How Were the Cockpits Taken ? Examining the Logistics

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Because the hijackers didn't want them to.

Nope. The families never disagreed that it was the voice of their loved ones.

Originally posted by Boone 870

Because the hijackers didn't want them to.

Nope. The families never disagreed that it was the voice of their loved ones.

Oh, so they just yelled through the cockpit door to tell them not to make a call?

So you do not have any evidence, just an opinion?

Oh, so they just yelled through the cockpit door to tell them not to make a call?

So you do not have any evidence, just an opinion?

Yeap. Probably from their seats.

Evidence that stood up in trial.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Yeap. Probably from their seats.

Evidence that stood up in trial.

So you would agree then its unlikely the hijackers could have stopped the pilots from making a call within 2-4 seconds?

Stood up in what trial?,, you mean that sham of a show trial. Do you think any lawyer was going to dispute anything, he was guilty before the trial starterd and you know it, just another scape goat.

So tell me when and where did the families get to listen to the cockpit tapes from the pilots?

originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you would agree then its unlikely the hijackers could have stopped the pilots from making a call within 2-4 seconds?

No I wouldn't agree. I thought we were talking about the transponders. Even if we were talking about the pilots being able to key the mic, what makes you think they had two to four seconds?

Stood up in what trial?,, you mean that sham of a show trial. Do you think any lawyer was going to dispute anything, he was guilty before the trial starterd and you know it, just another scape goat.

The Zacharias Moussaoui trial. That is correct, that dog and pony show. He was his own attorney for quite some time. I guess he should have fired himself for not representing himself appropriately.

So tell me when and where did the families get to listen to the cockpit tapes from the pilots?

April 18, 2002 Princeton, New Jersey

washingtonpost.com

Originally posted by Boone 870
No I wouldn't agree. I thought we were talking about the transponders. Even if we were talking about the pilots being able to key the mic, what makes you think they had two to four seconds?

We are talking about the hijackers stopping the pilots from making a call or signal within 2-4 seconds.

So are you stating that the hijackers got into the cockpits within 2-4 seconds?

Originally posted by eyewitness86
Amazing, simply amazing. I guess we just have totally different ideas as to what constitutes logic. That is the only thing that can explain the continued refusal to see the obvious.

Just because something is POSSIBLE, does not mean that it is LIKELY. Got that?

Yes, I have. I've had it for some time. Now try using that particular piece of received wisdom on your assertion that the pilots would have fought back with axes...

OK. I am not going to go point by point and refute all that nonsense,

Too much thought involved?

because you are seemingly on a different plane of logic than me.

I thought that was pretty obvious.

Soi, I will just say that because on 10 occasions in history drunks and crazies have invaded cockpiots, does NOT mean that they had a 100% sucess rate!!

No, it doesn't, there were actually 16 attempts in the article. Which fact you would know if you had bothered to follow Boone's link. What it does prove is how EASY it was tobreach the cockpit door.

My God..what illogic!! How many attempts were stopped before they got into a cockpit? That would level the logic field a bit, yes?

No. It wouldn't level anything. The point here is to show you how something could be done, not how it definitively was done.

And to imagine FOUR almost simultaneous highjackings, all without anything but small and crude weapons at BEST is beyond logical.

Why? Why don't you look up the operations of the Baader-Meinhoff/Red Army Faction? They had no problem carrying out simultaneous terrorist actions. As I have now said twice, the PFLP hijacked four jets concurrently once before.

The FACT that none of the EIGHT pilots was able to even key the mike button is a fact that you would rather ignore because all you can come up with as a very flimsy excuse is the sad old " They were so fast and had knives' nonsense.

And yet you consistently fail to prove the radio chatter did not come from Flt 93.

That does NOT do for an explanation, not at all.

As I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, that is not my explanation, that is my hypothesis. Again, get out your OED and start looking up these words.

And to imagine pilots giving in to a highjackers demands just because they were threatening a stewardess or someone else is LUDICROUS!! Silly!!

Do youknow anything about the history of hijacking?

Tell me, no, tell us all, if pilots don't give in to terrorist demands, why did the IDF Paras have to fly to Entebbe? Why were two jets parked in the Jordanian desert and blown up by the PFLP? Why did GSG9 fly to Mogadishu?

Better the crew member get killed than all on board,

Again with this "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" BS. Tell us all Mr Spock, how did the pilots know the hijackers would kill everybody?

and THAT is what is most likley if highjackers invade a cockpit with the intent to take it and fly it.

Still waiting for you to post your FBI behavioural sciences accreditation...

you gave ONE example, in all of aviation hisotry, of a real pilot trying to take a plane. One. Ok, you got me. I was wrong. There was ONE instead of NONE. Big deal..

I'm sure it was to the Japanese crew and passengers.

it still proves my point quite well: It is almost unheard of for a highjacker to want to actually fly the plane..right?

No. It proves my point: that it IS POSSIBLE. Your point was that it is IMPOSSIBLE. It has been heard of. It can happen. It did happen. If it happened once, it can happen five times.

Can we all at least agree on that?

No, because you're busy backpedalling and covering as fast as you can.

So knowing that, pilots would NOT risk ALL the passengers and crews lives by opening up the cockpit,

*WARNING!*WARNING!*Danger, Will Robinson!* Fast shift in argument there. Nobody has said the pilots *opened* up the cockpit. And now, lets go back to our source...

On August 11, 2000, Jonathan Burton broke through the cockpit door...

...a German man broke into the flight deck...

...Peter Bradley broke down the cockpit door...

they would try and land as soon as humanly possible and they would be RADIOING the hell out of the ATC to let them know to get help standing by on the ground.

You assume.

That is LIKELY.

Certainly.

Your logic is far out and UNlikley.

How?

Totally. Your logic says " If there is the slightest chance, no matter how remote, we will consider tha valid evidence and as likely as any other scenario.

Almost there. What I'm saying is "any possibility, no matter how slight, means it's POSSIBLE."

And by so doing you are being intellectually dishonest and are missing the entire point of logic and odds.

I'm sorry, come again?

The ODDS say, overwhelmingly, that the official story is so far from being possible, or likley, that the smartest thing to do is to take everything the Government says with a grain of salt.

The odds say that only if you ignore history.

And to believe that the conditions existed on 9-11 that allowed for the most REMOTE and UNLIKELY events to occur is plain crazy.

And yet, you've never proven them remote or unlikely.

It makes no sense at all to accept odds sky high when the most logical and apparent answers are right there in front of you. The planes were taken REMOTELY, that is the ONLY way to explain all of the MANY anomalies associated with this event. To believe otherwise means accepting a wide range of almost impossible scenarios as fact, and bending critical thinking to it's knees in subjection to an irrational application of the facts.

So, it is plain and clear that the pilots, all professionals and desiring to live and kep their charges safe also, would NOT have given up the controls of the planes to highjackers under ANY circumstances except being killed.

How is it plain and clear. You haven't refuted what I suggest because you can't. You have no proof to back your claims.

And there is NO evidence that there were fights and slashings and blood all over the cockpit.

Seen the crime scene photos, have you? Please post a link.

there are NO proofs of any radio contacts from the FOUR planes,

Except for Boone's, which you dismiss without explanation because it doesn't agree with your statements.

and that alone screams for attention: We SHOULD have FOUR tapes with cockpit sounds to prove the case, should we not? but we do not, because they do not exist.

Yes, I would like to hear the cockpit voice recorders, that would make things much clearer. However, I'm willing to believe that even black boxes would have difficulty surviving a 100+ story building landing on them. These things are not indestructible and often partially fail under "normal" crash stress.

They do not exist because the planes were taken remotely.

That's certainly one explanation. There are many others.

There is no other intelligent application of the known facts that makes any sense at all.

Erm, 100+ story building...anybody?...

Now, for an example of pilots fighting back:

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Field_hijackings

Some background: 1970, the PFLP undertake the biggest hijacking operation of all time, attempting to hijack 4 jets simultaneously.

TWA Flight 741 from Frankfurt am Main, Swissair Flight 100 from Zürich-Kloten Airport, El Al Flight 219 from Amsterdam, two hijackers prevented from joining the El Al flight instead hijacked Pan Am Flight 93 and BOAC Flight 775 from Bahrain.

The only unsuccessful hijacking was the El Al plane.

Posing as a married couple, Argüello and Khaled boarded the plane using Honduran passports — having passed through a security check of their luggage — and were seated in the second row of tourist-class. Once the plane was approaching the British coast, they drew their guns and approached the cockpit, demanding entrance. According to Khaled, in an interview in 2000,

"So half an hour (after take off) we had to move. We stood up. I had my two hand grenades and I showed everybody I was taking the pins out with my teeth. Patrick stood up. We heard shooting just the same minute and when we crossed the first class, people were shouting but I didn't see who was shooting because it was behind us. So Patrick told me 'go forward I protect your back.' So I went and then he found a hostess and she was going to catch me round the legs. So I rushed, reached to the cockpit, it was closed. So I was screaming 'open the door.' Then the hostess came; she said 'she has two hand grenades,' but they did not open (the cockpit door) and suddenly I was threatening to blow up the plane. I was saying 'I will count and if you don't open I will blow up the plane.'"

After being informed by intercom that a hijacking was in progress, Captain Uri Bar Lev decided not to accede to their demands:

"I decided that we were not going to be hijacked. The security guy was sitting here ready to jump. I told him that I was going to put the plane into negative-G mode. Everyone would fall. When you put the plane into negative, it's like being in a falling elevator. Instead of the plane flying this way, it dives and everyone who is standing falls down."

Bar Lev put the plane into a steep nosedive which threw the two hijackers off-balance. Argüello reportedly threw his sole grenade down the airliner aisle, but it failed to explode, and he was hit over the head with a bottle of whiskey by a passenger after he drew his pistol. Arguello shot steward Shlomo Vi

So, pilots have fought back before. And by using exactly the method John Lear suggested. Point taken.

My analysis of this is two-fold. One, this was an El Al flight, which means:

en.wikipedia.org...

El Al security
As a terrorist target for many decades, El Al employs stringent security procedures, both on the ground and on board its aircraft. These effective, though sometimes controversial, procedures have won El Al a reputation for security...

The cockpits in all El Al aircraft have double doors to prevent entry by unauthorized persons. A code is required to access the doors, and the second door will only be opened after the first has closed and the person has been identified by the Captain or First Officer.

...all El Al flight crew members are trained in hand-to-hand combat.

Which, therefore, meant that 1) Bar Lev didn't have terrorists in the cockpit with him who could disrupt pilot operations by, for example, falling on them and 2) Ber Lev knew he had cabin crew who were trained to subdue the terrorists.

However,

My take on this incident is that this incident is the reason pilots have not fought back again by manouvering the plane, because

Argüello reportedly threw his sole grenade down the airliner aisle, but it failed to explode

Lucky break, that one. No doubt the notes of the debrief said something along the lines of "Don't manouvre the plane into a negative G dive if you don't know what weapons the terrorists are carrying."

Had that grenade gone off then Bar Lev would have been guaranteeing the deaths of all the passengers, not saving them.

originally posted by ULTIMA1
So are you stating that the hijackers got into the cockpits within 2-4 seconds?

I'm not stating that as fact, but I'm saying it's a good possibility. Remember that the hijackers took surveillance flights before the hijackings, this would've been their opportunity to learn that cabin crew members had a key on them or to learn the placement of the cabin door key on the aircraft.

Originally posted by Boone 870
I'm not stating that as fact, but I'm saying it's a good possibility.

So basically you are stating an opinion as fact.

So please show me in the following timeline where the pilots made the calls.


www.globalsecurity.org...

At 9:21 United dispatchers are told to advise their flights to secure cockpit doors;

At 9:24 a United dispatcher sends a “Beware of cockpit intrusion . . . Two aircraft in NY hit Trade Center Builds” message to Flight 93. Flight 93 responds to this message at 9:26 , requesting that the dispatcher confirm the latest message;

At approximately 9:30, a United dispatcher reports that we cannot reach Flight 93;

At 9:31 and 9:32, messages from United Air Traffic Control coordinators are sent to Flight 93 stating “ATC looking for you on 133.37.” Flight 93 does not respond;

At 9:33 United dispatch sends a message to Flight 93 stating “High Security Alert. Secure Cockpit.” Flight 93 does not respond;

At 9:35 United San Francisco maintenance desk receives a call from a flight attendant on Flight 93 saying that the flight has been hijacked. This information is quickly relayed to United Chicago Operations Center;

At 9:36 United dispatch sends a message to Flight 93 asking whether dispatch can be of any assistance. Flight 93 does not respond;

At 9:41 United dispatch sends two messages to Flight 93 stating “High security alert. Secure cockpit door, admit no one in to cockpit.” Flight 93 does not respond;

At approximately 9:45 I order the entire United fleet grounded, for the first time in United history. Even before this, some individual dispatchers were already grounding their flights. At about the same time, the FAA and American Airlines make the same decision;

At about 9:45 we receive a report that an aircraft has crashed into the Pentagon. We later learn that was American Flight 77;

At 9:47 a message from United San Francisco Maintenance is sent to Flight 93 stating “Heard of incident, is all normal?.” Flight 93 does not respond;

At 9:50 a message is sent from United dispatch to Flight 93 advising it to land at the nearest airport. Flight 93 does not respond;

At 9:51 two more messages are sent to Flight 93 advising it to land at the nearest airport. Flight 93 does not respond;

We track Flight 93’s flight path on the large operations monitor in the Crisis Center;

Around 10:00, as directed by United’s emergency response plan, the company begins assembling its “go teams” to assist victims’ families and authorities;

At around 10:00 we lose contact with United Flights 641, 415 and 399. Persistent attempts to communicate with those “missing” flights eventually succeed;

At approximately 10:06 United Flight 93 crashes in Pennsylvania, killing all 41 people on board;

Originally posted by Boone 870
I'm not stating that as fact, but I'm saying it's a good possibility.



So basically you are stating an opinion as fact.

By stating that I'm not stating my opinion is a fact, you interpret that as I'm stating my opinion is fact.

I'm confused!

The transcript you posted isn't of any help regarding the radio calls. But this one is: Link page 6 is where the important communications start.

Originally posted by Boone 870
The transcript you posted isn't of any help regarding the radio calls.

The transcript i posted has the listing of radio calls, how is it not of help?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


The link you provided wasn't radio transmissions. It was ACARS - Aircraft Communication Adressing and Reporting System.

Originally posted by Boone 870
The link you provided wasn't radio transmissions. It was ACARS - Aircraft Communication Adressing and Reporting System.

Well even your link could not state with 100% fact that the call from the pilots came from flight 93.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Where did it come from?

Originally posted by Boone 870

Where did it come from?

Maybe from another flight.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Why hasn't any of the family members stepped forward to say that it wasn't their loved ones speaking on the tapes?

Originally posted by Boone 870
Why hasn't any of the family members stepped forward to say that it wasn't their loved ones speaking on the tapes?

Well they may think it is their family memeber if they were told it was from flight 93.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Or, maybe she recognized her husband's voice.

"Jason never left the cockpit," she said. Instead, Dahl believes that while one hijacker attempted to steer the plane, her husband remained next to him.

Later in the recording, she hears a slight moan that she believes was her husband's. "I know he is badly hurt there," she said.

sfgate.com

Originally posted by Boone 870
that she believes was her husband's.

Right there is the main evidence i was looking for.