IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Hijackers In Cockpit Before Takeoff?

nonflier
post Jan 19 2014, 02:57 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 33
Joined: 13-January 14
Member No.: 7,664



Mod: If this has been addressed here somewhere (I wasn't able to find it) just move my post to the correct spot. It's kind of related to the Gate 26/32 thread but I thought it should be treated separately.

Were the hijackers already in the cockpit before takeoff?

Rather than me try to put it in my own words, it would be best to get it from the source I did:
Conspiracy Theory Jesse Ventura The 9 11 attacks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dhHHPO7W_8
There is related background info earlier in the video, but the critical part starts at 41:42.

P.S. Please don't post opinions about Jesse - it's about the point in question not the guy delivering it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ChrisPDX
post Jan 19 2014, 03:17 PM
Post #2





Group: Core Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 15-August 09
Member No.: 4,546



QUOTE (nonflier @ Jan 19 2014, 11:57 AM) *
Mod: If this has been addressed here somewhere (I wasn't able to find it) just move my post to the correct spot. It's kind of related to the Gate 26/32 thread but I thought it should be treated separately.

Were the hijackers already in the cockpit before takeoff?

Rather than me try to put it in my own words, it would be best to get it from the source I did:
Conspiracy Theory Jesse Ventura The 9 11 attacks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dhHHPO7W_8
There is related background info earlier in the video, but the critical part starts at 41:42.

P.S. Please don't post opinions about Jesse - it's about the point in question not the guy delivering it.



You're beating a dead horse and stuff like this is just nonsense. You're a shill.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nonflier
post Jan 19 2014, 03:27 PM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 33
Joined: 13-January 14
Member No.: 7,664



How is that helpful? Show me where it's been beaten to death and then I won't bother anyone with it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SteveF
post Jan 19 2014, 03:42 PM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 29
Joined: 25-February 11
Member No.: 5,677



QUOTE (ChrisPDX @ Jan 19 2014, 12:17 PM) *
You're beating a dead horse and stuff like this is just nonsense. You're a shill.


Every 911 Truther on the planet has beaten this horse; it has been beaten to death, buried, exhumed, cremated, and its ashes scattered to the wind!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nonflier
post Jan 19 2014, 04:15 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 33
Joined: 13-January 14
Member No.: 7,664



So you say! And I'm supposed to ignore it? The topic was clear - if you're not interested then don't post.

If the Admin/Mods don't want the thread here, let them trash it or close it. Otherwise, the people who aren't interested should ignore it.

Please address the topic or stay out it. (this should be a general rule not just for this one thread)

This post has been edited by nonflier: Jan 19 2014, 04:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MikeR
post Jan 19 2014, 04:55 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 165
Joined: 29-February 12
Member No.: 6,710



QUOTE (nonflier @ Jan 20 2014, 07:57 AM) *
Were the hijackers already in the cockpit before takeoff?


Jesse is okay .... good value for my money ... but long
before horses were beaten to death
as alleged by impatient readers,
your question was best answered by Gerard Holmgren.

Gerard checked the government BTS website
recording all air transport traffic in USA, around 2002.

He discovered that for Tuesday 9/11/2001
Flights AA11 and AA77 had been canceled.

As soon as he published this for the world to see,
the BTS website was taken down for days....
the offending facts were doctored but only
partially successfully... leaving some suspicious
people making calmnous insinuations that maybe
just maybe the 9/11 perpeTRAITOR cocked up
and didn't think normal fellow travelers needed
to know that such a significant flight as AA11
on 9/11/2001 had been canned

They would say that:

I couldn't possibly comment

MikeR
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nonflier
post Jan 19 2014, 06:00 PM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 33
Joined: 13-January 14
Member No.: 7,664



QUOTE (MikeR @ Jan 19 2014, 04:55 PM) *
He discovered that for Tuesday 9/11/2001
Flights AA11 and AA77 had been canceled.


Mike, thanks for responding with at least some information I can comment on. I am aware of reports of the flights having been cancelled. However, that is a separate issue (to me). Obviously, if there were no real planes flying there could be no passengers either, and therefore no hijackers. But just because there may be an issue with the scheduling and flight numbers and gate numbers, and other questionable details, does not rule out the possibility that real people boarded a real plane - willingly or forcefully I cannot say. And that that plane was then involved in some type of event which could actually have been a staged false-flag black op rather than a real honest to goodness hijacking a hostile Arabs that didn't know enough to take off and land. So thanks, but my question still remains.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
michael72
post Jan 20 2014, 12:28 AM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 73
Joined: 29-June 09
Member No.: 4,447



QUOTE (nonflier @ Jan 19 2014, 06:00 PM) *
Mike, thanks for responding with at least some information I can comment on. I am aware of reports of the flights having been cancelled. However, that is a separate issue (to me). Obviously, if there were no real planes flying there could be no passengers either, and therefore no hijackers. But just because there may be an issue with the scheduling and flight numbers and gate numbers, and other questionable details, does not rule out the possibility that real people boarded a real plane - willingly or forcefully I cannot say. And that that plane was then involved in some type of event which could actually have been a staged false-flag black op rather than a real honest to goodness hijacking a hostile Arabs that didn't know enough to take off and land. So thanks, but my question still remains.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
michael72
post Jan 20 2014, 01:07 AM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 73
Joined: 29-June 09
Member No.: 4,447



The question of whether highjackers were in the cockpit or not before takeoff, as far as the USG's story, does not matter much. Jesse says, if so, and not communicated, it delayed military response time. But with the war games and simulated highjacks going on, that was already set to confuse and paralyze any response anyway. (and only the naive would believe that was accidental on 9/11). If it happened, it could have been part of the scenario, but its not that important. Evidence needs to be look at by its weight. The black box said to be from AA 77 (Pentagon) analyzed by Pilots, shows that box cannot be matched to AA 77. Evidence of the virtual impossibility for novices to fly the track flown to the Pentagon by AA 77 trumps the whole story of a 757 hitting the Pentagon. If there were real highjacks vs staged or faked highjacks, it is extremely doubtful, based on Pilots data as shown here on this site, that those planes were what hit the targets ( WTC North and South Towers) The USG account is trumped by the fact that very experienced pilots in heavy jets could not fly a 737 simulator into the NYC Towers after MULTIPLE attempts at high speeds. How did the highjackers do it? Flat logical truth is they did not, and could not. Following the logic path, the planes seen were likely drones (if John Lear is not correct about holograms), flown at much slower speeds than the USG account.

A retired airline pilot via jimstonefreelance.com in a letter identifies the strike on the South Tower, UA 175 as a 737-300, not a 767. The tell tale sign is the size of the wing flap farings and engine nacelles. In photo comparisons, one would have to be blind not to agree. It's an interesting article, and I believe irrefutable evidence that the plane striking the South WTC tower IS NOT the one the USG claims was highjacked and did the deed. So, that blows their story as much of P4911Truths data does...and that's NOT including the more than 2,000 Architects and Engineers who with their expertise, smell the stinking rat that the USG, via the 9/11 Commission, has fed Americans. If your question is honest and legit, just understand it's a small side issue; bigger facts and data blow the USG story out of the water anyway. the aforementioned pilot also points out correctly for an operation of this magnitude, the real planners could not chance that any real highjackers would chicken out or miss their targets. And as pointed out, the likelihood that they could hit them is near zero. The Towers had to be hit, because that was going to be the reason they fell, and where blame was to be placed. It is most likely in any sense of common logic, that they could not trust the whole operation to highjackers. Said another way, if radical Arabs really highjacked and hit the Towers somehow, they would not have collapsed. Evidence that other elements played into the historically unappreciated collapse of 3 steel towers (with ONLY 2 planes!!) is irrefutable. The silence, ignorance of some, or outright lies of the USG does not change that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nonflier
post Jan 20 2014, 08:54 AM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 33
Joined: 13-January 14
Member No.: 7,664



QUOTE (michael72 @ Jan 20 2014, 01:07 AM) *
The question of whether highjackers were in the cockpit or not before takeoff, as far as the USG's story, does not matter much.


Not everyone would agree. We all have various details we focus on more than others. This is just one that caught my attention. It's another part of the story that might could be proven to be a lie and coverup. And it would be at the stage where many lives could have been saved. The people that may know are afraid to talk and the records that might show something aren't being released of course.

You brought in too many other parts of the events too address in one thread.

QUOTE
But with the war games and simulated highjacks going on, that was already set to confuse and paralyze any response anyway.


No argument there. But I can't tell if it affected anything that may have taken place at the airport, especially if the airline staff didn't report anything to law enforcement or the military. But who knows.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PeaceWarrior
post Jan 20 2014, 08:54 AM
Post #11





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 19-March 12
Member No.: 6,743



QUOTE (nonflier @ Jan 19 2014, 03:57 PM) *
...Were the hijackers already in the cockpit before takeoff?...

(emphasis mine)

This site has plenty of DVD's and or links to youtube videos detailing the RADCOM's from the planes on 09-11-2001.

The answer to your question is a patent, "NO! The hijackers could not have been in the cockpits before taking off."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 20 2014, 02:28 PM
Post #12





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 667
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (michael72 @ Jan 20 2014, 01:07 AM) *
Flat logical truth is they did not, and could not. Following the logic path, the planes seen were likely drones (if John Lear is not correct about holograms), flown at much slower speeds than the USG account.


Excellent summary michael!
John Lear is not correct. I have compelling proof of that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 20 2014, 03:19 PM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 667
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (michael72 @ Jan 20 2014, 01:07 AM) *
The question of whether highjackers were in the cockpit or not before takeoff, as far as the USG's story, does not matter much....

... the real planners could not chance that any real highjackers would chicken out or miss their targets. And as pointed out, the likelihood that they could hit them is near zero. The Towers had to be hit, because that was going to be the reason they fell, and where blame was to be placed.


There are many key points to the 911 false flag operation.
The one mentioned above is perhaps the most important one of all.

The WTC towers HAD to come DOWN.
That specter alone is what was needed to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq.

The buildings were prepped and ready to be taken down.
Billions upon billions of dollars were at stake for many stakeholders, too many to mention.

Do you think they would let a bunch of puny 'hijackers' risk all of that money, relying upon their 'skillful' hijacking techniques, karate chops, and expert piloting skills?


The 'hijacker concept' was added to the mix at some point.
This would be another very interesting research project. To find out exactly, or as close as possible at what date they were added to the plan.

There WERE, REAL hijacking threats blowing in the wind that the CIA were intercepting.
At some point, that idea was incorporated into the master plan.

(Sorry about hijacking the thread). smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
michael72
post Jan 20 2014, 03:42 PM
Post #14





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 73
Joined: 29-June 09
Member No.: 4,447



@nonflier: "not everyone would agree"....on what specifically? That's true, but if you honestly cannot see what evidence and facts outweigh others related to what I posted and whether or not hijackers were in the cockpit prior to take off, you got problems. Zeroing in on certain items which almost shout "major" vs ones that say "minor, or secondary" is just bad analysis. There are numerous heavyweight facts that obliterate the USG tale anyway, regardless of when hijackers may have or not have been in the cockpit. That's not to say, if you want to dig into it for its perceived value, go ahead.

In a crime certain items of evidence are always weighed as what is the stronger evidence to support the case. Apart from P4911T is the what Col. Bob Bowman and Dr. Alan Sabrosky called a "smoking gun"- the collapse of WTC 7, which the cronies of the 9/11 Commission decided to leave out of the 9/11 Report--too obvious a demolition job, in even the opinion a US Army Engineer, and the world's top demolition experts. If you honestly think these things don't trump the "when hijackers entered the cockpit" you either are poor at thinking skills or perhaps a disinfo agent. And I have spotted them before. But will give you the benefit of the doubt. At any rate, if you were an attorney, I wouldn't want you on any case of mine.

@NP1Mike, Thank you...would be curious to look at what you say about John's idea. I remain open minded, having followed a lot of info for more than 30 years. I am not surprised by anything. I do believe Dr. Judy Wood presents a good case for DFE playing a part. There does seem to be anomalies that don't fit standard controlled demolition. But for me, those things are secondary as well. The big No. 1 item on the table is the complete BS that the USG story is. Details will come out in an honest, truthful investigation (Judgement Day?) What is compiled from here and Architects obliterated the USG's tale, hands down, and known history of false flags establishes the precedents ..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
michael72
post Jan 20 2014, 03:45 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 73
Joined: 29-June 09
Member No.: 4,447



@nonflier: "not everyone would agree"....on what specifically? That's true, but if you honestly cannot see what evidence and facts outweigh others related to what I posted and whether or not hijackers were in the cockpit prior to take off, you got problems. Zeroing in on certain items which almost shout "major" vs ones that say "minor, or secondary" is just bad analysis. There are numerous heavyweight facts that obliterate the USG tale anyway, regardless of when hijackers may have or not have been in the cockpit. That's not to say, if you want to dig into it for its perceived value, go ahead.

In a crime certain items of evidence are always weighed as what is the stronger evidence to support the case. Apart from P4911T is the what Col. Bob Bowman and Dr. Alan Sabrosky called a "smoking gun"- the collapse of WTC 7, which the cronies of the 9/11 Commission decided to leave out of the 9/11 Report--too obvious a demolition job, in even the opinion a US Army Engineer, and the world's top demolition experts. If you honestly think these things don't trump the "when hijackers entered the cockpit" you either are poor at thinking skills or perhaps a disinfo agent. And I have spotted them before. But will give you the benefit of the doubt. At any rate, if you were an attorney, I wouldn't want you on any case of mine.

@NP1Mike, Thank you...would be curious to look at what you say about John's idea. I remain open minded, having followed a lot of info for more than 30 years. I am not surprised by anything. I do believe Dr. Judy Wood presents a good case for DFE playing a part. There does seem to be anomalies that don't fit standard controlled demolition. But for me, those things are secondary as well. The big No. 1 item on the table is the complete BS that the USG story is. Details will come out in an honest, truthful investigation (Judgement Day?) What is compiled from here and Architects obliterated the USG's tale, hands down, and known history of false flags establishes the precedents ..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NP1Mike
post Jan 20 2014, 11:40 PM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 667
Joined: 25-November 13
Member No.: 7,592



QUOTE (michael72 @ Jan 20 2014, 03:42 PM) *
@NP1Mike, Thank you...would be curious to look at what you say about John's idea. I remain open minded, having followed a lot of info for more than 30 years. I am not surprised by anything.


Besides the dozens of videos of the plane (WTC2) the three pieces of evidence that clinched it for me were the following:

1. The RADES radar readings east of the civilian (hologram) readings stopping, by 'coincidence' at the exact moment of plane impact!

2. The civilian radar readings. How do you get radar readings off of a hologram? Impossible!

3. This was a recent find and my favorite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuIACIpon7w
In this video, there is magnificent audio evidence.

The amateur shooting the video was situated at the corner of Barclay St. and W. Broadway and was filming WTC1 when the plane struck WTC2.
He was approximately 1000 feet away from WTC2's south face, 400 feet away from 51 Park Pl. and 600 feet away from the corner of Church and Murray St.

What happens is we get a soundtrack that perfectly matches what we would expect to hear if a plane approached WTC2 from the south, struck the tower, had some of its planes parts ejected from the north side of WTC2 including an engine, had the engine ricochet off a building on Church St., had the engine hit the ground at Church and Murray and even had the recently discovered wing part at 51 Park Pl. land on the roof (I don't believe it could have landed in between the two buildings).

The plane debris flew almost directly over the heads of him and his friends. At one point you can hear them say "Get down...get down."

The *timing* and *sound* of the plane debris hitting the ground/roof is absolutely spot on.


killtown et al. the 'no planers' keep repeating that a plane could not penetrate the towers as if slicing through butter.
I sure as heck thought the same thing for a long time myself.

But if you 'prep' the building before (as you're already doing with the explosives) by removing steel columns, bolts, concrete floors etc., what is left to stop the plane?
Aluminum column covers, glass/paper windows, drywall. That's about it.


QUOTE
But for me, those things are secondary as well. The big No. 1 item on the table is the complete BS that the USG story is. Details will come out in an honest, truthful investigation (Judgement Day?) What is compiled from here and Architects obliterated the USG's tale, hands down, and known history of false flags establishes the precedents ..


Amen!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th September 2017 - 06:44 PM