Why couldn't one pilot on 9/11 switch his transponder to the hijack code?

[spooked911]

Each pilot and co-pilot can push in the hijack code (7500) on their control yoke to alert ground control of a hijacking. Yet on four planes with eight pilots on 9/11, according to the official story, not one pilot was able to punch in the hijack code. What are the odds of this? How could hijackers armed with light weapons take four cockpits and eight pilots completely by surprise?

I could maybe understand the pilot not saying anything explicit over the radio if a hijacker was confronting him, but I cannot see how a hijacker could prevent one of the pilots from punching the hijack code. It would take a couple of seconds. How is this possible that not one pilot out of eight was able to punch in the code?

This is one of the things that has always boggled my mind about 9/11.

This situation with lack of a hijack signal is particularly egregious with flight 93, where the pilots were warned of intruders AND as noted in this thread:
UA 93: How did the alleged hijackers manage to enter the cockpit?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=39467&mesg_id=39467

The pilots and crew on flight 93 had special signals to warn each other of a hijack. For instance, if hijackers got up to go to the cockpit, a flight attendant should have warned the cockpit by phone. There were five flight attendants on this flight. Surely one of them could hide from the hijackers to make the call.

How on earth were the hijackers able to completely surprise and incapacitate eight pilots when they were armed with knives and when flight attendants should have warned the cockpit of intruders? This makes no sense!

[spooked911]

1. No one has an explanation?

[RedSock]

2. there is no logical explanation

especially since, according to some accounts, the pilots flew either 11 or 175 most of the way to NYC. (which account says that??)

and according to the CR, there were no hijackers in any jump seats.

[spooked911]

4. Thanks. I believe the 9/11 CR speculates the pilots flew much of the way.

[MercutioATC]

3. I'd bet it was not the first of their priorities.

Dealing with a physical attack was.

[spooked911]

5. Hi Mercutio! Long time no see!

Did you see the post on flight 93 and how the flight attendant and pilots had worked out signals for hijacking?

And as I posted, if the pilots could hear a knock on the door (that's how the stewardesses got access to the cockpit, a secret knock signal*)-- they could hear someone breaking in to hijack. So it doesn't add up.


*Hopefully it wasn't "shave and a haircut, two bits."
:P

[MercutioATC]

6. I've been staying away for sanity reasons...

:)

I read about the secret knock. What that doesn't cover is the doors' flimsiness pre-911. I wouldn't have knocked, I'd have just kicked in the door.

[spooked911]

7. I can understand you wanting to stay away from here, BUT

the point about the knock is that this means the pilots could HEAR a knock.

You said before the cockpit was so noisy the pilots might not have heard hijackers breaking in. And that is how they were taken by surprise. But now we know the pilots could hear knocks on the cockpit door and thus would have heard hijackers trying to get in.

They should not have been taken by complete surprise.

Moreover, the pilots should have been alerted to hijackers moving to the cockpit by one of the flight attendants calling the cockpit -- in the case of flight 93 the flight attendants even had a special code sentence to say if there was a hijacking.

So why didn't this happen?

Furthermore, it is not so clear that the hijackers would want to attack the pilots in their seats, since it would spray blood all over the controls and thus mess up the controls. Further, a struggle in the pilots seat would be extremely dangerous as it might disrupt the aircraft controls and cause a crash. The hijackers didn't want to crash prematurely. So the hijackers might have negotiated with the pilots to get them out of their seats. That would have been the time the pilots could have punched in the hijacking code.

Finally, it wasn't just that the pilots didn't punch in the hijacking code. On three of the planes, the pilots didn't even yell emergency or mayday to ground control. Only flight 93 had the pilots yelling as they were presumably attacked. Why couldn't the other pilots at least make a quick radio call that there was an emergency?

[MercutioATC]

13. Some clarifications:

I said that the pilots might not have heard the door OPENING (if it wasn't locked). I didn't say that they couldn't hear somebody breaking in.

A flight attendant call to the cockpit assumes that the hijackers would have allowed this. If the flight attendants were a priority, they wouldn't have been able to get to the intercom.

Spraying blood wouldn't "mess up the controls". The "messing" would be purely cosmetic (unimportant to the operation of the plane). Most flights are flown on autopilot once the plane reaches cruising altitude. The danger of attacking the pilots would have been minimal since the plane was flying itself.

I don't have trouble imagining a scenario where the hijackers kicked in the door and attacked the pilots as they turned to see what was happening. Regardless of the weapon used, the pilots' first reaction would be to protect themselves, not jump on the radio.

[spooked911]

15. That's all fine-- but how plausible is it that the hijackers would get the

jump on the flight attendants and the pilots four out of four times?

On flight 93, there were five flight attendants, and every account of the hijacking only mentions three hijackers-- but even if there were four, I don't see how the hijackers could take out five flight attendants without someone alerting the cockpit.

Isn't it likely that if the hijackers got up to move to the cockpit, at least one flight attendant would try to stop them? If there was a tussle in the cabin, wouldn't all the flight attendants be alerted? Wouldn't one of the flight attendants call the cockpit? I just don't get it. The cockpit should have been alerted to a hijacking on at least one of the planes.

[demodewd]

9. Hey..Merc..

Hey Merc...just wanted to make an attemot at apologizing for my rather curt demeanor on our last interchange. Actually I'm a swell guy...really.:O

[MercutioATC]

14. Not a problem.

I can get a little involved in my arguments, too.

(actually, the specific exchange doesn't ring a bell so it must not have been that bad...)

No worries :)

[Broken Acorn]

8. Nothing about 9/11 makes to me anymore

Spooked,

Your argument about how UA 93 pilots should have heard something coming makes sense to me.

The more I evaluate the flights and the evidence, the more it is conceivable to think potentially ALL the planes were swapped.

Nothing makes sense. Didn't they get the terrorist alert on their in-plane computer system?

I guess it's possible to charge the flight pit door, knock it down, and rush the pilots. But it seems illogical that the probability of it happening to all 4 flights with 100% success rate as highly doubtful.

[spooked911]

12. Right-- that is the point. I could see one or two planes not sending a

hijack signal-- but all four?

Incomprehensible unless there the hijacks were fake in some way, and the planes really were involved in plane-swapping.

[paulthompson]

10. Actually...

Check out this entry from my book:

8:44 A.M.: Other Pilots Notice Flight 175’s Emergency Signal
The pilot of U.S. Airlines Flight 583 tells an unidentified flight controller, regarding Flight 175, “I just picked up an ELT on 121.5. It was brief but it went off.” The controller responds, “O.K. they said it’s confirmed believe it or not as a thing, we’re not sure yet. . . .” One minute later, another pilot says, “We picked up that ELT, too, but it’s very faint.” (NEW YORK TIMES, 10/16/01 (B)) Flight 175 appears to have been the only trigger of any emergency signal on 9/11. It is possible the ELT came from Flight 11 instead.

[spooked911]

11. I thought the ELT came on when a plane crashed-- it is not a hijack signal

that I know of.

It is not clear to me that the ELT can be activated by a pilot.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/elt.html

And in anycase, if it came on, why wasn't this a red-flag for gorund control?