Posted by
William Bindy on Monday, October 06, 2008 11:53:29 PM
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable,
must be the truth.
You see but you do not observe.
One true inference invariably suggests others.
Sherlock Holmes, by Arthur Conan Doyle
We do not know exactly how the hijackers gained access to the cockpit;
FAA rules required that the doors remain locked during the flight. Ong speculated
that they had, "jammed their way," in. Perhaps the terrorists stabbed the flight attendants
to get to a cockpit key, to force one of them to open the cockpit door, or to lure the
Captain or first officer out of the cockpit. Or the flight attendants may just have
been in the way. . . .
Because several passengers on flight 93 described three hijackers on the plane, not
four, some have wondered whether one of the hijackers had been able to use the cockpit
jump seat from the outset of the flight. FAA rules allow the use of the seat by documented
and approved individuals, usually air carrier or FAA personnel. We find no evidence
indicating that one of the hijackers, or anyone else, sat there on this flight.
The 9/11 Report
The fact that the 9/11 Commission found, "no evidence," that a hijacker sat on the jump seat, simply means that one of the
hijackers sat on the jump seat, without leaving any evidence he had done so. At least without leaving evidence so obvious
that the FBI would recognize it, as such.
The idea that two of the hijackers could force their way into the locked cockpit door in less than a minute or two, is not credible.
It took all of the passengers over five minutes to do it at the end of the flight, and though they got close enough to force the hijackers
to bring it down, they still had not got all the way into the cockpit when the plane crashed. As the passengers tried to force their way
into the cockpit, the hijackers shouted, "They are trying to get in here. Hold, hold from the inside. Hold from the inside. Hold."
Significantly, words to that effect, were not heard from the pilots, prior to the hijackers takeover of the cockpit.
Moreover, even a minute or two would have been enough time for for the Captain or first officer to call flight control and
let them know what was happening. Instead, the attack occurred so suddenly that they had no time to call anyone, or even
to press the emergency button that would have indicated they were in trouble.
Similarly, the attack the flight attendant for the key, scenario, presents a few problems. How do they know that a given
flight attendant even has the key? If she does, they would want to attack her as quietly as possible, so as not to alert
anybody to what they were doing too early, before they got into the cockpit. Waiting for her to be alone, could take a
long time on a crowded airplane, too unpredictable. And even if she was alone, she could have screamed loudly enough
to alert others. If they attack her in full view of the passengers, as the ones who were killed were, for the terrorist effect, they
must have expected some of the passengers or crew to come to her aid. As two terrorists forced their way into the cockpit, the
remaining (two?) hijackers, would have to hold back all the passengers, before their comrades had even entered the cockpit.
All this tumult, would have alerted the cockpit crew that something bad was happening and they would have had time to radio
for help, but they didn't. They don't say anything about anyone forcing their way into the cockpit, threatening to kill passengers or
crew if they weren't let into the cockpit, or anything like that. The attack was too sudden. Forcing their way into the cockpit would
have been a time consuming and unpredictable process, that would given the hijackers very little probability of success.
On the other hand, getting into the cockpit jump seat isn't that difficult, if you are wearing a airline uniform and carrying
what appear to be the proper credentials. A high school dropout named Frank Abagnale, while still a teenager, did it for over two years
before he got caught. He was played by Leonardo DiCaprio in the movie, "Catch Me If You Can."
It may be more difficult to do now, than in Abagnale's day, but the 9/11 hijackers were not high school kids on a lark, either,
but hardened terrorists, with the ability to obtain false identifications of all kinds, and with access to real airline uniforms.
One example of such abilities by the hijackers, is this report from a retired Delta Airlines
pilot who described his experience
with the person who sat in his jump seat on July,26,2001.
"His name was Mohammed Atta, the leader of the terrorist hijackers. Atta had boarded my flight from Baltimore to Atlanta
on July 26, 2001 wearing a Amerian Airlines first officers uniform. He had the corresponding AA company ID identifying him as a
pilot, not to mention the FAA pilot licence and medical certificate that he was required to show me as proof of his aircrew status.
for access to my jumpseat. An airline pilot riding a cockpit jumpseat is a long established protocol by the management and captains
of an airline to pilots and flight crews of other airlines in recognition of their airline crew status. My admission of Mohammed Atta
to my cockpit jumpseat that day was merely a routine exercise of that protocol."
Did anything change between July, 26, 2001 and September 11, 2001 that would have prevented the hijackers from using this,
"protocol," as their way of entering the cockpit jump seats of the 9/11 hijacked flights?
Did the FBI notify the 9/11 Commission, that this had occurred, especially in view of the fact that the retired Delta Captain,
Pat Gilmore, received, "a letter from the Bureau saying my call was one of at least half a dozen calls from other pilots who had
had the same experience."
Theses calls, revealed a, "pattern of conduct," a, "modus operandi," the hijackers had used before 9/11 to sit in the cockpit
jump seats of planes in which they had flown. Did the FBI not consider those calls to be evidence? Were they not, "obvious,"
enough for them.
In the course of the flight, Atta had said some things that Gilmore found, "very strange," Nonetheless, "There was nothing to
indicate, though, that he was anything other than who or what he said he was because he had the documentation to prove who he
was."
Such is the power of a uniform and, "documentation," to deceive even an experienced airline pilot.
The flight attendants may or may not have seen the hijacker enter the cockpit fifteen or twenty minutes or more before the
hijacking began, but if they did they would not have associated him as being one of the hijackers, since he was in a uniform and
appeared to be exactly who he wasn't, an airline pilot. They might have thought of it later, but there was no later.
This is why disguises are so effective in deceptions of all kinds and the 9/11 attacks were a deception from beginning to end.
The terror, blood, and carnage were real. Everything else was not as it seemed.
We balance the probabilities, and choose the most likely.
It is the scientific use of the imagination.
Sherlock Holmes, by Arthur Conan Doyle
Except for flight 93, there were seven hijackers on each plane. The seventh one entered the cockpit, disguised as an pilot
and was allowed to sit on the jump seat. At some prearranged signal, he opened the door from the inside, letting in the sixth
hijacker. Suddenly, taken by surprise and from behind, the captain and first officer, had no time to call for help, and after a brief
struggle were overcome by the hijackers, who then sat in their seats and took control of the airplane. Simultaneously, the
remaining five hijackers began to terrorize the passengers and move them to the rear of the plane. The fifth one remained in
first class until it was time for him to be called into the cockpit to fly the plane to its target, since even though he didn't look
like a pilot he was one, and the one dressed as a pilot, wasn't. The remaining four hijackers, in pairs, continued to move the
passengers to the rear of the plane and hold them there. That there were only three hijackers holding the passengers back on
flight 93 indicates that they were one hijacker short, and that the hijacker with the fake bomb, had it to compensate for his
not having a partner.
People may disagree on the probability of the hijackings unfolding, as stated above, but it has two virtues in its favor.
First, it accounts for all the facts, and secondly, it is possible, whereas the hijackers forcing there way into the cocpit theories,
are both physically and mathematically impossible.
To be continued . . .
.