Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
The way you phrase it makes it sound like you think it was highly improbable such an event could have taken place.
I would refer you to the case of FedEx Flight 705. In that event, an off-duty flight engineer was hitching a ride aboard the flight, a process known as jumpseating. Thirty minutes into the flight, he used a hammer to attack the three crewmen in the cockpit. Though seriously injured, two of the crewmen managed to force the attacker out of the cockpit and wrestled with him outside while the pilot struggled to control the aircraft. While the struggle raged, the pilot put the DC-10 through some incredible maneuvers which were far beyond the design tolerances of the aircraft.
It wasn't until several minutes later that the pilot was finally able to contact ATC to inform them of the emergency. Even then, he wasn't able to recount the full details, he only had time to request an immediate emergency landing and that there had been some sort of incident involving a crewmember.
I understand the distinction quite well. What you don't understand is that fighters pursuing a suspect craft will always have total priority over any number of civilian aircraft. No controller will ever refuse airspace to a fighter in that situation. The usual requirement for 5 miles and a thousand feet will be thrown out the window, and controller will settle for "green between," meaning separation of about a mile or so. A controller would not be punished for a separation error in such an emergency situation; but if he refused clearance to scrambling fighter, he'd be in very deep doo-doo.
This is especially true on a VFR day like Sept. 11, 2001.
What??? No controller is going to go less than 5 miles and a 1,000 ft for anything. If the fighters want it bad enough or NEADS they declare AFIO (Authorization For Fighter Interceptor Operations) then we don't care if they go with in 50 ft. On 9-11 NEADS had the authority to declare AFIO, not the fighters, but AFIO ended up being declared later on during the day, as far as I know it was never declared for the four aircraft.
It was definitely one of the hijackers. That it was Atta or any other Arab is pure conjecture. That hijackers smart enough to subdue eight pilots-- using only knives, without any of those pilots being able to alert ATC in any way-- and then turn off the transponders...... were then dumb enough to broadcast a message over the frequency that was meant for the cabin.... then doing this on at least two of the flights......
Indeed. It would be reasonable to conclude that good knowledge of the radio and comms system aboard the aircraft was not high on the hijackers' list of priorities. Really, why would they need it?
It would be reasonable to conclude that good knowledge of the radio and comms system aboard the aircraft was not high on the hijackers' list of priorities. Really, why would they need it?
Correct. But, this is irrelevant minutia anyway. Virtually everyone has screwed up the settings on an Intercom Panel at one time or another as it's very easy to do.
Anyone who has flown much and listened to ATC radio traffic has heard someone forgetting to set the switchology correctly. It's no big deal at all and proves nothing.
That hijackers smart enough to subdue eight pilots-- using only knives, without any of those pilots being able to alert ATC in any way-- and then turn off the transponders...... were then dumb enough to broadcast a message over the frequency that was meant for the cabin.... then doing this on at least two of the flights......
Anyone who has flown much and listened to ATC radio traffic has heard someone forgetting to set the switchology correctly. It's no big deal at all and proves nothing.
True, it does happen-- but very infrequently. On 9/11 it happened twice on AAL11 and at least once on UAL93. Were the hijackers really wanting to broadcast to the passengers in the cabin? Or did they want to further the false image of an Arab hijacking by broadcasting over the frequency using clumsy, pigeon English?
And just how do a handful of camel jockeys suddenly find themselves standing behind the seated pilots of an airliner, without those pilots being aware of their presence? At the very least the pilots would have been facing the intruders and would have been able to fend off the knives with their hands and arms-- a very messy melee would have ensued.
And what about UAL93? The pilots there had already been warned of hijackings and had been told to bar the cockpit door. So Ziad and the boys kicked down the door and slit the pilots' throats, and all we heard was one "Mayday"?
Here's what really happened: the hijackers-- the ones who took out the pilots-- looked and dressed like you and me. They may have had pilot credentials. They gained the trust of the pilots, then quickly took them out with shots to the head from a silencer-equipped gun. On UAL93, the hijacker was probably already in the jump seat when the warning was broadcast to bar the door.
But, we should really get back to the NORAD tapes.....
True, it does happen-- but very infrequently. On 9/11 it happened twice on AAL11 and at least once on UAL93. Were the hijackers really wanting to broadcast to the passengers in the cabin? Or did they want to further the false image of an Arab hijacking by broadcasting over the frequency using clumsy, pigeon English?
And just how do a handful of camel jockeys suddenly find themselves standing behind the seated pilots of an airliner, without those pilots being aware of their presence? .
Another trade mark of the "truth" movement, racism. Are you trying to tell us a "handfull of camel jockeys" were incapable of taking the cockpit? It certainly sounds like that.
I'm sure I look nothing like you. I don't dress like you either. Can you name the people in this forum that look and dress like you? If the hijackers looked and dressed like you, then we really can't rule out that you were one of the hijackers. You've already demonstrated your ability to hijack a thread.
At the very least the pilots would have been facing the intruders and would have been able to fend off the knives with their hands and arms-- a very messy melee would have ensued.
And what about UAL93? The pilots there had already been warned of hijackings and had been told to bar the cockpit door. So Ziad and the boys kicked down the door and slit the pilots' throats, and all we heard was one "Mayday"?
Here's what really happened: the hijackers-- the ones who took out the pilots-- looked and dressed like you and me. They may have had pilot credentials. They gained the trust of the pilots, then quickly took them out with shots to the head from a silencer-equipped gun. On UAL93, the hijacker was probably already in the jump seat when the warning was broadcast to bar the door.
But, we should really get back to the NORAD tapes.....
Could you please tell me how the pilots would have been facing their attackers. The flight crew seats in the 757/767 do not swivel. Also, the pilots would have been belted in, kind restricts their ability to defend themselves. You are also overlooking the fact that they were airline pilots, not Navy SEALS. Airline pilots going up against trained killers, we all know the outcome.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim about "what really happened"? If you don't then it's not "what really happened". The only people allowed in that cockpit would have been the flight attendants, other AA/UAL pilots, or pilots from another airline with a jumpseat agreement with AA/UAL. Having a pilots license is not going to get you a jumpseat on a commerical flight. Not before 9-11 and definelty not after 9-11.
Here's what really happened: the hijackers-- the ones who took out the pilots-- looked and dressed like you and me. They may have had pilot credentials. They gained the trust of the pilots, then quickly took them out with shots to the head from a silencer-equipped gun. On UAL93, the hijacker was probably already in the jump seat when the warning was broadcast to bar the door.
As a sideline player on this forum, I was really hoping that this thread would have been used to discover some really interesting information about the tapes, and it has.
Sadly, it has been derailed by a CT rabbit and the debunker hounds are following him right down the hole.
It takes two to tango people. I would really like to hear more about the transcription of the tapes.
As a sideline player on this forum, I was really hoping that this thread would have been used to discover some really interesting information about the tapes, and it has.
Sadly, it has been derailed by a CT rabbit and the debunker hounds are following him right down the hole.
It takes two to tango people. I would really like to hear more about the transcription of the tapes.
Agreed. After much discussion about the tower collapses, this thread has been a refreshing change of discourse. The knowledge and expertise displayed here is a facinating education read and is much appreciated. Please continue the dialog along those lines and ignore the little kid, who has nothing to offer, but sticking his tounge out at you.
The only people allowed in that cockpit would have been the flight attendants, other AA/UAL pilots, or pilots from another airline with a jumpseat agreement with AA/UAL. Having a pilots license is not going to get you a jumpseat on a commerical flight. Not before 9-11 and definelty not after 9-11.
Let's get some FACTS listed as it appears the thread is hijacked by now and this issue needs to be settled.
Flight Crews for both Airlines were/are PROHIBITED (BEFORE and AFTER 9/11) from allowing anyone (besides an on duty Flight Attendant) not qualified in FAA Part 121 Operations in the cockpit during flight.
The ONLY way anyone not employed with a qualifying Airline with a reciprocal agreement with either AA or UA could get into the cockpit in flight would be someone with an Airline Transport Pilot Rating KNOWN by either the Captain or FO. They would demand credentials, period.
In fact, credentials were/are checked twice. To even obtain a "jump seat" authorization one must go into the Airline Operations and schedule it with the Operations Desk. Pilots wanting to "hitch hike" don't just walk up to the Departure Gate and obtain it.
A common practice by both Airlines once the outside doors were/are closed was/is to invite the "jump seating Pilot" to go into First Class and "enjoy the flight". The ONLY time this might not happen was/is if the flight was/is full. We know all of the flight on 9/11 were not full. There was plenty of space.
I already covered how I suspect the jihadists obtained entry into the cockpit in another thread.
And just how do a handful of camel jockeys suddenly find themselves standing behind the seated pilots of an airliner, without those pilots being aware of their presence? At the very least the pilots would have been facing the intruders and would have been able to fend off the knives with their hands and arms-- a very messy melee would have ensued.
And what about UAL93? The pilots there had already been warned of hijackings and had been told to bar the cockpit door. So Ziad and the boys kicked down the door and slit the pilots' throats, and all we heard was one "Mayday"?
Here's what really happened: the hijackers-- the ones who took out the pilots-- looked and dressed like you and me. They may have had pilot credentials. They gained the trust of the pilots, then quickly took them out with shots to the head from a silencer-equipped gun. On UAL93, the hijacker was probably already in the jump seat when the warning was broadcast to bar the door.
But, we should really get back to the NORAD tapes.....
A-Train why is it you insist on being economical with the truth about what happened on that awful day? It's very clear what happened based on the evidence we have but you keep trying to insinuate things happened in away that suggests inside job.
Yes, you are correct the pilots of UA Flight 93 were warned, the message they received at 9:24 was "Beware any cockpit intrusion—Two a/c [aircraft] hit World Trade Center", at 9:26 the pilot, Jason Dahl, responded with a note of puzzlement: "Ed, confirm latest mssg plz—Jason." It was sometime around 9:28 that the hijackers attacked, there were actually two separate "Mayday!" calls, one at 9:28:17 and one at 9:28:50. During this period the airplane actually dropped 700 feet (200 m) in altitude. Here are the two "Mayday!" calls…
So in conclusion several aspects of your post above are wrong, the pilots were attacked literally within a couple of minutes of asking for a confirmation of the warning message (did they even receive this confirmation?). There were actually two separate "Mayday!" calls and in fact the time difference between the two indicates that the struggle was prolonged (lasted about a minute at the very least) and from the transmissions received it was a violent attack and no doubt people were killed.
And just how do a handful of camel jockeys suddenly find themselves standing behind the seated pilots of an airliner, without those pilots being aware of their presence? At the very least the pilots would have been facing the intruders and would have been able to fend off the knives with their hands and arms-- a very messy melee would have ensued.
Not that you care, I realize, but for the record I want to register my strong exception to your use of the term "camel jockeys." That aside, as usual, you are merely using 20/20 hindsight in order to attempt to proclaim a conspiracy.
Prior to September 11, air crew were trained to cooperate with hijackers; the asssumption was that the hijackers would either have wanted to have been taken somewhere, such as Cuba, or that they would have had the plane land somewhere and issued a series of demands. In those circumstances, why would the pilots of American 11, United 175, or American 77 have been expecting to have been attacked with no provocation??
Here is a dramatization of the attempted takeover of FedEx Flight 705WP in 1993. The attack begins at about the 5:00 minute mark. Notice how just one disturbed individual armed with a hammer came very close to incapacitating a three-man flight crew and taking over the aircraft.
And what about UAL93? The pilots there had already been warned of hijackings and had been told to bar the cockpit door. So Ziad and the boys kicked down the door and slit the pilots' throats, and all we heard was one "Mayday"?
The pilots received the following warning from dispatcher Ed Ballinger at approximately 13:24: “Beware any cockpit intrusion—Two a/c [aircraft] hit World Trade Center.” At 13:26 pilot Jason Dahl responded with "Ed, confirm latest mssg plz--Jason." (September 11 Commission report, p. 11) The following is from the Air Traffic Control tape transcript prepared by the NTSB:
13:27:25 Cleveland Center: United ninety three that traffic is one o'clock twelve miles east bound three seven zero.
13:27:30 United 93: Negative contact we're looking United ninety three.
13:28:16 United 93: *** (mayday) *** (hey get out of here) ***.
13:28:48 United 93: *** (get out of here) *** (get out of here) ***.
So, first of all, the pilots were not told to "bar the door," which I'm not certain was even possible on September 11; they were merely told to "beware."
Second, one of the flight attendants could have been forced to unlock the cockpit door at knifepoint; there was at least one key available in the cabin.
Finally, as the transcript makes clear, the pilots had only just received the warning, and had requested confirmation. Further, they were likely preoccupied looking for a nearby aircraft that had just been reported to them by ATC when the hijackers entered the cockpit.
Here's what really happened: the hijackers-- the ones who took out the pilots-- looked and dressed like you and me. They may have had pilot credentials. They gained the trust of the pilots, then quickly took them out with shots to the head from a silencer-equipped gun. On UAL93, the hijacker was probably already in the jump seat when the warning was broadcast to bar the door.
So of course that was one of the hijackers screaming "mayday" and "get out of here" repeatedly, right, A-Train?
Also, dead-heading "pilots" in uniform would have been noticed by the gate agents and at least some of the flight attendants on each flight. Why weren't any of them reported, and what was the Mossad's plan in case they were?
Finally, why wasn't a silenced pistol found in the wreckage of United 93?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
