Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
My thoughts on the hijackers.
Topic Started: Oct 9 2008, 01:25 PM (2,755 Views)
trust_nobody

I have not investigated to much into the alleged hijackers. I felt it was just a minor detail only to solidify the propaganda set fourth by the Bush administration. However my initial thoughts regarding these hijackers is as follows.

I believe all the supposed terrorists were in fact condemed to die from where ever the were actually from. I believe they were recruited by the CIA or another rogue element within our goverment.They were given an ultimatum to conduct this operation or die for the crimes they initially commited in the first place.They were trained in a crude manner, more then likely on simulators or similar aircraft used in 9/11. There families were compinsated in some fashion to never speak the truth about this. It isnt to far out of reality if you think about it.More then likely this is how it really happend given the fact the FBI allready had there information and reacted so swiftly because the story line was allready in place. They had to follow the role. Everything was carefully planned out and the media would actually make the American people bite the hook.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grit1645

trust_nobody
Oct 9 2008, 01:25 PM
I have not investigated to much into the alleged hijackers. I felt it was just a minor detail only to solidify the propaganda set fourth by the Bush administration. However my initial thoughts regarding these hijackers is as follows.

I believe all the supposed terrorists were in fact condemed to die from where ever the were actually from. I believe they were recruited by the CIA or another rogue element within our goverment.They were given an ultimatum to conduct this operation or die for the crimes they initially commited in the first place.They were trained in a crude manner, more then likely on simulators or similar aircraft used in 9/11. There families were compinsated in some fashion to never speak the truth about this. It isnt to far out of reality if you think about it.More then likely this is how it really happend given the fact the FBI allready had there information and reacted so swiftly because the story line was allready in place. They had to follow the role. Everything was carefully planned out and the media would actually make the American people bite the hook.
I think this idea has merit. By having actual "hijackers" (some of whom might not have known exactly how things were supposed to play out) everyone else is left to play their roles unawares of any subterfuge. Only a few people need to be involved, and the action once set into motion can follow whatever course the rest of the participants set, with the appropriate retelling later on. For example, the passengers of United 93 overtaking the cockpit and ultimately causing the plane to crash early might not be a planned part of the event, but after it plays out, it is then fit into the story as a "feel good hero tale".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JackD

first off, there is ZERO hard evidence that has been brought forth to establish that aircraft were hijacked on 9/11/01/

yes it has been incessantly repeated over and over. but the case is circumstantial, and depends more on fantasy movies like Flight 93 than on forensics. there were phone calls and 'keying of the push-to-talk' radio button -- and the flights did go NORDO and no-transponder. lots of nice little bits. like the flight manuals left behind in found luggage. etc.

But try and establish a proof for planes-hijacked-by Atta & Co - and you will find a tough job.

anyone who alleges that planes were hijacked by arabs, say, a court of law, would have to be able to place the hijackers on board the planes that day.

Good luck with that.
---

back to your OP -- the 'myth' of 'passengers fighting back' got started in Dick Cheney's PEOC at about 1010am on 9/11 when he said "i think something heroic took place on that plane'' -- adn that meme was circulated like mad by MSM...

later we heard the "lets roll" stories... and from there it spiralled into mythology -- a mythology of "america fights back"
-- kinda like a Rocky Movie.


... now go back and look at the bios of the alleged hijackers, and see if perhaps the identities of these men (several of whom called newspapers to say 'i'm alive' , having seen their photo & name on TV) is real, in your vie

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trust_nobody

id like to read the material regardibg the alleged hijackers are still alive. Please provide me with a link so i can read this. I heard this before and canot find the material.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JackD

google it.

there were stories in british press. Guardian. however, none were subsequently corroborated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stundie

I had a look at the claims of the alleged hijackers being alive in the early days of investigating 9/11 and I have to admit, that I didn't find any hard evidence they were actually alive.

This is not to say they that I am correct, but as been pointed out, I don't think they were corroborated either.

These stories of whether are alive or not as been discussed at length, but with nothing conclusive.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Headspin
Member Avatar

The FBI changed the hijackers names after some of them reported themselves to be alive, then some time later the bbc/guradian/telegraph and middle eastern reports came out reporting other hijakers alive.

this is all despite the FBI having access to the passenger manifests within the first hours, but the initial hijackers names were not amongt the "victim lists" or the alleged "fake" manifests discovered in 2005.

read first chapter by Jay Kolar for precise details.

http://books.google.com/books?id=o9jo_In37aEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0

...and the original posters idea is ridiculous, you do not leave something of this magnitude to the whim of unpredictable people, you use computer control to ensure success.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stundie

Thanks Headspin.

I didn't know that the FBI didn't continue with their investigations. Only a new investigation would we be able to tell one way or another.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JustAdream
Member Avatar

trust_nobody
Oct 9 2008, 01:25 PM
I have not investigated to much into the alleged hijackers. I felt it was just a minor detail only to solidify the propaganda set fourth by the Bush administration. However my initial thoughts regarding these hijackers is as follows.

I believe all the supposed terrorists were in fact condemed to die from where ever the were actually from. I believe they were recruited by the CIA or another rogue element within our goverment.They were given an ultimatum to conduct this operation or die for the crimes they initially commited in the first place.They were trained in a crude manner, more then likely on simulators or similar aircraft used in 9/11. There families were compinsated in some fashion to never speak the truth about this. It isnt to far out of reality if you think about it.More then likely this is how it really happend given the fact the FBI allready had there information and reacted so swiftly because the story line was allready in place. They had to follow the role. Everything was carefully planned out and the media would actually make the American people bite the hook.
You are somewhat on the right track. The "hijackers" were recruited by the CIA, and the Mossad. They were brought over to America and were set-up by the Mossad spies who were following them around. They went to flight schools on orders from their handlers who was probably leading them to believe they were taking part in a special operation along the lines of "Operation Amalgam Virgo" or other "live hijack DRILLS"...but the real purpose of their so called "training" was to build up a picture/leave a false trail of evidence that they were preparing to carry out a hijacking operation which they were consequently blamed for on 9/11. This false trail that they were tricked into leaving by Mossad would be used as evidence that they were planning to carry out 9/11. All of them were framed by the Mossad and CIA, none of them actually hijacked planes on 911. They were assets, then dupes, then patsies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mick

Quote:
 
The "hijackers" were recruited by the CIA, and the Mossad.

Quote:
 
All of them were framed by the Mossad and CIA, none of them actually hijacked planes on 911. They were assets, then dupes, then patsies.


What evidence is there that it was actually the Mossad and the CIA that set them up? Just because they could have, does not make it so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JustAdream
Member Avatar

Mick
Mar 12 2009, 11:40 AM
Quote:
 
The "hijackers" were recruited by the CIA, and the Mossad.

Quote:
 
All of them were framed by the Mossad and CIA, none of them actually hijacked planes on 911. They were assets, then dupes, then patsies.


What evidence is there that it was actually the Mossad and the CIA that set them up? Just because they could have, does not make it so.
Mossad was known to be "trailing" the hijackers

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6b5rc_israeli-mossad-agents-monitoring-91_news

What is your theory? Did these guys actually hijack planes on 911? :whoa:
Edited by JustAdream, Mar 12 2009, 04:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mick

JustAdream
Mar 12 2009, 04:33 PM
Mossad was known to be "trailing" the hijackers

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6b5rc_israeli-mossad-agents-monitoring-91_news

What is your theory? Did these guys actually hijack planes on 911? :whoa:
If the Mossad was known to be trailing the hijackers, then where is your evidence? The video you linked to is reporters speculating that the Mossad agents found in Florida might have been tracking the terrorists responsible for the hi-jackings. This really is not evidence of anything. Ditto for your recruiting and framing claims.

My theory is that a group of arab terrorists conspired to hi-jack some airliners and crash them into the WTC, Pentagon and some other unknown target. One of the aircraft had a group of passengers on it that decided not to conform to the usual advice that passengers should not resist hi-jackers. We are fortunate that they resisted; so instead of another destroyed or damaged building, all we got was a hole in the ground.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Mick
Mar 12 2009, 07:58 PM
JustAdream
Mar 12 2009, 04:33 PM
Mossad was known to be "trailing" the hijackers

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6b5rc_israeli-mossad-agents-monitoring-91_news

What is your theory? Did these guys actually hijack planes on 911? :whoa:
If the Mossad was known to be trailing the hijackers, then where is your evidence? The video you linked to is reporters speculating that the Mossad agents found in Florida might have been tracking the terrorists responsible for the hi-jackings. This really is not evidence of anything. Ditto for your recruiting and framing claims.

My theory is that a group of arab terrorists conspired to hi-jack some airliners and crash them into the WTC, Pentagon and some other unknown target. One of the aircraft had a group of passengers on it that decided not to conform to the usual advice that passengers should not resist hi-jackers. We are fortunate that they resisted; so instead of another destroyed or damaged building, all we got was a hole in the ground.
And your evidence that it was Arabs is ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mick

The 9/11 commission report.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
If the Mossad was known to be trailing the hijackers, then where is your evidence?


Here you go:
Quote:
 
According to German newspapers, the Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the 19 9/11 hijackers or if the number is a coincidence. However, four names on the list are known, and these four will be 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta.(Source)


So, at least 4 out of 19 of the named ones matched the alleged hijackers. And the named four were not so called muscle men, but those who allegedly lead the operations in the U.S.. Monitor them, and you get them all!

Would be good to learn the names of the other 15 provided by Israeli Intelligence, wouldn't it? Imagine they would match the other alleged hijackers, too. How could a warning be more specific? But I see, they failed to connect the dots....yawn.

I hope you see now why we need a full, independent investigation which is adequate to this historic event which changed the world so dramatically. Do you agree on that? If so, then why not joining forces to get that investigation instead of arguing with those who demand so?

Quote:
 
One of the aircraft had a group of passengers on it that decided not to conform to the usual advice that passengers should not resist hi-jackers. We are fortunate that they resisted; so instead of another destroyed or damaged building, all we got was a hole in the ground.


If you believe that this is true, then you have to (unknowingly) believe that Burlingame and the other crew members and passengers of Flight 77 were cowards. I quote from my article here:

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed." Source


The question is 'Why was there no fight going on'? Though this question might at first occur unreasonable, let's not forget the official version in the case of Flight 93: Passengers knew that they were on a suicide mission so they made the decision to strike back. Let's compare this with Flight 77.

At least ten of the 59 passengers had a military background and 21 of them were involved in government/defense related work, including Korea-, Vietnam-, and Gulf-war veterans. Which means that we can assume that they wouldn't go into death without resistance. ( compilation of infos about the passengers )

There were two cell-phone calls from flight 77. The first from flight attendant Renee May at 9:12, the second from Barbara Olsen at 9:16. This means they phoned AFTER the second plane hit the WTC.

Quote:
 
At 9:12, Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. She asked her mother to alert American Airlines. Nancy May and her husband promptly did so.
Commission Report


Quote:
 
"'Unlike the earlier flights, the Flight 77 hijackers were reported by a passenger to have box cutters. At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked, and the hijackers had knives and box cutters. She further indicated that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call, and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane. About a minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. Solicitor General Olson tried unsuccessfully to reach Attorney General John Ashcroft. Shortly after the first call, Barbara Olson reached her husband again. She reported that the pilot had announced that the flight had been hijacked, and she asked her husband what she should tell the captain to do. Ted Olson asked for her location and she replied that the aircraft was then flying over houses.

Another passenger told her they were traveling northeast. The Solicitor General then informed his wife of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She did not display signs of panic and did not indicate any awareness of an impending crash. At that point, the second call was cut off." Commission Report


Quote:
 
"Herded to the back of the plane by hijackers armed with knives and box-cutters, the passengers and crew members of American Airlines Flight 77 -- including the wife of Solicitor General Theodore Olson -- were ordered to call relatives to say they were about to die." Washington Post (09/12/01)


So the passengers of flight 77 were aware that they were not dealing with a normal hijacking. They were aware that they were going to die.

I think it's safe to say that every normal person would have fight for survival, and certainly the passengers (not to forget the crew!) with military background would have fought back! Many of them were confrontated with live-threating situations before! Against maximum FOUR hjackers with BOXCUTTERS!

Was there a fight going on?


We have a report that at least pilot Charles Burlingame resisted the hijackers:

Quote:
 

Senator John W. Warner (Va.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, helped spearhead the campaign on Burlingame's behalf, saying he was driven in part by evidence that the pilot died fighting the hijackers, not in the crash.

"I felt very strongly that this was a meritorious case," he said yesterday. "The final cog in the wheel was the examination of his remains, which indicated Captain Burlingame was in a struggle and died before the crash, doing his best to save lives on the aircraft and on the ground." (Source)


This would not only be reasonable to expect - which pilot would give up his plane to hijackers without resistance? - but was also expected from all people knowing him.
Quote:
 

"I can assure you that Capt. Burlingame was an extraordinary individual who led an exemplary life and died a hero. While we will never know for sure what happened on that flight, the people at American Airlines who knew Captain Burlingame the best have no doubt whatsoever that he died while vigorously defending his plane and his passengers. He was, by all accounts, a courageous individual.''
"They are not giving any consideration at all to the fact that he did 25 years of service to the Navy and that he died in an unprecedented fashion. Not passively, but in what had to be hand-to-hand confrontation with one or several knife-wielding terrorist," he said.
"He always had the answers, and he always would solve the problems, but this one was bigger than him," said Mark Burlingame, who said his older brother was intensely serious about his responsibilities as a commercial pilot. "I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane." (Source)


From 9/11-Timeline:
Quote:
 

People who knew Charles Burlingame, the pilot of Flight 77, will later contend that it would have required a difficult struggle for the hijackers to gain control of the plane from him. [Washington Post, 9/11/2002] Burlingame was a military man who’d flown Navy jets for eight years, served several tours at the Navy’s elite Top Gun school, and been in the Naval Reserve for 17 years. [Associated Press, 12/6/2001] His sister, Debra Burlingame, says, “This was a guy that’s been through SERE [Survival Evasion Resistance Escape] school in the Navy and had very tough psychological and physical preparation.” [Journal News (Westchester), 12/30/2003] Admiral Timothy Keating, who was a classmate of Burlingame’s from the Navy and a flight school friend, says, “I was in a plebe summer boxing match with Chick, and he pounded me.… Chick was really tough, and the terrorists had to perform some inhumane act to get him out of that cockpit, I guarantee you.” [CNN, 5/16/2006] (Source)


But remember when she was in the back of the plane, Barbara Olsen asked what she should tell the captain to do. But for the captain to be in the back of the plane, there had to be a fight in the first place, as he would not gave up the controls without a fight. At least if we trust those who knew him the best. Then how did he get there, or was Olsen just mistaken, and confused Burlingame with someone other? But as she was in the first class, she would have witnessed such fight.

Let's look closer into the moments before and as the -supposed- hijacking happened.



The 9/11 Commission estimated that the flight was hijacked between 08:51 EDT and 08:54 EDT, just minutes after the first hijacked plane had struck the World Trade Center in Manhattan at 08:46 EDT. The last normal radio communications from the aircraft to air traffic control occurred at 08:50:51 EDT.

At 08:54 EDT, American Airlines Flight 77 began to deviate from its normal, assigned flight path and turned south. (Source)


This means the hijackers took over control within three minutes. The strange thing is, that there are no indications of a fight. First, unlike Flight 93 when it was hijacked, the FDR-data delivered no indications of a fight. There was no disruptive change in the flight path like drastic lost or gain of height, swinging to the left or right. Only the subsequent lost of transponder and change of course indicated a hijack, but not the plane's behaviour itself.

Watch this short clip based on the FDR-data provided by NTSB.


Another strange thing is that pilot Burlingame didn't manage to send a stress signal:

Quote:
 
And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. ...

I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.

And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ..(Source)


Muga mentioned an interesting point about the physical stature of the hijackers. Others, too:
Quote:
 

Yet the five alleged hijackers do not appear to have been the kinds of people that would be a particularly dangerous opponent. Pilot Hani Hanjour was skinny and barely over 5 feet tall. [Washington Post, 10/15/2001] And according to the 9/11 Commission, the “so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing,” with the majority of them being between 5 feet 5 and 5 feet 7 in height, “and slender in build.” [9/11 Commission, 6/16/2004]
(Source)


Should we believe that this tall man with fighting experience would overhand the controls to a 5 feet tall man, slendered build, because he's threatened by him with a box cutter? Indeed, the FDR data indicates that the overhanding of the controls was a smooth process rather than a wild fight.

Another point to mention is the possibility that Flight 77 received a hijack-warning before being hijacked.


According to the Guardian Boston flight control tower notifies several air traffic control centres at 8:25 that a hijack is taking place.
Quote:
 

Between 8:25 and 8:32, in accordance with the FAA protocol, Boston Center managers started notifying their chain of command that American 11 had been hijacked. (Source)


However, the notification was not nationwide broadcasted, and it is reported that Indianapolis flight controller monitoring Flight 77 did not know that Flight 11, and twenty minutes later Flight 175, had been hijacked.


But Indianapolis wasn't controlling Flight 77 all the time. From the Commission-report:
Quote:
 

American 77 began its takeoff roll from Dulles International Airport at 8:20. The flight was handed off routinely from Washington Center to Indianapolis Center at approximately 8:40. American 77 was acknowledged by the Indianapolis controller, who had fourteen other planes in his sector at the time. The controller instructed the aircraft to climb and, at 8:50, cleared it to its next navigational aid. American 77 acknowledged. This was the last transmission from American 77. (Source)


The hijack-warning was broadcasted about 15 minutes before Indianapolis handled Flight 77, and at that time Washington Center was responsible for Flight 77. This is remarkable when we look at this report by the New York Times:
Quote:
 

The controllers assigned to United Airlines Flight 175 on Tuesday suspected that it had been hijacked as it flew off its assigned route. But they did not learn that another plane had been hijacked and had hit the World Trade Center until a minute or two before Flight 175 struck the center, people involved in the air traffic system said.

In contrast, controllers at the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center had much more warning that something was wrong. Those controllers, who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which dived into the Pentagon, knew about the hijacking of the first plane to crash, even before it hit the World Trade Center, those involved said. That was more than an hour before they watched another hijacked plane, United Flight 93, cross their radar screen on its way to the Pentagon. (Source)


Quote:
 
In addition, The New York Times this morning reports the controllers at Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center—who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon—knew about the hijacking of American Flight 11 even before it crashed. But there apparently were no attempts at intercepting Flight 77.
(Source)


If the claims by the Commission and the NYT are true, then the controllers in Washington Centre knew of the first hijacking. So there's a high chance that also (like Flight 93 later) Flight 77 received a hijack warning, which if true, would make the official version of the hijacking even more implausible than it is already.

And let's not forget that Barbara Olsen was in the first class, but reported no fight, which she undoubtfully would have recognized if happened. Also flight attendant May reported no fight. So, were all the people knowing Burlingame wrong in their appraisment about his likely behaviour?


Hani Hanjour? C'mon, I would have knocked him out and I'm certainly not the guy who would have been able to knock out Burlingame. That's the way food chains work.

The average-Joe, ordinary citizens, fought back the hijackers on Flight 93, but people who have taken an oath to defend their country and faced live-threatening situations before did not? Who wrote this script?

Mick, I got the impression that you're too impressed by some Hollywood movies when it comes to 9/11.


ps. Ted Olsen is a confessed, "infinite" liar!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Mick
Mar 12 2009, 08:53 PM
The 9/11 commission report.
And you see no conflict of interest with the authors of that report ?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mick

NK-44
Mar 12 2009, 09:00 PM


Quote:
 
Would be good to learn the names of the other 15 provided by Israeli Intelligence, wouldn't it? Imagine they would match the other alleged hijackers, too. How could a warning be more specific? But I see, they failed to connect the dots....yawn.

It is very unfortunate that the FBI or CIA failed to produce anything that could have prevented the terrorists attacks after receiving any warning from the Mossad.

Quote:
 
If you believe that this is true, then you have to (unknowingly) believe that Burlingame and the other crew members and passengers of Flight 77 were cowards. I quote from my article


I have read stories about how the crew should have been able to keep control of the aircraft, but it can not be something we know for sure as these crews did not have actual experience in resisting an actual attack by hijackers on an airliner. Since there are no surviving witnesses to the hi-jackings, anything said about how the passengers and crew should have behaved is mere speculation.

Quote:
 
At least ten of the 59 passengers had a military background and 21 of them were involved in government/defense related work, including Korea-, Vietnam-, and Gulf-war veterans. Which means that we can assume that they wouldn't go into death without resistance.

I do not know what experience you have with counter terrorism and military training, but I am a US Navy vet. I can tell you that the firearms training I have seen that the typical Sailor gets SUCKS big time. This includes the training that shipboard sailors on the security force get.

Quote:
 
So the passengers of flight 77 were aware that they were not dealing with a normal hijacking. They were aware that they were going to die.

I think it's safe to say that every normal person would have fight for survival, and certainly the passengers (not to forget the crew!) with military background would have fought back! Many of them were confrontated with live-threating situations before! Against maximum FOUR hjackers with BOXCUTTERS!


Not all military are trained to fight; I was a technician on a ship. I was trained to operate a power plant, not fight The point at which they decided to fight and how effective they were is not clear.

Quote:
 
"I felt very strongly that this was a meritorious case," he said yesterday. "The final cog in the wheel was the examination of his remains, which indicated Captain Burlingame was in a struggle and died before the crash, doing his best to save lives on the aircraft and on the ground."


I'm glad you are not one of those no-planers who claim that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon.

Quote:
 
I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.


An American airliner crew successfully resisting hi-jackers was a very rare occurrence. To claim that the crew could certainly have kept armed hi-jackers from taking control of the aircraft is wishful thinking.

Quote:
 
And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual.


If I thought that 9/11 was an inside job, this would be something I think would argue against it as it would be very stupid for a conspirator to not do such a simple task as to try and convince us that it was a hi-jacking by terrorists.

Quote:
 
Should we believe that this tall man with fighting experience would overhand the controls to a 5 feet tall man, slendered build, because he's threatened by him with a box cutter? Indeed, the FDR data indicates that the overhanding of the controls was a smooth process rather than a wild fight.


I was not impressed with the physique of Royce Gracie when I first saw him. But as it turns out, he is really bad ass and could probably take out a couple of men his weight in any fight, especially the average airline pilot who is not trained in unarmed combat. I did not know that any of the hi-jackers were so short.

Quote:
 
The average-Joe, ordinary citizens, fought back the hijackers on Flight 93, but people who have taken an oath to defend their country and faced live-threatening situations before did not? Who wrote this script?


People who take an oath to defend their country are not always able to in some situations. This can also does mean sometimes they are not willing to. A good book to read about this failure to act is "On Killing". I took an oath to defend my country back in the 80's. While I am required to do so when ordered, it does not mean I am capable of acting on those orders.

Quote:
 
Mick, I got the impression that you're too impressed by some Hollywood movies when it comes to 9/11.


I am very unimpressed with Hollywood's ability to accurately portray gun play and fighting action. The fight at the end of the movie "Clerks" was more believable than most action movies I have seen.



Edited by Mick, Mar 12 2009, 10:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mick

JFK
Mar 12 2009, 09:00 PM
And you see no conflict of interest with the authors of that report ?
I do, but conflict of interest is not proof of deception.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
NK-44
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
It is very unfortunate that the FBI or CIA failed to produce anything that could have prevented the terrorists attacks after receiving any warning from the Mossad.


It is very unfortunate that nobody of those who "failed" to connect the dots and to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks has been hold accountable. It is also very unfortunate that people like you are satisfied with stating that it is unfortunate instead of joining us to demand a real investigation which leads to accountability.


Quote:
 
I do not know what experience you have with counter terrorism and military training, but I am a US Navy vet. I can tell you that the firearms training I have seen that the typical Sailor gets SUCKS big time. This includes the training that shipboard sailors on the security force get.



There would be not much experience needed to beat the shit out of Hani Hanjour. Please tell me what experience had Hani Hanjour with counter counter terrorism? Going a few times into the gym? Is that enough for you to believe that no one was able to do what ordinary passengers in Flight 93 allegedly done?

Quote:
 
An American airliner crew successfully resisting hi-jackers was a very rare occurrence. To claim that the crew could certainly have kept armed hi-jackers from taking control of the aircraft is wishful thinking.


I prefer the appraisal of those who knew Burlingame very well instead of your general talking about typical sailors.

Quote:
 
Not all military are trained to fight; I was a technician on a ship. I was trained to operate a power plant, not fight The point at which they decided to fight and how effective they were is not clear.


Do some research on those passengers with a military background and if you find evidence that, despite their background, none of them had the capability to fight back, please post it here.

What you seemingly fail to understand: at the end, it doesn't even matter if they had a military background or not, because of what I wrote: I think it's safe to say that every normal person would have fight for survival. Mick, try to put you in their place with the information they had. And that was that the hijackers were about to kill them all and many others by crashing the plane into buildings. Would YOU have fought back or would you have said, "uh no, better not, I remember the typical sailor gets sucks big times in the firearms training I have seen".

This is not reasonable. No way.

Quote:
 
An American airliner crew successfully resisting hi-jackers was a very rare occurrence. To claim that the crew could certainly have kept armed hi-jackers from taking control of the aircraft is wishful thinking.


Actually, a very rare occurence was the fact that an airliner crew and the passengers knew that they were going to die but did not take measures to avert that. And again, I prefer the opinions of those who knew the people on board personally. I think their evaluation has much more weight than your speculation, or mine.

Quote:
 
I was not impressed with the physique of Royce Gracie when I first saw him. But as it turns out, he is really bad ass and could probably take out a couple of men his weight in any fight, especially the average airline pilot who is not trained in unarmed combat. I did not know that any of the hi-jackers were so short.


We're not talking about Yip Man or Bruce Lee, we're talking about Hani Hanjour. If the hijackers really were trained and experienced fighters, then why would they take some visits in gyms in the weeks before?

Quote:
 
People who take an oath to defend their country are not always able to in some situations. This can also does mean sometimes they are not willing to. A good book to read about this failure to act is "On Killing". I took an oath to defend my country back in the 80's. While I am required to do so when ordered, it does not mean I am capable of acting on those orders.


Ok, so you're not capable to even TRY to defend your life? Again, please tell us the difference between Flight 93 and 77 and why the crew members and passengers behaved so differently.

Quote:
 
I am very unimpressed with Hollywood's ability to accurately portray gun play and fighting action. The fight at the end of the movie "Clerks" was more believable than most action movies I have seen.


If 9/11 hadn't happened, but someone made a movie out of what allegedly happened that day and before - from Suqamis passport at the WTC; the unburned grass in Shanksville (but most human remains were scorched, the red bandana not); islamic fundamentalists visiting strip bars and drinking alcohol; ultra 'under-the-radar'-conspirative terrorists yelling about their plans in bars the night before; the non-response of the air defense, which was at the same time involved in several war games simulating just that very scenario; etc.pp. - if you would have watched such a movie, you would have run out of the screening, demanding your money back: "I don't buy this shit". But if someone sells you the very same shit in reality, you're buying it hook, line and sinker.

Wake up, Mike, or go to bed again. But please don't try further to lull those who are awake. If we don't get the majority of people to wake up very soon, then it will be bedtime - for democracy, or what's left of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Domenick DiMaggio

Mick
Mar 12 2009, 08:53 PM
The 9/11 commission report.
Some members of the 9/11 Commission have criticized how the government formed and operated the commission, and allege omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report. Commission co-chairs Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton wrote in their book "Without Precedent" that the 9/11 Commission was "set up to fail," and in an interview with CBC News, Mr. Hamilton complained of "poor access" and said that the Commission was unable to answer many of its questions about FAA and NORAD and White House activity. He also acknowledged that NORAD had told the Commission things that were not true. According to an article in Harpers, the Commissioners wrote that they threatened to seek prosecution of officials for criminal obstruction.




brilliant einstein..........

:ouch:

if you don't believe me check :40 - 1:23


Edited by Domenick DiMaggio, Mar 13 2009, 01:40 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JustAdream
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
My theory is that a group of arab terrorists conspired to hi-jack some airliners and crash them into the WTC, Pentagon and some other unknown target. One of the aircraft had a group of passengers on it that decided not to conform to the usual advice that passengers should not resist hi-jackers. We are fortunate that they resisted; so instead of another destroyed or damaged building, all we got was a hole in the ground.


You have cult-like religious dogmatic blind FAITH in that story don't you. Good for you.

My evidence that Mossad was involved was the fact that the security at all of the airports of the Alleged hijacking were run by ICTS which is owned by Ezra Harel(jewish) and run by Zionist Jews, and most of its employees are ex-shin bet operatives....they allowed 2 teams of mossad agents dressed like arabs to hijack the plane or fly it themselves from the beginning, they acted out a jihadist script, then landed the planes secretly and killed the passengers...

The "terrorists" you refer to were brought over to America through the Jeddah consulate by the CIA in an express Visa program and were living on U.S military bases....
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
Some were also recruited by Mossad, specifically Ziad Jarrah and Mohammed Atta.

They were probably training for some CIA intelligence operation like "operation amalgam virgo" or some "live fly hijack drills" run by the military in which they would take part in....

This is why they were going to "flight schools" and such. In reality they were being tricked into leaving a false trail of evidence that would be used by the media to build up a picture that they were intending on hijacking planes and crashing them.

They were first assets, then dupes, then patsies.
Edited by JustAdream, Mar 13 2009, 03:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JackD


Regarding "Hijackers" --- as much as the story of hijacked planes and boxcutters has been imprinted on our deep brains, (there was even a Paramount movie FLIGHT 93 to 'show' us how it happened)..

There is VERY LITTLE, repeat NEARLY ZERO hard evidence that ANY planes were hijacked on 9/11.

The horse goes in front of the cart.

BEFORE proceeding with any discussion of 'hijackers' you must actually probe the evidence for hijackers. Which is pretty f---in' thin, turns out -- a premise based on odd radio messages, (''ve have some planes'_) -- some unconfirmed phone calls (made impossibly from cell phones!!) -- and the plane behavior, deviating from courses.

Combine that with the fact that No Legitimate Piece of Evidence has been produced by the airlines (UAL & AA) to show that any of the ALLEGED 'hijackers' actually boarded any of the 4 planes. (yes, i mean the four planes whose transponders were later 'turned off' in specific tiny slivers of airspace where there was crap primary radar coverage.... how could 'they' know... hmmm)

Houston, we got a situation here...

My conclusions any discussion of 'hijackers' and hani hanjour & ziad jarrah should be placed on SQUARE ONE which is DID THESE MEN BOARD THE SPECIFIC PLANES?

which is has never, ever been established. if you can't establish THAT, you got no basis speculating further, it's all just a JackBauer '24' episode fantasy scenario based on zippo, zilch, nada...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JustAdream
Member Avatar

JackD
Mar 13 2009, 11:23 AM
Regarding "Hijackers" --- as much as the story of hijacked planes and boxcutters has been imprinted on our deep brains, (there was even a Paramount movie FLIGHT 93 to 'show' us how it happened)..

There is VERY LITTLE, repeat NEARLY ZERO hard evidence that ANY planes were hijacked on 9/11.

The horse goes in front of the cart.

BEFORE proceeding with any discussion of 'hijackers' you must actually probe the evidence for hijackers. Which is pretty f---in' thin, turns out -- a premise based on odd radio messages, (''ve have some planes'_) -- some unconfirmed phone calls (made impossibly from cell phones!!) -- and the plane behavior, deviating from courses.

Combine that with the fact that No Legitimate Piece of Evidence has been produced by the airlines (UAL & AA) to show that any of the ALLEGED 'hijackers' actually boarded any of the 4 planes. (yes, i mean the four planes whose transponders were later 'turned off' in specific tiny slivers of airspace where there was crap primary radar coverage.... how could 'they' know... hmmm)

Houston, we got a situation here...

My conclusions any discussion of 'hijackers' and hani hanjour & ziad jarrah should be placed on SQUARE ONE which is DID THESE MEN BOARD THE SPECIFIC PLANES?

which is has never, ever been established. if you can't establish THAT, you got no basis speculating further, it's all just a JackBauer '24' episode fantasy scenario based on zippo, zilch, nada...

Yes, but there are some brainless dupes out their that don't need evidence, as long as its coming from the mouth of an "authority" that is all the "evidence" they need. I feel sorry for them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JustAdream
Member Avatar

JackD
Mar 13 2009, 11:23 AM
BEFORE proceeding with any discussion of 'hijackers' you must actually probe the evidence for hijackers. Which is pretty f---in' thin, turns out -- a premise based on odd radio messages, (''ve have some planes'_) --
I believe the retarded "we have planes" thing from one of the cockpit recorders is either completely fraudulent or was one of the Mossad operatives acting out the "jihadist script"....how dumb are they? The "terrorists" would be speaking in Arabic not frigan English if they did decide to speak....and who the hell is he saying "we have planes" to? Was he talking to Bin Laden on a cell phone that doesn't work at such altitudes? :P :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JackD

The voice transmissions such as "we have some planes" and "everybody stay in your seats we go back to airport" which were overheard by Boston ATC and certain other commercial planes were alleged to be a result of

the 'hijackers-pilots' mistakenly pushing the wrong buttons while they were trying to communicate internally to the passengers/crew on the PA, but instead goofed & hit push-to-talk which sent out radio signal.

the origin of the radio broadcast is unprovable-- this sort of transmission would be very simple to spoof, making it SEEM that the transmission might have come from an off-course AA11...

each additional little bit of observation, a plane off course, a frantic call from a stewardness (actually an oddly calm monotone call), a bizarre radio transmission, disappearing transponder, all seems to 'add up to say 'Hijacking" which is the point of the whole operation, but if you pick it apart, you realize that none of this shit passes the smell test and in a court room would be torn to shreds by any defense attorney.


We were told a narrative story about hijacked planes that just sounded too good to be true, but still compelling. I think the UA93 'phone call' meme was critical to get the public to be 'sold' on the idea that planes were hijacked, and then we just extrapolated the UA93 scenario to all 4 planes, without stopping to think.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Hijackers · Next Topic »
Add Reply