How Could The 9/11 Hijackers Fly 757s/767s But Not Know How to Work the

[spooked911]

Intercom propoerly?

On both flights 11 and 93, the hijacker pilot transmitted over the RADIO a message that was meant for the passengers in the plane. The 9/11 commission thinks the hijackers simply didn't know how to work the intercom system on the plane properly and made a mistake by transmitting over the radio. But how likely is it that these hijackers could fly these complicated planes but not know which was the radio button and which was the public address system?

Moreover, isn't this a fatal mistake on the part of the hijackers-- to broadcast the hijackings over the radio IF they are trying to avoid air force interception? Broadcasting this would immediately raise suspicions beyond what had already happened.

In the case of flight 11, Mohamed Atta said "We have some planes, just stay quiet and you will be okay" and some other things along these lines.

In the case of flight 93, (apparently) Ziad Jarrah said "Ladies and gentleman, here is the captain, please sit down. Keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board."

On the other hand, transmitting these messages over the radio are exactly what you would do if you wanted to make people think there was a hijacking going on. Could these messages have been some sort of ruse?

[ROH]

1. Another apparent anomaly...

You wrote:
"On the other hand, transmitting these messages over the radio are exactly what you would do if you wanted to make people think there was a hijacking going on."

Were the hijackers set up? Did the hijackers think (at that stage) that they were part of the reported "live-fly" exercises?


You also wrote:
"Moreover, isn't this a fatal mistake on the part of the hijackers-- to broadcast the hijackings over the radio IF they are trying to avoid air force interception? Broadcasting this would immediately raise suspicions beyond what had already happened."

Here is another apparent anomaly:
Flight 11 flew substantially off-course from its agreed flight plan *away* from the WTC rather than towards it (the flight took a 14 minute detour up through New York State before turning towards Manhattan). Why?

The 14 minute detour surely increases the probability of air force interception. Why didn't the hijackers cause the plane to turn directly towards Manhattan; has anyone attempted to explain the reason for this detour occurring?

[spooked911]

2. Agree with the anomalies. Another explanation is that the "hijackers"

job was to fake a hijacking and to confuse ground controllers. This would facilitate a plane-swap and allow a remote control drone to take over the path of the fake hijacked plane. This probably fits into the hijacking exercises going on on 9/11 as well.

See these articles by Woody Box for more on the fake hijacking idea:
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=780
http://de.geocities.com/woody_box2000/stolenairliner2.html

He doesn't really flesh out the whole scenario, but there is enough there to start someone thinking.

[paulthompson]

10. I don't have...

...anything insightful to say about the radio broadcasts. However, I have a theory as to why Flight 11 would fly away from NYC. Imagine Flights 11 and Flight 175 are trying to time their crash into NYC to be close to each other. Flight 11 as the first plane in is almost certainly not going to be caught. But if it goes in way earlier than Flight 175, that greatly increases the odds of Flight 175 getting shot down and also decreases the number of deaths as people evacuate the WTC. The ideal would be to have one hit a short time after the other.

So, with Flight 175 taking off 15 minutes or so late, Flight 11 had to stall for time. Thus, the detour. The hijackers are said to have contacted each other by cell phone just before their planes took off, so they would have been talking about that 15 minute delay.

[John Doe II]

11. That makes sense

and is a good explanation for AA 11. But what do you think about UA 175? Why didn't it target directly the WTC? And why the very same phenomen of not targeting directly with all four flights?

[ROH]

14. They could have stayed on the scheduled flight path longer...

You wrote:
"Imagine Flights 11 and Flight 175 are trying to time their crash into NYC to be close to each other. ... So, with Flight 175 taking off 15 minutes or so late, Flight 11 had to stall for time. Thus, the detour."

However, if the hijackers wanted one WTC hit to occur a short time after the other hit, logically to improve their odds the hijackers would not have caused Flight 11 to detour away from WTC. Instead they would have allowed the flight to continue longer on its scheduled flight plan and then hijacked the flight at a later time and caused the flight to fly towards the WTC (without detouring north of the flight path) at that stage.

Under that scenario, the actual WTC hits could have occurred at the same times as they did (i.e. 8:46 a.m. for Flight 11 and 9:02 a.m. for Flight 175), but the big advantage from the hijackers' point of view is that the Flight 11 hijacking would have taken place about 15 minutes or so later than it apparently did. This later time for the Flight 11 hijacking would have increased the chances (of avoiding interception) for the hijackers in respect of Flight 11 and Flight 175.

Is it just coincidence that Flight 11 detoured to the edge of an area that has no primary radar coverage (http://www.the-movement.com/Radar/Radar.htm), and then the flight's transponder was switched off at that point?

[Frederik]

3. "We have some planes" etc.

...over the radio sounds awfully like something you'd say if you were part of an excercise. Which, incidentally, we know went on that day. Dots to connect?

[hack89]

5. "We have some planes" sounds awfully like something you'd say

if English was a second language.

[Frederik]

15. But to whom?

What would be the point of transmitting that message over the radio? Or even less, to the passengers?

[hack89]

4. Perhaps they were scared shitless?

and made mistakes? Not everyone handles pressure well.

[meppie-meppie not]

6. well someone will have to ask the ones who are still around.

[spooked911]

7. They sure flew the planes well under pressure!

Assuming they actually flew them, which I am not convinced of.

[hack89]

9. How do you know that?

They didn't crash and they were able to hit a large building. Doesn't mean they were airline quality or that they weren't scared.

[spooked911]

12. So you think the terrorists were good enough pilots to fly into narrow

towers at full speed after a large descent-- BUT, they were too nervous to work the intercom properly?

That they could pilot a jet aircraft in a tight circle while descending a thousand feet and fly into the Pentagon with the plane just inches off the ground-- BUT, they were too nervous to work the intercom properly?

Is that your position?

[hack89]

13. Narrow?

They were much wider then the airplane and they were standing still. All the pilot had to do was point his nose directly at the building - with a long approach that required no radical maneuvers why would this be classified as an incredible feat of airmanship?

Please show me the path of the plane that hit the Pentagon so I can better understand your question. Thanks in advance.

As to the intercom, why is it so improbable that they were nervous and made mistakes? My only point is you are pinning a lot on a trivial matter that could have a perfectly innocent explanation. The hijackers were human - why should I presuppose perfection on their part?

[spooked911]

16. The towers were only twice the width of the planes and going full speed

it is not so easy to hit. Plus, the hijackers did NOT have training to fly large jets.

The Pentagon approach path:
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/017.html
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/attack.html

[spooked911]

8. Another interpretation is that they couldn't fly the planes--

someone else or something else was flying the planes. And this is why the hijackers couldn't operate the intercom properly...

[Borg]

17. the solution of the problem ?

The confusing radio communication between hijackers and flight controls solves some problems.

1) The call of the hijackers seems to be directed to the passengers. There is nothing to explain, no reasons, only confusion.

2) The messages are quotable by radio and TV as the beginning of a hijacking.

3) The few sentences fits to the profile of non-professional pilots.

4) The messages are confusing the flight controlers, this is a psychological target.

[philb]

18. info on Hani Hanjour's pilot skills & FL 77 maneuvers

Hani Hanjour, aerobatic jet pilot?
http://www.911-strike.com/remote_skills.htm

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.