CBC documentary shows 2nd hit approach - boeing dive

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What death defying maneuvers? Every maneuver made was well within the performance envelope of the plane. I've seen many videos of Flight 175 hitting, and I really didn't see anything in the flight that seemed odd or risky to the plane except for hitting the building.

In the exact parts of the towers to take the whole buildings down? Luck?

Flight 77's zig zag and very low approach? It all seems too complicated for apparent crap pilots,who were obviously mad aswell.

What zig zag? I haven't seen any zig zag in the videos. I saw them turning and lining up with one descending turn. And just about ANYWHERE they hit the towers would have brought them down. It's not like there are sections of the towers that are marked as "Don't hit here! It'll cause a collapse!"

Originally posted by Kilgour
Flight 77's zig zag and very low approach? It all seems too complicated for apparent crap pilots,who were obviously mad aswell.

I've yet to observe any such zigzag. Actually, from what I've seen, if they hadn't made the sudden last second "adjustment" the plane would have either missed entirely or would have caught the corner of the building with only one side/wing, sending it "cartwheeling" into downtown Manhattan.

Regardless of who was "piloting" that plane, I'd have to imagine there were quite a few thoughts or mentions of "Aw Shyte" taking place just before impact, even if that included some Allahu Akbars as well.




 

Originally posted by Kilgour
I cant understand why the terrorists went through all these death defying manouvers to crash into these building.........
Horrible to ponder but why not just crash in the middle of Times square?

I understand what you are saying. Why plow into the top of buildings when you could dive towards all the firetrucks and police cars at the bottom of the towers? Why risk clipping the building when you can definatly hit the ground?
Seems odd odd as well that there arent dozens if not hundreds of videos of the second plane impacting. How many do we have? 3? 4? From a city the size of New York, with their tallest building on fire from a terrorist attack, and only 3 or 4 cameras are focused on the towers?

The towers falling seem too much like an icing on the cake,too conveniant.

I agree. Plus an easy way to destroy evidence.

The Pentagon crash,a sympathy vote by the polititians,"hey,we're at risk tooo

"

More to the pentagon than just that, but yes you are correct.

And flight 93,an action film.

All it needed was a catch phrase, like 'GERONIMO!, or Yippee Ki-Yay or Lets Roll!.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
WHAT bad airport security?

Setting off walkthrough metal detectors (WTMDs) was NOT a reason to stop a passenger from boarding a plane. If we kept everyone who set off a WTMD from boarding a plane then flights would be amazingly empty.

Ticket agents checking names against no fly lists is not part of airport security. That was a separate check.

So you admit some of that some of the highjackers set off alarms and were on no fly lists, yet say airport security was good?

I'm asking you how them setting off the WTMD shows bad security. I was a screener and knew VERY well how things work in the checkpoint. What you and others are saying is that setting off the WTMD shows that we had bad security that day. That's so wrong it's not even funny. I've also heard that setting off the WTMD and letting them board shows we had bad security. The fact is that NOTHING they did that day going through the checkpoint would have kept them from boarding the plane. The security checkpoint had NOTHING to do with preventing 9/11. They had NO weapons that should have stopped them from boarding the plane.

Accidental double post.

[edit on 11-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They had NO weapons that should have stopped them from boarding the plane.

Yes, Just another aspect of the official story that doesn't add up.

If they had no weapons that prevented them from boarding the planes, they had no weapons to take over the planes... (logically).

Uh that's also so wrong it's laughable, it's also NOT logical. There was a HUGE list of things that could be carried onto a plane that could be used as weapons. Knives less than 4 inches in length, baseball bats, golf clubs, scissors, razor blades, etc. Just because it doesn't SAY "weapon" on it, doesn't mean that you can't use it for a weapon. According to that statement, then logically you couldn't use any of those things for weapons, because they're NOT weapons.

[edit on 6/11/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Uh that's also so wrong it's laughable, it's also NOT logical. There was a HUGE list of things that could be carried onto a plane that could be used as weapons. Knives less than 4 inches in length, baseball bats, golf clubs, scissors, razor blades, etc. Just because it doesn't SAY "weapon" on it, doesn't mean that you can't use it for a weapon. According to that statement, then logically you couldn't use any of those things for weapons, because they're NOT weapons.

[edit on 6/11/2007 by Zaphod58]

What is laughable is how you twisted my words into something that I did not even intend.

Look at it this way, If all they had were handy tools for weapons then it's hard to believe that a whole crew of passengers didn't rebel and ganged on them because they were afraid of some weapons not powerful enough to be prevented from being carried on planes....

So yes, I stand by the logical argument that if the weapons were not considered unacceptable to be carried on the planes, they were not gonna be able to take hostage the passengers and the crew members to just surrender the planes to their deaths.



[edit on 11-6-2007 by selfless]

How did I twist it? You SAID since they had no weapons that couldn't be carried on a plane, they had no weapons.

If they had no weapons that prevented them from boarding the planes, they had no weapons to take over the planes... (logically).

A knife with a 4 inch blade is going to stop most people in their tracks.

As for ganging up on them, that's not how crews were trained before 9/11. The training was to keep passengers calm, and give hijackers whatever they wanted, because they were going to land somewhere and make demands. Then they could let authorities negotiate their release, or storm the plane and free them. A hijacked plane had NEVER been deliberately crashed into something, and used as a weapon prior to 9/11. And those crews had no way of knowing there were other hijackings going on. They probably thought they were the only plane, and they were going to go back to the airport and wait until someone got them released.

[edit on 6/11/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How did I twist it? You SAID since they had no weapons that couldn't be carried on a plane, they had no weapons.

Again you didn't quite understand what I wrote.

Here let me quote it again.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they had no weapons that prevented them from boarding the planes, they had no weapons to take over the planes... (logically).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice that I'm talking about the weapons they didn't have that DIDN'T PREVENT THEM from boarding the planes. I'm talking about things that would actually be efficient in that situation like guns for example.

This means that the weapons they carried were considered not harmful enough to be banned from planes because they were allowed on the planes.

This means that it's laughable that they were able to take over the controls of a plane with handy tools as weapons.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

A knife with a 4 inch blade is going to stop most people in their tracks.

A 4 inch knife blade can be stopped by bare hands...

Between a 4 inch knife blade and a crew of multiple persons, I'm gonna put my money on the mob of people.

How is a 4 inch blade on a knife, or a baseball bat, or something like that "not an efficient weapon" in that situation? They would be BETTER to use on a plane than a gun. You don't risk depressurizing the plane with them. But whatever they used, the crews would have kept the passengers quiet for the hijackers, because that's what they were trained to do. All you have to do is show that you have some kind of weapon and threaten someone's life, and the crew was going to do everything they could to keep you and the passengers calm.

As for the things you could take on not being good weapons, you REALLY don't know the FAA. Those make great close quarter weapons, but since the FAA thought that it would somehow inconvenience someone by having to pack their swiss army knife in their check in luggage, and most states had a 4" legal limit for blades, they allowed them to go on the plane at less than 4 inches. I worked closely with them for years, and I STILL don't understand most of their decisions on things that could go on the plane.

You can put your money on the mob, but you either didn't read or understand the bit about crew training.

Prior to 9/11 crews were trained to give whatever the hijackers demanded to them. They were trained to keep passengers in their seats, and calm, and to get the plane on the ground as soon as possible. Then they would keep everyone calm until either they were released through negotiations, or from the plane being stormed.

[edit on 6/11/2007 by Zaphod58]

selfless,

Hindsight is virtually Always 20/20.

What I would have done, could have done, should have done. (?) Were you there?

As Zaphod mentions, things were quite different prior to the happenings on 9-11. People were more relaxed, as were the means by which airline passengers were screened. Passenger scanning procedures were much more Compliance oriented ... in practice.

Since? Well, that's an entirely different ballgame in and of itself ... another thread altogether.


 

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How is a 4 inch blade on a knife, or a baseball bat, or something like that "not an efficient weapon" in that situation?

Because... imagine a person bringing out a pocket knife in a plane where there are people all around. You think that they will just give all the power and control to the person with a knife?

If I were to pull out a knife in the middle of a mob of people, I'm not gonna be feared much... If I had a gun on the other hand, most people would all get on the floor and do as I say.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They would be BETTER to use on a plane than a gun. You don't risk depressurizing the plane with them.

Well the goal here is not to fire the weapon but to obtain control of the plane.

The gun would be a better choice to achieve that task then a handy tool.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
But whatever they used, the crews would have kept the passengers quiet for the hijackers, because that's what they were trained to do. All you have to do is show that you have some kind of weapon and threaten someone's life, and the crew was going to do everything they could to keep you and the passengers calm.

I dunno about you but a knife don't really scare me and I doubt that it would scare anyone in a situation where there are people all around you that is there to back you up.

Even in a alley alone and someone pulls out a knife on me, I'm not gonna just do what he tells me to do. I will either fight off the knife or get away from him.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I worked closely with them for years, and I STILL don't understand most of their decisions on things that could go on the plane.

I agree with you here, letting them carry knifes on planes is not a smart decision.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Prior to 9/11 crews were trained to give whatever the hijackers demanded to them. They were trained to keep passengers in their seats, and calm, and to get the plane on the ground as soon as possible. Then they would keep everyone calm until either they were released through negotiations, or from the plane being stormed.

So this means that before 911 I could have boarded a plane and then pull out a knife and take control of the whole thing and steal my self a big ol plane Ehhhh ahhhhh

:0

So you're telling me that if a guy stands up, and grabs someone by the neck and holds a knife to their throat, you're going to get a mob of people and rush them? Boy I sure hope that I'm not that person being held. You seem to be under the impression that they're going to just stand up and hold their knife out and yell "WE HAVE CONTROL OF THIS PLANE!" They're going to do just like they did on 9/11. Once they show they're serious about it then the flight crew is going to stop other passengers from doing anything, and they're going to give them what they want. ESPECIALLY if they're holding someone by the throat with a knife pressed against their neck.

I've said it three times now, and I'll keep saying it until you get it.

FLIGHT CREWS WERE TRAINED TO GIVE IN TO HIJACKERS SO NO ONE GOT HURT, AND NOTHING HAPPENED TO THE PLANE. IT DIDN'T MATTER IF THEY HAD A KNIFE, A GUN, OR A BAT.

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c

What I would have done, could have done, should have done. (?) Were you there?

Nah, I was not there but that won't stop me from having an opinion on the issue.

I just find it hard to believe that it would have been that easy to take control of a plane, that's all.

But of course, people have the right to believe that if they choose.

If you're responsible for lives selfless you will think totally differently. Those flight crews were ultimately responsible for everyone on that plane. Be it 5 passengers, or 400. They're NOT going to "form a mob and rush the guy with the knife". Not only because they were trained to keep things calm, but because you almost NEVER saw a hijacking by just one person. They usually happened with teams of hijackers.