Have you ever seen THIS 9/11 site?

[Carolab]

http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/bradm/911index/

There is some amazing stuff here about the flights, things I have not read before.

[liberalhistorian]

1. Thanks for the link,

I've bookmarked it so I can look at it in detail.

[Mike Nelson]

2. Thanks! (Is there one on the Anthrax connection?) --nt

Thanks! (Is there one on the Anthrax connection?) --nt

[RoeBear]

3. Crackpot site...

".According to the Operation Northwoods plan detailed below,
(1) a drone (no crew or passengers onboard but guided by remote-control) flight 93 was blown up by radio signal (by the Saab Jet probably),"

If you think posting nutty theories about what caused the recent tsunami made us at DU look bad this kind of garbage makes us look absolutely insane.

[Wilms]

12. Since you asked. Here's the Northwoods document.

The 1962 Joints Chiefs of Staff Memo

<http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf>

Straight out of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). (We should call it TTFA (The Tin Foil Act).

One of my favorite parts...

8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down
a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would
be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a
holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When
over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio stations the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has
happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

92. It astonishes me that I have known people who have seen the

Northwoods Document and will still deny that our government could commit such a heinous crime.

[tngledwebb]

14. Looked at the site? Done any research on this issue before now?

If not, it would behoove one to do so, and then condemn or discuss.

If so, do you not remember the latest 'CT' according to much of MSM, the one about stolen elections in the good old USA?

How do you feel about that one, I wonder?

Is that the kind of 'Conspiracy Theory' talk we should ban on DU?

[disillusioned1]

4. I heard something today about 9/11 that I hadn't heard before

None of the pilots or co-pilots on any of the 4 planes entered the 4 digit code for highjacking. Seems like a statistical improbability that NONE of them entered the highjacking code.

[Selatius]

5. It seems very doable

If you had a group of men who have trained for years storming the cockpit, it seems fairly reasonable that the pilots could be had before they finished typing in all four digits and pressing enter.

[pretzel4gore]

6. there were no hijackers

period. Though this might sound more difficult, in practical terms it (mihop) in fact depended alot less upon random chance then lihop...something anyone who's adult knows in their bones (19 muslim hijackers spending months/years in USA learning how to operate huge ultra modern aircraft and carrying out in secret 'plan a' to perfection and inadvertantly empowering one the most vicious buncha political goofballs in US history))

[mikelewis]

24. But the problem is...

To turn off your transponder signal you have to use an access code. The duress code is the same number of digits but a different combination. You can't even take the plane off auto pilot without this code, let alone turn off the transponder. They could have easily and safely entered the code at anytime and failed to do so. The tower is instructed to respond to the flight as if there is nothing wrong. Unless the hijackers knew the code, there is no way your scenario makes any sense. These are trained pilots who are trained on this very scenario. There is no way the duress code could have been thwarted by them rushing the cockpit.

[gbwarming]

29. An access code to turn off the autopilot? Sounds Dangerous.

If I ever buy a 767 or 757 I'm going to order it with the MCP-702 with the bat handle autopilot switch. and the ACAS-900 panel with the convenient transponder standby knobs..

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/FCS-700.html?smenu=105
MCP-702 622-5391-003 Mode Control Panel (Boeing PN S241T100-252). Same as above except does not provide control wheel steering mode. Bat handles are used for autopilot engagement. Replaced by MCP-705 822-1492-101 or 822-1492-102.

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/ACAS-900_2.html#N26667
(there's a panel drawing at the bottom of the page)

[tngledwebb]

60. Wher did you hear they trained for years to storm cockpits?

And pilots AREN'T trained in avoiding highjacks?

[MercutioATC]

7. Let me sneak up behind you and hit you on the head.

...see what YOUR priorities are.

[demodewd]

16. No proof

You assume that the "hijackers" all had easy access to the cockpit. Any attempt to crash the cockpit door and the seconds delay in doing so would have given the crew plenty of time to send the hijacking code.You also assume that the hijackers would have had a weapon at had to hit them over the head. You also assume that the pilots all would have been oblivious to the hijacker's entry and would not have met him(them)with resistance.You posit this assumption and then assume it is fact. There is no accounting of hijackers using oxygen tanks or whatever to bludgeon the pilot and co-pilot.

You posit this argumentation as if it were a proven fact. You have no proof.

[MercutioATC]

19. You have none, either.

Pre-9/11, cockpit doors were rarely, if ever, locked. "Crashing" the cockpit door wouldn't have been necessary - just opening it.

There are any number of items that can be used as weapons that are allowed on a plane (to this day). Whack yourself in the head with a bottle of wine and let me know how you feel.

The only think I present as fact is that cockpit doors were rarely locked before 9/11 (ask a pilot if you doubt me). The rest is conjecture, but it's hardly a stretch.

[Abe Linkman]

21. Maybe they hypnotized the pilots. You don't have any proof they didn't.

Or, maybe they sprinkled Sneeze powder in the cockpit. Hey, you don't have any proof they didn't. Maybe M-atc actually saw what happened because he was watching it on the hidden CCTV camera that's hidden in all aircraft that terrrorists regularly fly on. Hey, you don't have any proof that he didn't.

[MercutioATC]

26. Abe, you're just being silly and demeaning.

If you want to ask a question, feel free. Until then, I'm not wasting more bandwidth in this thread.

[Abe Linkman]

31. It's the absurd notion that the pilots couldn't have entered the codes ...

that's silly and demeaning. I just hope that none of their family members have to read that their loved one was such a wimp that a
young thug on his way to Allah by way of NY, PA, and Washington, D.C.,
could whomp on him and permanently disable two pilots to such a degree that neither was ever able to enter the four digit hijack code, and these same cave-dwelling, coke-lovin', titty barflys did it not once, but on all four flights.

Man, you talk about being silly and demeaning. Why, most people would be ashamed to be saying things that imply that a couple of lousy Osama punks could do such a thing. What in the world are you trying to put over with THAT theory?

[demodewd]

35. You're going against the Official Story

You're inserting a possibility that doesn't jive with the official story. Pilots and passengers were herded to the back of the plane..according to Barbara. This is the official line? You're contesting Barbara's story? And she also spoke of "box cutters". Didn't Sweeney on Flight 11 speak of boxcutters too? There were narratives about box cutters on #93 too...wasn't there. This is the official narrative. You're refuting this?

Flight 93 was fully aware of the other hijackings before the cockpit was allegedly invaded by evil terrorists wielding wine bottles and oxygen tanks. Yet no transponder alert ...no hijacking code? The crew would have reacted to any odd movements by possible hijackers. This is more than conjecture. At 9:00 the crew knew of the other hijackings. They would have been on all toes and no doubt would have locked the cockpit door as SOP under such alert.

[MercutioATC]

38. So??

Who said I think the "official story" is 100% accurate?

[Abe Linkman]

39. Is there any MAJOR part of the OCT that isn't 100% accurate?

Maybe we're back to making progress. At one time, matc, you kind of sorta implied you could maybe go along with a LIHOP scenario, but that stance didn't last very long, for some odd reason, wink wink.

[MercutioATC]

41. Actually, my viewpoint hasn't changed.

I think that Bush had ample warning that there were going to be terrorist acts using planes and he simply disregarded it.

That's "LIH"...Let It Happen

I don't believe in the "OP"

[Abe Linkman]

44. Wow! You went really far out on a limb, matc. U sure you're feeling ok?

I don't know, but I think most people would label your viewpoint as being waaaaaaaay out there, m-atc. You sure you wanna go THAT far out on a limb? wink wink.

[MercutioATC]

47. It's a viewpoint you should be familiar with by now, Abe.

It's the same position I've always stated. Going out on a limb isn't my intent, finding a rational explanation is. That's what I think happened.

[Abe Linkman]

73. What is it that you wish to find a "rational explanation" for, m-atc?

Your defense and promotion of a Fairy Tale?

[tngledwebb]

61. And what would the punishment for such an action be,

for anyone in the military, or for the Commander in Chief of same? Court martial?

And semantically, 'letting it happen' especially with ample warning, seems pretty much the same as 'on purpose', does it not?

[MercutioATC]

64. Depends on the Court of jurisdiction and what could be proven.

"On Purpose" is a significant distinction, in my view. It implies that there was PURPOSE behind allowing the events of 9/11 to occur. I don't believe that was the case.

[tngledwebb]

66. Answer the real question though,

If someone only LET 9/11 happen, either the military or the CinC, what SHOULD the outcome be? Court martial? Impeachment?

[Abe Linkman]

69. Or, maybe it's US being punished by a spinner for bushco.

Think so? I do.

[MercutioATC]

76. I have no idea. I'm not familiar with military justice practices.

...or if this would even be tried in a military court.

What are you trying to get at?

[tngledwebb]

77. You should really change your user name now

to Mercutio IIO/ATC. ( IIO stands for intentionally, incredibly obtuse.)

Now then, for the less obtuse DU'ers in the peanut gallery, a question:

If a three star general, or any other top military or government official had 'plenty of advance warning' of possible terrorist attacks on targets inside the USA, and ignored those warnings, resulting in thousands of fatalities and injuries, not to mention the destruction of millions of dollars of real estate, what should one expect to happen to that persons career?

Nothing, a slap on the wrist, suspension without pay, dishonorable discharge, court martial? Death by firing squad? Anything at all?

[MercutioATC]

79. Are you asking for my personal opinion or a legal opinion?

My personal opinion is court-martial and imprisonment.

As I'm not an attorney, military or civilian, I can't give a legal opinion.

[tngledwebb]

80. Any opinion will do,

AND great day in the morning, an answer at last! So Bush and Rummy are going to prison for ignoring advance warnings! Well, somebody is, TBA. The OCT'ers and the skeptics at least agree on the punishment for the crime!

[MercutioATC]

81. Yes, that's what I'd LIKE to see happen.

Will it? I doubt it.

[tngledwebb]

82. Ok, we're down with the best case scenario anyway.

Let's all work together for that next great day in history.

[Abe Linkman]

84. Dereliction of duty? Court Martial.

Don't expect a still-mostly stealth bushco apologist (member?) to be anything more than a pain in the neck to DUers.

[Abe Linkman]

68. Letting it happen IS exactly the same as "on purpose". You're right.

Why anyone would try to wiggle around that only makes THEM seem suspicious.

[MercutioATC]

83. Did you not read my post on how they were different?

"LIH" = Let It Happen (in my belief, due to negligence/incompetence)

"LIHOP" = Let It Happen On Purpose (specifically necessitates a PURPOSE for letting it happen)


Questions?

[Abe Linkman]

85. Explain your theory.

What was the negligence you're referring to, and what was the incompetence...and WHO were the negligent parties?

In other words, you can easily see how you or your fellow atc employees could be so incompetent and negligent that the U.S. military would have no chance to defend the country against a "rogue" CIA asset such as Osama aka "The Caveman". In fact, it sounds like your theory is just that.

[MercutioATC]

89. I was speaking of the administration.

Ultimate responsibility would rest with Bush, however.

Your comments about ATCs are disgusting. Maybe you'd like to interject a mean-spirited slam or two at the rescue workers at ground zero?

[demodewd]

46. Olson et al

If the Barbara Olson phone call is inaccurate then why would the administration plant it? That's a major admission on your part by substituting wine bottles for box cutters. Why don't you believe the Olson,Sweeney,Flight 93 version of box cutters?

[MercutioATC]

50. Because it's immaterial.

The planes crashed. That means that the pilots were incapacitated (or, at least, prevented from flying the planes).

Wine bottle, box cutters...it really doesn't make a difference.

[demodewd]

56. Wine bottles..box cutters..it ain't all the same

The planes crashed. That means that the pilots were incapacitated (or, at least, prevented from flying the planes).

We all can agree that the planes crashed and the pilots were prevented from flying them to their original destinations. The question is who took over control? Was it wine bottle wielding Arab zealots or remote control from a source outside the plane?

Wine bottle, box cutters...it really doesn't make a difference.

It makes ALL the difference.Your refutation of the box cutter idea is a profound refutation of the official story as presented by the Administration and the 911 Commission. It implicates the Administration of fraud and cover-up. The telephone conversations of Barbara Olson,Amy Sweeney and passengers on Flight 93 all refer to box cutters or pen knives. So in essence you are stating that the reference to these objects in the purported telephone conversations is a lie..a fake. Why would the Administration present to the public such disinformation?

[Abe Linkman]

57. You have great focus, demodewd. Prescient questions & points.

Do you ever feel like you're trying to load a bunch of frogs into a wheelbarrow...and keep 'em in there long enough to get somewhere?

Great work, fine mind, best wishes.

[demodewd]

58. :argh:

Do you ever feel like you're trying to load a bunch of frogs into a wheelbarrow...and keep 'em in there long enough to get somewhere?


Why yes...yes I do :argh:

[MercutioATC]

62. My point is that nobody witnessed the actual cockpit attacks.

I'm not saying that they didn't use boxcutters - or wine bottles - or anything else. The passengers in the back saw box cutters. However, they didn't see the pilots getting attacked. The actual weapons used really doesn't make a difference.

As far as remote control, I've always stated that it's one scenario that I don't rebut because I have no contrary evidence. I don't necessarily believe it happened, but I can't refute it.

[Abe Linkman]

70. In fact, it's a bushco limited, modified, hang-out position, isn't it M?

Why, the very nerve of them pesky Cavemen. Must have gone and stolen some of that newfangled Muslim technology called Global Falcon or something like that. As for our mighty intelligence agencies, they just had a bad day on 9/11. Nothing intetnionally mean. But, I can't refute it.

[MercutioATC]

74. Did that response make any sense?

You;ll have to rephrase if you want an answer.

[Abe Linkman]

86. It's the fallback position which you and yours will someday "admit" to.

Just as Mr. Rumsfeld "slipped" and admitted that a missile had hit the Pentagon, and just as Commander Bunnypants "slipped" and said that he saw the first plane hit the WTC (the CIA gave the boy "guilty knowledge")...what you appear to be saying is that if more of the public becomes aware that the Official Story is a lie, then your fallback position is to say: "We ALWAYS said there was incompetence and negligence" on 9/11...but it was innocent, because you see, they were running those exercises and the Evildoers found out about it from their connection, and damn if that mean ol Osama didn't take advantage of us, and that's what happened and THAT IS the truth...mostly...until we have to go to the next admission".

[MercutioATC]

90. It's just silly to suppose what my "fallback position" will be.

Especially when my position hasn't changed in the past 3 years.

[Abe Linkman]

91. Just expressing my viewpoint. Maybe we'll just have to disagree on

the issue of whether or not that's what spinners will have to one day try and sell, as a way of "reassuring" the public.

[MercutioATC]

93. "Spinners" might. I won't.

Since I'm not trying to "sell" anything, I don't think we need to be concerned.

[Abe Linkman]

96. I know you aren't trying to do ANYTHING except post your "views"...

you could care less if:

* anyone believes you

* your views make sense to anyone else

* eveyone else thinks the OCT is a Fairy Tale

* no one else here really understands why YOU are here


No, you aren't trying to even influence anyone. You have a real job as an atc and that's all that matters to you. Why, the very idea that you might be trying to defend the OCT, support it, undermine the efforts of those who think the OCT is a fairy tale etc., is just not something you've ever even given a second thought to. And you wouldn't...even if someone paid you to.

I understand. It's just very heartening to know that an average citizen , with no axe to grind, would devote so much time to giving us the benefits of your viewpoints about 9/11. I'm touched, and I'm sure that others might be, too.

[MercutioATC]

98. That's silly, Abe....

Why is it so difficult for you to believe that I post here not to "convert" people, but to show another side of the argument? If people want to listen, that's great. If not, that's O.K. too.

The ATC gig pays pretty well (again, you don't have to trust me...it's public record). I really don't need to be paid to post here.

[spooked911]

17. we also have to believe that no flight attendent tried to keep the

hijackers away from the cockpit.

Even before 9/11, I find it hard to believe flight attendents would let a group of strange men go into the cockpit. I know I was stopped prior to 9/11 if I got even close to the cockpit when a plane was in flight.

So let's assume a flight attendent tries to stop the hijackers and the hijackers stab the flight attendent. Surely another flight attendent would alert the cockpit to this scuffle-- and at least warn them of what is going on.

If the hijackers cleared flight attendents away before they went to the cockpit, this would also give the flight attendents a chance to warn the cockpit.

So, I still don't see how they hijackers took the cockpit by surprise.

Also, the cockpit is a small place-- there's not that much room for fighting. This would work to the pilot's advantage, I think.

And it wasn't just that the hijack code wasn't entered-- it was that the pilots didn't even radio ATC and tell them there was a cockpit intrusion. However, on flight 93 there was a mayday call and the sounds of a scuffle. Why didn't this at least happen on the other flights?

If you being attacked, wouldn't you leave your radio on so ATC could hear what was going on?

Finally, why haven't they released data from the black box from the planes that hit the WTC? These were recovered according to two rescue worker who worked at ground zero.

[MercutioATC]

20. No we don't.

We know that the hijackers had seats near the front of the plane. There are plenty of times when the flight attendants are not near the cockpit door. In addition, an unsuspecting flight attendant wouldn't be difficult to overpower and silence.

The cockpit is a noisy place. With the door closed, very little of what is happening in the back of the plane can be heard. I've ridden in enough cockpits, I know. The noise would have to be close to the cockpit door and loud for the pilots to realize anything was going on.

The cockpit IS a small place. However, the pilots would be at a disadvantage. They would be in high-backed seats with their backs to the door. They would also be starting from a seated position with very little room to maneuver.

[Abe Linkman]

22. You can believe him, when he tells you...even the most outrageous...

jokes, because they really do, kinda sound half-way plausible, especially when you're reminded that you can't prove they couldn't have happened.

See, they bonked 'em on they head and that killed 'em dead, so they wouldn't have to dread, having the hijack code read. HEY, you can't prove they didn't.

Then again, since it's been proven that none of the flights were scheduled to fly on 9/11, then the atc person's claims are irrelevant. They're just hypothetical, because there was no flight to be hijacked.

[MercutioATC]

27. Public pleas, Abe? C'mon...

I'm sure people here understand exactly what's going on. I'm comfortable with their judgment of my posts. They can take them or leave them.

Let me know when you want to talk about issues. The cutesy phrases and rhymes are not worth responding to.

I'll be here if you decide you want a substantive dialog. Until then, you're on your own in this thread.

[Abe Linkman]

32. I think the theory you're promoting is BS, but I can't prove it isn't..

n/t

[spooked911]

33. Ou tof curiosity-- what do you suppose the hijackers used to bonk the

pilot's heads so well?

Do you think they improvised something or brought something with them?

[spooked911]

34. Ou tof curiosity-- what do you suppose the hijackers used to bonk the

pilot's heads so well?

Do you think they improvised something or brought something with them?

Also, are you saying both pilots are oblivious to whomever comes in the door?

[MercutioATC]

37. I really have no idea...

...but even a bottle of wine (which you're still allowed to carry onto a plane) would have done nicely. My point is that it doesn't have to actually look like a weapon.

I would think that they's bring something with them. If you're going to hijack a plane, improvization doesn't seem like the best choice.

I'm saying that both pilots CAN be oblivious to what comes in the door. They're both facing away from the door and there's enough ambient noise that the sound of the door opening might well not be heard.

[Abe Linkman]

40. Theoretically, anything is possible. But, you haven't made a plausible...

case at all. The idea that all those pilots on all those planes were all so incapacitated that not even one of them was able to enter the hijack code is absurd. If anyone else were promoting such malarky, you'd be the first to want to know if they were being paid to try and promote such an improbable story.

[MercutioATC]

42. I see a lot of silly theories here...

...and I've never thought that anybody was being paid to do it.

This appears to be another issue that we're just going to disagree on.

[Abe Linkman]

43. Since none of the alleged 9/11 flights were even scheduled, the whole...

idea about enetering hijack codes is meaningless. As you know, DD long ago provided proof that none of the alleged 9/11 flights were scheduled to fly, and none did.

So, why don't you just hang up that notion about pilots being bonked on the head with wine bottles, oxygen tanks, knives, fists, doors, your grandfather's moustache, or whatever else you can think of that someone hasn't already shown would be impossible.

Maybe in a Voodoo legend, but not in the reality of state-sponsored false acts of terrorism.

[MercutioATC]

48. So what planes DID take off?

People boarded them. Controllers worked them.

Either the database is in error or hundreds of civilians are in on some grand conspiracy. Since I personally know controllers who worked UAL93, I'm betting it took off. That would seem to indicate a database error.

[Abe Linkman]

52. Impossible to know WHICH "FL 93" you're talking about.

I'm betting you can't provide proof that there was only one UAL93 that took off on 9/11. The controllers that you claim you know that allegedly "worked" UAL 93 may or may not have actually believed there was only one FL 93, and that they "worked" THE UAL 93.

But, first, let's see some proof that there was indeed a FL 93 and that there was only one flight on 9/11 that was identified as UAL 93.

[MercutioATC]

65. If it was tracked off of the ground (and it was) it was the "real" UAL93.

The UAL93 that crashed in PA is the same plane that the passengers boarded.

[Abe Linkman]

71. Where is proof of that in the BTS database? Same place as where...

proof that FL 77 was scheduled for 9/11 can be found? DD proved those flights did not exist and never took off. If you have more than your claims to the contrary, let's see the proof.

[MercutioATC]

78. You DO know where BTS database information comes from, don't you?

From the airlines.

"Airline on-time data are reported each month to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) by the 19 U.S. air carriers that have at least 1 percent of total domestic scheduled-service passenger revenues, plus other carriers that report voluntarily. The data cover nonstop scheduled-service flights between points within the United States (including territories) as described in 14 CFR Part 234 of DOT's regulations. Data are available since January 1995 and include Trans World Airlines (bought out by American Airlines in 2001) and Hawaiian Airlines (reported voluntarily in 2003)."

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/

Because of this, the disclaimer clearly states:

"BTS makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this website and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this website."

http://www.bts.gov/disclaimer.html



This isn't verified data, it's just a list of what the airlines send the BTS.

[Abe Linkman]

87. In other words, you admit that DD is correct.

Thanks.

[MercutioATC]

94. DD's info is as accurate as it usually is.

The database physically says what she claims.

Of course (as we know from the FAA civil aircraft registration database claims she made) she tends to overreach herself when determining what the data actually proves.

[Abe Linkman]

97. Right. And, those flights weren't scheduled, and they didn't fly on 9/11.

So, all this business about bonking pilots on the head or any of the rest is just part of the BS that's AKA "The Official Conspiracy Theory".

[MercutioATC]

99. If that's what you get from the data, that's fine.

Since the data is provided to the BTS monthly by the airlines, and the airlines obviously state that these flights were scheduled (and they flew), I think the logical assumption is that, because of the crashes, the data for these flights was ommitted by the airlines.

[tngledwebb]

67. All the above are possible, there were hundreds of civilians

in on the Final Solution, for example, or going quietly along with Joe Stalin. And data bases can be cooked, rigged, misleading or just wrong, your own anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.

[Abe Linkman]

45. The silliest notion of all is that every single pilot was prevented from

taking the standard step of entering the four digit hijack code. It's actually beyond silly. If it were true, it would be insulting to their survivors.

[MercutioATC]

49. Actually, I think the silliest notion is "fuel sprayers"...

...but to each his own.

[Abe Linkman]

53. How about: Cave Dweller outwits entire U.S. or caveboys flying giant...

aircraft with zero prior experience? And, for the ultimate in silliness, how about the notion that not one single pilot on any 9/11 flight was able to enter the four digit hijack code, and there are actually a few people here at DU who can come up with a whole slew of excuses & BS about how that's a plausible notion.

And, how about that Pentagon video that shows a plane waaaaaaaay too small to be a 757. And, how about that missile trail visible in the video. Oh, and the tail of the attack jet in the video is the wrong color for an AA plane (but we know that it IS the right color for a military jet). How about trying to spin Larry's "Pull it" order to mean pull firemen out of WTC7, instead of the reality of giving the signal to start the controlled demolition which caused it to miraculously collapes into its own footprint, and thereby making history as the third steel framed building in a single day to collapse as the result of small fires.

Yessir, lots of silly notions. Makes the conjecture about fuel sprayers seem kind of puny, by comparison, doesn't it?

[spooked911]

18. Are we also to believe that both pilots in a cockpit are oblivious to who

enters the cockpit, such that a hijacker can simply sneak all the way in and bash them on the head or slit their throat?

Even if the cockpit is noisy, isn't it likely that at least ONE of the pilots are going to pay attention to someone coming in?

I would imagine the co-pilot at least would try to stop the hijackers, and this should give the head pilot a chance to alert ATC.

And yes, it is possible on one plane that the hijackers were so brutal and lightening quick that they could take out both pilots without the pilots giving any alarm at all to ATC-- but could they do it on three out of three planes (let's exclude flight 93 for now)?

And the hijacker's whole plan rests on this happening?

It just seems very unlikely to me.

[Abe Linkman]

23. Unlikely, do you call it? Sir, it's impossible.

The flights were not scheduled to fly on 9/11 and they didn't, so how could they be hijacked?

[mikelewis]

25. WHAT!?!?! I haven't heard this before... Link?

[Old and In the Way]

28. And 93 takes off minutes before 75 and 11 have hit the WTC.

Wouldn't there be a universal warning for pilots to lock their doors at this point?

[Abe Linkman]

30. Yes, but you see those terrusts are real thugs, doncha know. They just..

break thru any barrier and before you can say "Osama", they can bonk the bejesus out of even great big ol Bubba-type pilots. And, we're not talking about some kind of bonk you'd maybe get from the kinds of bonkers that would be readily available on a commercial airliner...we're talking Dick Cheney-style "Big Time" bonkers. And that's why the pilots just never came out of their stupor for long enoough to enter the hijack code.

Any more questions? I'm sure if M-atc isn't too embarassed to admit how
absurd his theory is about why the hijack codes weren't entered on ANY of the alleged flights...why, he'll be happier than a hound dog to explain everything, in fine detail...too. Just ask 'em.

[tngledwebb]

36. You know it happened that way?

How?

[MercutioATC]

51. No, I don't. I wasn't there.

It would explain how the pilots could be overcome without giving them time to squawk hijack, though.

The assertion was that it was impossible that the pilots wouldn't have squawked hijack. I'm just presenting a scenario that would make that possible.

[Abe Linkman]

54. That's not a scenario. It's an absurd attempt to try & explain away ....

what any rational person knows can't possibly be the truth. You can say anything & claim that all you're doing is presenting a "scenario", but it's very insulting and condescending to act like the school kid who says the dog ate his homework.

Santa Claus & reindeer? You could also present a "scenario that would make THAT possible", but this isn't Hollywood, and you should be more respectful of the intelligence of DUers.

[MercutioATC]

55. You're free to use the ignore feature if you feel you're being insulted.

Regardless, I'll probably continue to post my views.

[tngledwebb]

59. Did the 9/11 report explain the logistics of the cabin takeover?

n/t

[MercutioATC]

63. Not that I saw (not in real detail, anyway).

Even with the cockpit voice recorders, that would be difficult to do. There were no witnesses who survived.

[Abe Linkman]

72. So, your speculation has no foundation in fact.

n/t

[MercutioATC]

75. My speculation about what happened in the cockpit?

There's no evidence that it happened ANY way other than the cell phone calls mentioning that the hijackers had box cutters and those callers did not describe the cockpit attack.

[Abe Linkman]

88. As I said, all you can offer is OCT speculation about what happened.

Based on phony, made-up "cell phone calls".

[MercutioATC]

95. "OCT speculation"?

Didn't you recently point out that my views differ from the official story occasionally?

Why are you so hung up on this OCT stuff? I certainly don't claim that everybody who doesn't believe the entire official story is working in concert. Different people have reached different conclusions. Why do you feel that anybody who states that they believe the majority of the official story is part of some shadowy group (that gets paid for posting here)?

If I claimed that everybody who subscribed to a 9/11 CT was paid to post here, wouldn't that sound a little paranoid to most reasonable people?

[Abe Linkman]

8. It's preposterous to believe that they were ALL killed instantly...or even

so incapacitated that NOT ONE pilot on any aircraft could enter the code before the plane crashed. There are several places in each cockpit that can be used to enter the code for a hijacking.

The Official Conspiracy Theory is a Fairy Tale.

[MercutioATC]

10. "Several places"? Do tell.

There are exactly two. Two transponders located in close proximity to each other.

That aside, my scenario remains the same. Let me hit you in the head from behind and let's see what your priorities are. The pilots didn't have to be killed instantly...they just had to be attacked. Unless they successfully repelled the attack, squawking hijack would be a few items down on their "to do" lists.

[AZCat]

11. A flight instructor once told me...

We were talking about emergencies - specifically fires, but it still applies. He asked me, "what's the first thing you do in an emergency?"

The answer? Fly the plane.

The second thing you do in an emergency? Fly the plane.

Third thing? Fly the plane.

His point - a point all instructors make - is that a pilot's most important task is flying the plane, and that all other tasks must take lower priority, no matter what they are. Dicking around with something else, no matter what it is (be it terrorists, a flaming engine, a hydraulic failure or just a balky flight director) is a good way to go CFIT. A pilot's responsibility is to the plane - this is illustrated quite well by the procedures taken in a cabin pressure loss at altitude. The passengers may be dying of a lack of oxygen, but the pilot does not (according to procedure) get down below FL100 as fast as possible, but instead takes the approved angle of descent because anything else could cause irrecoverable problems.

[Sweet Pea]

100. There is???????

There are several places in each cockpit that can be used to enter the code for a hijacking.

So Abe is a 757 cockpit expert now. I continue to be amazed and aghast.

Could you describe to us where these "several" places are in each cockpit where the IFF code for hijacking can be entered?

That is a straight-up question, Abe. A straight-up question deserves an answer. No obfuscation. No counter-questions. No dodging around. I await your answer.

[DulceDecorum]

9. ... seeing as how the AA planes never left the ground,

why would they need to punch in hijacker codes?

N334AA (cn 45106/738)
The nose of "Flagship Vermont" survives
in the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum.
This DC-7 was broken up in 1965 when it was only nine years old.
It had only been in service for six years, from 1956 until 1962.
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?cnsearch=45106/738&distinct_entry=true

[Wilms]

13. That is so messed up.

A national treasure.

They put the nose section on display before it crashed.

You'd think they'd do a better job at plane swapping, but then, no one accused them of having an easy time pulling 911 off.

[tngledwebb]

15. An example of how long it takes for info to come out...

What you heard 'today' was known years ago and is one of many 9/11 anomalies long debated on the 9/11 DU forums and elsewhere.