arguments, other than as an ad hominem deflection from their weakness.

Originally posted by PersonalChoice

I agree , just wanted to mention f175 also received warning via Atta himself. F93, as you said, had a full and complete warning of what was happening and how it would occur (through cockpit intrusion). Moments after asking for a confirmation of the last message that was sent to them via ACARS, the one telling them to beware of cockpit intrusion, the hijack took place.

Yes, and I agree that it´s really only a coincidence, but only because the hijackings had been planed to take place within short times from one another.
And you know what?? I´d like to add, that IMHO, the pilots receiving those messages were not thinking they might be in any danger, they were probably thinking "UFFF, we are the lucky ones not being attacked". I really think this would be their state of mind, just seconds before the hijacking. Wrong, and sad, of course, but something like that had never happened before, so NOBODY was ready for it.