Pilots of Flight 11, 93, 175, 77

[f11killerbeing]

What did the terrorists on the four planes do to the pilots after making their way to the cockpit? Do you think they held them as hostages or made them go back to the rear of the planes??

[Realityhack]

1. What a strange thing to speculate about.

You forgot the option of killing them.
And WTF does it mater anyway?

[BeFree]

2. What happened?

Because there were no hijack alerts radioed to the FAA.
There is protocol for a pilot to easily and quickly send an alert, but it never happened. Not on 9/11 anyway.

[SDuderstadt]

3. Because they were murdered, dude....

duh.

[spooked911]

11. wouldn't slashing their throats with boxcutters be rather messy?

wouldn't all that blood kind of mess up the controls?

not to mention the awkward feat of pulling the pilots out of their seats and propping up the bodies somewhere in the crowded cockpit without disturbing the maneuvering of the plane.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Fucking unbelievable....

I'm speechless as I listen to your nonsense. Absolutely speechless.

Fucking unbelievable.

[spooked911]

20. are you saying slashing throats wouldn't

squirt blood on the controls then?

[SDuderstadt]

23. Jesus, Spooked...

do you really fucking believe that terrorists would care about that? Don't you get tired of embarrassing yourself by asking fucking stupid questions?

Please.

[spooked911]

27. they would care if they couldn't read or use the controls

because they were covered in blood. That is the point.

[KDLarsen]

30. I'm struggling to grasp your point

Are you seriously suggesting that because the controls, be it the physical yoke/throttle, the flight management computer, or the autopilot buttons and switches, were covered in blood?

Just exactly what would the blood do to either of the controls, that would make them permanently inoperable?

[spooked911]

39. well, I'm struggling to grasp your first question, since it is not a complete sentence.

But the point is a lot of blood on the controls would make the job of the amateur pilots even more difficult.

"Permanently inoperable". You're a hoot!

[LARED]

14. At least get familiar with what you are talking about before

you insert your foot in your mouth.

[spooked911]

21. nice diagram but it doesn't change the substance of my post

still not an easy feat, to say the least, not to mention the mess.

It's not labeled but I assume that is a 767 cockpit. What about a 757?

[sgsmith]

25. Right click on the graphic

Properties says "757".

I'd say your research abilities aren't very good.

[SDuderstadt]

26. I'd say his "research abilities" are....

non-existent.

[spooked911]

28. That still doesn't change my point

Also, interesting that the door to the main cabin is on the far left side, not in the middle. Makes you wonder how flight 93 passengers were able to roll a beverage cart down the aisle to try to ram the door open.

[LARED]

34. Your point is pointless

Do you really expect people to take seriously that murdering the pilot with a box cutter is messy so the official story (whatever that means) is suspect.

[spooked911]

40. Yes, I think they should take that idea seriously

as well as the idea that amateur pilots flying top speeds would be able to fly with perfect accuracy into narrow targets, etc etc.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. What narrow target are you talking about? n/t

[LARED]

43. They? Who is they? nt

[KDLarsen]

4. The 'quick and easy' alert

.. involves looking down and to left/right, and turning 4 dials.

Not easy when someone has slashed your throat or is about to.

[BeFree]

15. Of course

Too bad that the system set up to make it easy for pilots to alert for a hijacking also failed that day?

Seems nothing that all them smart fellers did to make it possible for a pilot to communicate and alert a hijacking is any good? The whole system is and was an utter failure?

I guess they fixed that by now, right? Got a link?

[SDuderstadt]

16. Normally the hijackers don't murder the pilots and fly the planes themselves...

dude. Duh.

Your inability to figure out the most basic of things is what starts a lot of the crap here. Get a clue, BeFree.

[KDLarsen]

19. Actually, one of the pilots did communicate

IIRC it was United 93, where the pilots keyed the mic during the hijacking. I personally refuse to listen to the recordings of it, but it should include the sound of struggle and the subsequent slashing of one of the pilots' throat.

[sgsmith]

5. Don't you love non-pilots talking about aviation

The folks flying airplanes have three jobs to do:
Aviate - fly the airplane
Navigate - from one place to another
Communicate - with ground controllers and other people

The "quick and easy" setting of a transponder code is part of that third job.

So let's just set a scenario. You're a commercial pilot, before Sep. 11, 2001. You don't have any particular reason to expect a hijacking. Nothing like that has occurred in something like 20 years in the US. You sit down in your work place, buckle up your seat belts and go to work. Suddenly the door opens and someone screaming in a language you don't understand stabs you with a box cutter.

What are you going to be doing?

[LARED]

6. What are you going to be doing?

Well if you're a CT'er you will simultaneously put the transponder code to "Hijack", put it in autopilot if not already set, radio the ground that you are being hijacked, fight off the hijackers, and tell the stewardess how great she looks today.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. how do you know they were box cutters?

because the MSM said so

[Bolo Boffin]

8. How do you know they weren't?

[SDuderstadt]

9. Beyond that...

there are statements from some of the plotters talking specifically about using boxcutters and conducting trial runs to see if they could get boxcutters on the flight.

[spooked911]

10. well that settles it, doesn't it!

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

13. It settles it far more than...

your goofy "no-planes" bullshit, Spooked.

[zappaman]

17. Dude, you are wrong this time

Let me help you...
1. Blood is wet and messy, which leads to...
2. sticky controls, which leads to...
3. no way there were any planes involved in 9/11 and anyone who thinks there were planes that day is a Bush apologist.

See? Doesn't that make sense?

[SDuderstadt]

18. Well, now that you explain it that way...

it might explain how whoever piloted UA 93 missed their target. I never thought of it that way.

Sticky controls. Who knew?

[spooked911]

22. yeah, it would be much more goofy if you or one of your pals here

could give a coherent explanation for the physics of the "crash" and the various anomalies I've pointed out.

[SDuderstadt]

24. Dude....

everyone seems to understand it but you.

[spooked911]

29. not so

unless by "everyone" you are only referring to your anti-CT pals here.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Really, Spooked?

Why aren't any of your CT pals coming to your defense? Why is it you mostly get taken on by everyone in the discussion?

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. I don't know where you get the notion that things are "anomalies" just because YOU have no

explanation for them.

[spooked911]

41. because no one else here has an explanation

despite my repeated requests for one.

Thanks for asking though!

[Ghost in the Machine]

33. Yay!! Another piece of undamaged, unblemished "evidence" to go along

with those immaculate bandanas and passports

:applause:

[JackRiddler]

35. Stop that. It's impossible that a boxcutter could be on a plane without a hijacker to accompany it.

[greyl]

36. It's probably good to remember the concept of "likelyhood"

and not forget the larger context.

From "What You Think You Know About Sept. 11 … … but don't." by David Plotz

2. The misconception: We know how the hijackers seized the planes. Within days of Sept. 11, Americans believed they knew how the planes were grabbed: Terrorists had taken control by stabbing pilots, passengers, and flight attendants with box cutters and knives.

What's wrong with the story: It's incomplete and misleading. We don't really know what happened on the planes. The cockpit voice recorder survived neither New York crash and was damaged beyond salvage in the Pentagon crash. The Flight 93 voice recorder doesn't start until several minutes after the hijackers took the plane. What little we know about tactics and weapons comes from phones calls made by passengers and flight attendants. As Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out, the evidence is incredibly paltry. No one on United Flight 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center, reported anything about weapons or tactics. One flight attendant on American Flight 11, which also crashed into the World Trade Center, said she was disabled by a chemical spray, while another flight attendant said a passenger was stabbed or shot. On the Pentagon plane, American Flight 77, Barbara Olson reported hijackers carrying knives and box cutters but did not describe how they took the cockpit. And on United Flight 93, passengers reported knives but also a hijacker threatening to explode a bomb. The box cutter-knives story isn't demonstrably false, but it serves to divert attention from the other weapons and to mask the fact that we don't have any idea how the hijackings happened.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088092/

[JackRiddler]

37. Is that like the Pursuit of Happyness?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I'm well aware of that - in fact, I remember reading that article.

In fact, isn't Epstein making the same point as I am, even if he no doubt disagrees with me about the bigger picture? A boxcutter in a plastic bag (looking awfully unscratched, but it's possible), whether or not recovered at the scene, is evidence of nothing about what happened on the planes. As one who believes the official story is robust, seems to me you shouldn't be too tolerant of this kind of loose reconstruction presented as evidence in trial.

[greyl]

38. Great one, just saw it a few weeks ago.

I think you may have already forgotten the concept of "likelihood".

Ultimately, I don't think it matters much that we don't know with absolute certainty (i.e. every other scenario is "impossible") what each flight attendant, pilot, or passenger was killed with.

Btw, protest near the courthouses where 9/11 trials are held? Can you point to any people accused or held for a connection to 9/11 that are claiming "innocent" or that no hijackers were on the plane?

[JackRiddler]

44. What are you referring to?

"protest near the courthouses where 9/11 trials are held? Can you point to any people accused or held for a connection to 9/11 that are claiming 'innocent' or that no hijackers were on the plane?"

Did I say that? Where?

If I were to take part in such a protest, it wouldn't be about the people on trial at all. There's a case to be made of course that such a trial is a joke because after years of solitary and 180 waterboadings (whether over a short time or not), most people could be made to believe they are Napoleon or Jesus. But if you've read my posts here, you'd know I'd never rely on what "KSM" would say, or champion him as "innocent." Who knows who he even is? Was he the one who ran (or who shut down) US investigations that focused directly on the alleged hijackers prior to 9/11? My protests would focus on avenues of investigation that were never pursued, on items still being withheld from disclosure, on people who maybe should be on trial for 9/11 alongside the alleged Qaeda masterminds. Search my posts on this forum and you'll get an idea of where I'd go with such a protest. You can be sure I wouldn't be holding any signs that said "Free KSM," and anyone who would is either a fool or a plant.