How Were the Cockpits Taken ? Examining the Logistics

Originally posted by wsamplet
That said, do you not believe that the accounts of radio transmissions from 2 flights took place.

We do not have any actual evidence of any calls or signals being sent, just theories. Too bad some of the ATC tapes were destroyed.

Now Pilots have procedures to follow, a normal hijacking they would go along with what the hijacker wanted. BUT under no cirumstances do they give up control of the aircraft. Also, i do not see a Vietnam vet being afraid of 2 guys with boxcutters, i believe he would have fought back, that would have given the other pilot time to call or signal for help.

Let me explain something from my experience as being a federal police officer and standing post at a paremeter site. If i was attacked i would of course fight back, but i would also be fighting to get to the emergeny button on the post to let the comm center know something is going on and to warn the other officers.

Something the pilots would also be thinking about.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Your Base analogy is comparing apples and oranges. In your analogy I too would try to defend my self for the purpose of alerting others, which also might result in others arriving to help. In this case you are isolated at altitude and it's mano y mano. So what we have is a difference in our decision making.

If you have a back ground in aviation you must also know that responses are not instant like a telephone. the cockpit is very small, just a few seconds and your attackers have closed the gap. not alot of time to change transponder raise tower, and get out of your seat for hand to hand combat. I would deal with the confrontation first.

May be we need a copy of the procedure manuels. 2 years of research you must have obtained one by now. this would tell us if procedure was to call tower before any other action.

Originally posted by wsamplet
[Your Base analogy is comparing apples and oranges. In your analogy I too would try to defend my self for the purpose of alerting others, which also might result in others arriving to help. In this case you are isolated at altitude and it's mano y mano. So what we have is a difference in our decision making.

If you have a back ground in aviation you must also know that responses are not instant like a telephone. the cockpit is very small, just a few seconds and your attackers have closed the gap. not alot of time to change transponder raise tower, and get out of your seat for hand to hand combat. I would deal with the confrontation first.

May be we need a copy of the procedure manuels. 2 years of research you must have obtained one by now. this would tell us if procedure was to call tower before any other action.

1. Well thats why in my analogy i stated i was on a paremeter post where i was alone and not expecting to get help.

2. Yes the cockpit is small. That aslo works for the pilots. 1 pilot could keep the 2 hijackers at bay.

3. Yes i have most of the FAA and NORAD regulations on hijackings, i have the ones before 9/11 because they changed after 9/11.

[edit on 11-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

ULTIMA1

You keep saying two seconds to change the transponder. I asked John Lear about this earlier and here is what he said.



My question to John Lear.
2. When you say two seconds, is that under ideal conditions?


His answer to my question.
2 to 4 seconds assuming you aren't grappling with a hijacker.

He doesn't even agree with you about the transponders taking two seconds to change.

originally posted by Ultima 1
We do not have any actual evidence of any calls or signals being sent, just theories. Too bad some of the ATC tapes were destroyed.

I've already posted a link to the flight 93 CVR transcripts that the families got to hear. Do you believe they are fake?

Now Pilots have procedures to follow, a normal hijacking they would go along with what the hijacker wanted. BUT under no cirumstances do they give up control of the aircraft.

This was no normal hijacking. Why do you keep saying they gave up control of the aircraft. It's hard to give something away when you're dead. Remember the transcripts from flight 93? The pilot begging for his life and the sounds of someone being stabbed?

Procedures aren't going to mean squat in the heat of the battle. Remember FedEx 705? The hijacker stormed the cockpit and bashed everybody's skull in with a hammer and then two crew members forced him out of the cockpit and then he came back in before the pilot radioed anyone. How about Ethiopian Airlines flight 961? Where three hijackers stormed the cockpit and beat the tar out of the copilot for 15 minutes before he left the cockpit and the pilot still did not send any messages to ATC.

What makes you think that the hijackers would allow either pilot to send a message to ATC or change the transponder?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Why are you so sure that one pilot can hold off 2 hijackers. And why do you keep saying 2. Have you uncovered evidence that contradicts the 19 hijackers story? I thought there were at least 4 hijackers on each plane. If I may ask one more question, what good in your opinion would it do to radio ATC?

Originally posted by Boone 870
ULTIMA1

You keep saying two seconds to change the transponder. I asked John Lear about this earlier and here is what he said.

I've already posted a link to the flight 93 CVR transcripts that the families got to hear. Do you believe they are fake?

This was no normal hijacking. Why do you keep saying they gave up control of the aircraft. It's hard to give something away when you're dead. Remember the transcripts from flight 93? The pilot begging for his life and the sounds of someone being stabbed?

Procedures aren't going to mean squat in the heat of the battle. Remember FedEx 705? The hijacker stormed the cockpit and bashed everybody's skull in with a hammer and then two crew members forced him out of the cockpit and then he came back in before the pilot radioed anyone.

1. Flight 93 had prior warnings, they were alert, as soon as someone came into the cockpit it would have taken them 2 seconds to change the code before facing the hijackers.

2. But the ATC managers destroyed some of the tapes.

3. I said in a normal hijacking, i did not say 9/11 was a normal hijacking.

I still have not seen any transcripts that stated anyone hearing anyone being stabbed or begging ofr his life. Can you please show it.

4. Yes thier were 4 to 5 hijackers per plane BUT ONLY 2 went into the cockpit, the rest were to keep the passengers in the back of the planes by spraying mace or peeper spray (according to the official story from the phone calls)


5. In FED EX 705 the pilots were attacked from hehind and severely injured and still fought off the hijacker.

The pilot did some extreme maneuvers to keep the hijacker out of the cockpit (we did not see this with any of the 9/11 planes) And as soon as the hijacker was out of the cockpit the pilot called in an emergency.

Flight 93 could have done something to keep the hijackers out since they were warned, as soon as the hijackers started to come into the cockpit the pilot could have done some maneuvers to keep them out.



[edit on 12-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

For the life of me, this theory of "remote taking" makes little sense. I'm no 9/11 guru, but I'll take a stab at this.

You are basing your claim that out of four aircraft, one or all four should have gotten off an emergency call. Honestly, that is incorrect. You see, you can eliminate three aircraft easily. There was the first one that hit the towers (Flight 11) at 8:46 a.m. Since it is assumed to be the first aircraft taken, they wouldn't be warned of anything, so there is really no reason for the aircrew to be alerted and taking extra precautions. (I'll present some take over scenarios later in this post)

Then, we have the second (Flight 175) crashing at 9:02 a.m. We know the second aircraft had been taken before the first crashed, so again, there was no warning sent to it before it was compromised. That makes four people that were not alerted to any issue and had not been given any kind of intruder warning. Remember, the first warning was sent at 9:24 a.m.

Next is Flight 77. According to the time line, it veered off course at 8:46 a.m. Last radio communication at 8:50 a.m. Transponder shut off at 8:56 a.m. So, again, we have an aircraft taken over before the warning was sent. Again, nothing to cause the aircrew to be on alert for anything unusual.

Finally, Flight 93. This is the only aircraft that could have received a warning in time. ATC's claim that 93 was hijacked at 9:27 a.m., which is about the same time the aircraft changed course. The transponder was turned off at 9:30 a.m. Again, the warning was sent at 9:24 a.m. with a pilot asking for confirmation at 9:26 a.m. I can imagine the pilots taking a moment to look at each other and ask things like "Did you just hear that?" "What the heck is going on?". From the sounds of it, they got the warning, but were amazed or confused so asked for the confirmation. Also, interesting enough, according to NORAD's 9/18 time line, the FAA notified NORAD that Flight 93 may have been hijacked at 9:16 a.m. So was ATC talking to a pilot or a hijacker?

So, lets take a look at what could have happened to take over these aircraft. Just like you, we have to make assumptions here. We can assume that the terrorists spent a considerable amount of time training for this and not only would they have made themselves familiar with the controls, but also hijacking procedures. Knowing how the pilots should respond lets the hijackers plan ahead to prevent the pilots from making a call for help or entering codes.

Now, would a hijacker want to come crashing into the cockpit like a bull moose, or do something that would not alert the pilots until they could prevent them from making a move? Honestly, the hijacker really doesn't want to spend time kicking in a door unless they have to. This alerts everyone within earshot that something is going on and someone may come running to check it out or play hero. They don't want to mess with that. They want to take over the plane with as little effort and as quickly as possible. So they want to get that door opened quietly and with the least amount of suspicion. They know a flight attendant will have a key to open that door. So they approach one and take it, or put the person under duress to open the door. Again, they will be relying on how that person is trained to respond to a hijacking and that is probably to cooperate so the pro's on the ground can deal with it instead of a battle in the air.

So now they can enter the cockpit easily. The pilots should be sitting with their backs to them, concentrating on flying. I doubt they are not going to be dumb enough to assume that this is going to go smoothly. While the pilots won't be alert to problem, someone is going to turn their head to see who is coming in, but that's to the hijacker's advantage as well.

(continued)

The pilot will be thinking it's an attendant, not a hijacker coming in (remember, three planes were taken before any warning was ever sent). When presented with something out of the ordinary, it's human nature to pause for a moment. With that small space, all a hijacker needs is a second to close the distance and take control. He's only going a few feet. (here is where the argument about the seats and bodies will works ot the hijacker's advantage). Just as it will take some effort to get a body out of those seats, it takes a effort for a person to get out of them. They have to slide back and move to the side. From the picture posted by boone870, you can see these aren't like jumping out of your recliner. Again, as a hijacker, this works to their advantage. In that span of time, they can get a boxcutter to your throat and tell you not to move, not to key the mike, and even rip that headset off to prevent you from talking to ATC. To make it even simpler, they may not bother with the boxcutter at all. There are plenty of things they can use as a club. A good smack on the head will prevent you from doing any of that as well. They don't need to knock you out, just stun you long enough to gain control. You aren't going to be doing much as you admire the stars circling your head. While you are dazed, they can subdue your hands and get you out of those seats.

Honestly, an attack like this could only take a few seconds. If you still have doubts, take a look at some of the police or military training videos. When they are raiding a house, they are doing it quickly and with the least amount of effort possible. Also notice all the yelling when they get through the door. They don't yell because they are trying out for "American Idol". They are trying to create fear and confusion. As people are wondering what is going on, they will struggle less.

I'm sure for you guys claiming that "remote taking" is the only way, that still isn't enough. So again, let's rely on what a normal human reaction is going to be. When someone is attacking you, are you going to think about keying a mike and setting a transponder code, or are you going to grabbing at the arms that are wrapping around your throat? If someone is essentially in your face attacking you, you will defend yourself before hitting a button or turning a knob.

So, really, it's not that hard to believe that no one got a distress call off or set a code. None of these pilots were an action hero that we see in the movies. These were ordinary people faced with an extraordinary situation. None were really trained to face this kind of a situation. They were trained for what we would consider a normal hijacking. I'm sure each man did the best they could with the extremely little time they had to react, but they were not at any kind of advantage. None had the chance to prepare a defense. There was no time for one pilot to position himself and fight off the attackers while the other pilot sent a distress call. They were men fighting for their lives and their aircraft.

reply to post by sheetrockerr


Good post. Thank you. There is so much nonsense around here it is interesting to sometimes read someone with an actual structured and well tought-of post.

We do not have any actual evidence of any calls or signals being sent, just theories. Too bad some of the ATC tapes were destroyed.

We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you'll be OK. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move. Everything will be ok. If you try to make any moves you'll endanger yourself and the airplanes. Just stay quiet.

From Flight 11

Hey get out of here... It's the captain. Please sit down. Keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board.,

Flight 93

Those are the transmissions received verbatim.

Debate the authenticity all you want but those were recorded flight towers not the planes.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Those are the transmissions received verbatim.

Debate the authenticity all you want but those were recorded flight towers not the planes.

Well for 1 if you were following the thread i was talking about no calls or signals from the pilots to ATC that they were in trouble.

Isn't it funny how the hijackers knew how to work the transponder and the autopilot but did not know how to work the radio.

Also its funny how the pilots did not roll the plane to knock the hijackers off their feet to keep them out of the cockpits. But the hijackers knew to rol the plane to knock the passeengers off their feet who were trying to gain access to the cockpit.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
um...Highly trained in what? Sitting in an arm chair for six hours?


Plus, prior to Septeber 11, 2001, it might not have been plicy to hand over your Boeing, but how many jetliner hijackings had ended in ALL of the hostages dying?

You really need to do some research so you know a little more about what you are talking about.

1. Pilots are highly trained professionals.

2. Pilots are responsable for the people on their planes, they are not just going to hand it over without a fight, speically to 2 guys with boxcutters.

Again I ask you, highly trained in what? I am a highly trained professional who spent four years at university, but that is of no use in defending myself against a razor-wielding zealot.

And when it comes to research, you obviously didn't bother clicking on that link, did you?

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by deltaboy

Hitting a 208 foot wide building dead center with a 156 foot wide airplane?

No. That would be realistically impossible.

Twice?

Probably because nobody like you has ever tried something like it before.

I don't get this part of your answer. Lear said "realistically impossible".
Are you saying these "terrorists" were as well trained as John Lear at piloting an aircraft?

I'd suggest that with John Lear's claim to be the most-certified pilot in America these terrorists were probably better-trained in flying their particular aircraft than he is, given the time and expense needed to get "hours" for certification and their choice to learn only how to "fly" a particular aircraft, not "take-off", "land" etc meaning they had far less to learn. I also wonder how many of his certifications are current.

Just because you had a Heavy Articulated truck licence 20 years ago doesn't mean the government will let you drive one today, not without re-testing.

Meaning, while I don't automatically question John Lear's right to give advice on aviation questions, I am forced to question how up-to-date his knowledge on specifics is. I am not a pilot, and therefore cannot talk about systems, cockpit instrument layouts etc or the FAA and its requirements, on these issues, I have to accept John's words on these issues. However, an old saying keeps colouring my judgement; "Jack of all trades, master of none."

They used to say the four-minute mile couldn't be broken.
They used to say the sound barrier couldn't be broken.
It took Tony Hawk ten years to land a 900 (okay, that's a bad example:lol
Many things are considered impossible until they are attempted.
Robbie Kneivel earns a living by getting "impossible" things (like jumping from building to building or across large ditches) right the first time.

As my radio lecturer used to tell us:

The five (six) Ps: Proper Preparation Prevents (pi$$)Poor Performance.

Who was prepared to assault the cockpit and gain control of the plane?

Who was prepared for an early-morning flight across the country with lunch in another timezone as the reward?

Pilots are always on edge while hauling human cargo..they ramp up on the way to the airport, and like ATC's, they often have ulcers and stomach problems from the worry and constant responsibility that goes with the job. Professional airline pilots are highly trained and while in the air are LIKELY to be at top operating efficiency, not only as professionals but so as to uphold the highest standards amongst each other: No pilot wants to screw up in front of another pilot and there is no doubt a ' pecking order ' among senior pilots for choice schedules and routes,etc.

In any event, to think that a couple of lightly armed Saudi's could : Breach FOUR cockpit doors before a mike could be keyed; then kill or disable both pilots ( times FOUR ) before the mike could be keyed; then haul both sets of bodies out of a cramped area , an area that would be almost impossible for more than twop people to occupy, especially considering the fact that if pilots were being slashed at, they would by nature place their hands in front of them , which would have given them
than enough time to press the button on the yoke and holler a mayday.

THEN, after somehow hauling the bodies of the EIGHT pilots ( less any sittting in the back waiting for advice from Barbara Olson!!) they then occupied the controls, no doubt covered in blood and or reeking from the Mace or gas that is ' reported ' by unnmaed sources now and then but never proven. Only boxcutters were officially claimed. Rumors and guesses account for the rest of the excuse box the official story believers have left to claim as proof. THEN, the ' highjackers ' must have performed superhuman flying feats to plot a course perfectly to their destinations and hit all the buildings that were intended.

We are asked to believe that all of the above scenario occurred so lightning fast in all FOUR cases that not ONE pilot was able to give a clear alert: We are given instead reports and transscripts from God knows what original source, alleging that there was in ONE case some conversation overheard by mistake, when the ' highjackers ' keyed the mike and not the passenger announcement system. We should have FOUR recordings of all four planes yelling about cockpit intrusions and there should be FOUR sets of tapes in whichg we hear the sounds of struggle and slashing and yelling .

The guy who is actually flying the plane while the other pilot grabs the ax and tries to fend them off would NO DOUBT have simply pressed the button on the yoke and sent the alert: Why not? His hands are ON THE YOKE already and so pressing the button would be a natural instinct given the fact that there was great reason to do so and the complete availability of the button to the hand of the pilot makes it a no brainer: The ONLY reason for NOT getting four recordings of all four planes is the fact that they were cut off instantly: Instant means remote. There is NO other way to interpret that evidence, now is there? INSTANT means remote.

Otherwise we have to believe that in all FOUR seperate cases, the two ' highjackers ' assigned to the chore of taking and flying while the others intimidated and slashed their way into dominance with small blades and threats..that in all FOUR cases, the men assigned to those tasks were able to perform them with such rapidity that they rendered all EIGHT pilots unable to press the button on the yoke. How could they have entered the cockpits FOUR times with such precision and INSTANT results that ALL of the pilots were unable to press the button? Explain that please.

I cannot think of any rational or LIKELY manner in which that could happen. The odds are astronomical at least. There should be FOUR tapes with at least partial elements of what happened on each, yet that is NOT what we see. We see instead wrongly keyed mikes and almost inaudible snatches of possible events in ONE case..ONE case out of four. Those are not odds one can accept without a lot more probability than that. And considering the hundreds of OTHER ' inexplicable anomalies ' associated with this event , the odds are that remote taking is the true answer. That explains the events seen perfectly, does it not?

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I'd suggest that with John Lear's claim to be the most-certified pilot in America these terrorists were probably better-trained in flying their particular aircraft than he is, given the time and expense needed to get "hours" for certification and their choice to learn only how to "fly" a particular aircraft, not "take-off", "land" etc meaning they had far less to learn. I also wonder how many of his certifications are current.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard posted on this forum. So their private pilots licence (if they had one - not all did), and a few video's and hours in a simulator make them better trained in flying than John?

Seriously, you may not agree with what he says, or like him, for whatever reasons, but comments like that have zero logic and are unfounded. You even explain how you are wrong by pointing out these terrorists only chose to learn "flying", while John on the other hand has an immense amount of practical experience in almost every aspect of aviation.

I see reference to only one terrorist Ziad Jarrah, even getting close to anything resembling training flying jets (note lack of source).

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Just because you had a Heavy Articulated truck licence 20 years ago doesn't mean the government will let you drive one today, not without re-testing.

Correct, but it also means that the truck driver has immense experience outweighing anybody who may be physically fit to carry out the task. Hence the reason most "teachers" of a given subject have numbered years of experience in the said field.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Again I ask you, highly trained in what? I am a highly trained professional who spent four years at university, but that is of no use in defending myself against a razor-wielding zealot.

Highly trained in carrying a 80 tonne plane that travels at ~500mph loaded with ~200 civilians, armed with a lot of highly explosive fuel. Whatever you learnt at university may or may not help in this situation, but compared to a professional commercial jet pilot, it's obvious most university graduates would be lacking.

There is a lot more on the route to flying commercial jets than a 4 year university course.

Did they have razors as well now? Any source for that? Everybody's still waiting for proof there was even a boxcutter, seeing as how the passport magically survived the impact and hit the streets of Manhatten, but the boxcutters didnt.

originally posted by adjay
That is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard posted on this forum. So their private pilots licence (if they had one - not all did), and a few video's and hours in a simulator make them better trained in flying than John?

They had more than private pilot's license. Here is a link to the Zacharias Moussaoui trial exhibits. (PDF). Documents are numbered PX00021 and PX00021.1.

We know that Hani Hanjour had approximately 600 hours of total time. The photocopies are of his logbook from a company that gives flight instruction in simulators. The copies of his logbook were taken when he had 255 hours of flight time. He had a commercial license and he had logged 74 hours of IFR time along with almost 25 hours of twin-engine turbine time.

That leaves him with another 350 hours of training to learn how to fly an aircraft into the Pentagon.

originally posted by adjay
Seriously, you may not agree with what he says, or like him, for whatever reasons, but comments like that have zero logic and are unfounded. You even explain how you are wrong by pointing out these terrorists only chose to learn "flying", while John on the other hand has an immense amount of practical experience in almost every aspect of aviation.

I don't believe that there is anything wrong with questioning John Lear. If you look back through this thread, I pointed out a few things that he was wrong about and that he admitted. More importantly, it's the things that he doesn't say that makes me want to question him. The alleged hijack switch that everyone was talking about. He knew better yet he allowed people to keep posting about it without correcting them.

originally posted by adjay
Did they have razors as well now? Any source for that? Everybody's still waiting for proof there was even a boxcutter, seeing as how the passport magically survived the impact and hit the streets of Manhatten, but the boxcutters didnt.

What about the reports and phone calls from the aircraft? The reports say things like knives, stabbed, and knifed.

There are pictures of box cutters from the Zacharias Moussaoui trial. I will try to find a link for you.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Again I ask you, highly trained in what? I am a highly trained professional who spent four years at university, but that is of no use in defending myself against a razor-wielding zealot.

Pilots train all the tine in emergency situataions and how to react. So i am still waiting to hear a good explaination as to how they were surprised and or scared so much they could not get off a call or signal.

Would you really be that scaed of a guy with boxcutter you would not protect yourself or the passengers if you wer the pilot?

I am trying to understand the logic that a boxcutter is not a lethal weapon. Granted it is not a sword but one good slash will leave your filletted to the bone. I contend that in the real world one good slash from an inch and a half razor blade would leave most bleeding to death and crying like a baby.

You are still discounting the fact that most peoples initial reaction to something startling is confusion and to freeze up, followed up by the flight response. Very few people are instantly and without hesitation aggressive. Human nature is enough for me to believe that the pilots on the WTC planes and the Pentagon plane could be subdued rather quickly. These pilots expected a normal day, not a cockpit intrusion by slashing jihadists.

Flight 93 is another matter, and they did get a radio transmission off.