Can you provide me the links to these debunkings then?
Well, I just read CNN’s special report. Some facts for vanilla, and sad info for everybody.
Flight 11: The transponder was turned off at 8:20am, before any changes in the flight path. At 8:40am, a flight attendant contacted someone to report that the terrorists were wounding passengers (see flight 175).
Flight 175: A passenger called his father and said the terrorists were “stabbing flight attendants in order to force the crew to open the cockpit doors.” At 8:50am, fighters were airborne to try to intercept the aircraft. When 175 hit the tower, the fighters were only 8 minutes away.
There’s lots more info there. I would suggest checking it out. If I were the pilot, I would have opened the door to the cockpit if my crew or passengers were being stabbed in the cabin. It wouldn’t matter how “terrorist-proof” that door was. After all, the pilots had no idea this was a suicide mission.
Have you tried GQ? I hear folks in that forum do stuff like that all the time.
Seriously, vanilla, you have been a member of these boards for way, way too long for at least a little dedication to fighting ignorance not to have rubbed off. I’m disappointed.
I think this is an exaggeration on your part. Off the top of my head, I can think of 5 people I personally know who have crashed and were never sued.
It’s called a “transponder”, you have to dial in each of four digits, and it’s not “instant”.
The hijackers (some of them) were also trained as pilots and knew that if they said “hijacking” that’s what the guys up front would do - they somehow found a way to kill/disable the pilots before they had a chance to enter the code, then turned the transponder off. To air traffic control, that looks more like an equipment failure than a hijacking. No big mystery there.
Complete and utter bullshit.
I have no doubt that somebody somewhere is trying to make this idea a reality, but it sure as hell doesn’t exist now.
If you want to defend that cowpie please provide a cite from a reputable source. I doubt you’ll find one.
It’s unfortunate that air traffic controllers are called controllers. What they really are, are traffic cops. Coordinators, if you will. It’s the pilots who fly the airplanes, not the guys in the towers and TRACONs.
God forbid there ever comes a day when we are wholly dependent on the government for our personal safety in all things.
First point: The world is NOT a safe place - and never will be. It’s a hostile universe out there.
Second point: The atrocities of 9/11/01 were NOT the fault of the US government - they were clearly the direct fault of the 19 scumpuppies who took on the suicide mission, and indirectly the fault of their backers.
Third point: In this unsafe world where people may wish you harm, YOU are the first person responsible for your own safety. Clearly, if you were on the wrong floor in the WTC when the planes hit you were well and truly dead on the scene, but what saved thousands of other people was the common sense action of leaving a burning building. Don’t wait for rescue - get the hell out of there if you can move at all. Those who stayed put died. Those who moved had a fighting chance. Save the strength of the rescue people for those who truly need rescuing.
Could the US government have done better? Hindsight is 20/20 and boy, howdy, do we realize now where some holes were. And yes, some agencies did not pay as close attention as they should. But while there had been a few scattered speculations about possibly delibrately crashing airplanes into buildings, as an actual act it was unprecedented. Since you can not gaurd against ALL possible hazards you have to guard against what you think most likely. A lot of experts felt that no one had the patience, funding, and ability-to-plan required to pull this sort of thing off. They were wrong. Shit happens sometimes. You wipe the mud off where you fell down and try to do better. The folks who made the wild and “unlikely” predictions get to say “I told you so”. The most important thing is that it doesn’t happen AGAIN.
Really, it’s like saying the US government was responsible for bombing Pearl Harbor. Bullshit. The Japanese were responsible for that. What would be irresponsible on our part would be something like parking most of our navy in just one harbor again.
The biggest governmental failing, in my mind, was NOT that the attack happened but that the Bush administration is too chickenshit to allow a full, thorough, and true investigation of how this came to happen so we can actually do something constructive to prevent a recurrance. If we aren’t willing to look at our failures honestly we will not be able to correct them.
:eek:
Remind me never to fly with your friends!
I know it sounds bad. Keep in mind I work at a flight department with 650 students, 30 airplanes, 12 professors, and about 30 flight instructors. With those kind of odds, you can’t help knowing a few lawn darts. 
Well, the airlines were told in the mid 90’s, I believe, to streghten thier cock pit doors and other stuff (probably) by the government, and they didn’t listen. They were more interested in making money than making their airplanes more secure.
However, lawsuits against them seem silly.
sorry, I don’t have a link.
A secure airplane would be so heavy that it would never get off the ground. You have to draw the line somewhere.
You are failing to make a distinction here between “Boeing” and “the airlines.” Boeing makes the planes, but does not operate them.
You also don’t really make clear who was told to strengthen the doors–the manufacturers, the operators, or both. And your use of words like “I believe” and “other stuff (probably)” suggests that you’re not fully versed in the relevant rules and regulations. Was the issue of cockpit doors a suggestion, or a requirement? These things matter in lawsuits.
Fair enough.
I love the term “lawn dart,” by the way.
You are failing to make a distinction here between “Boeing” and “the airlines.” Boeing makes the planes, but does not operate them.
You also don’t really make clear who was told to strengthen the doors–the manufacturers, the operators, or both. And your use of words like “I believe” and “other stuff (probably)” suggests that you’re not fully versed in the relevant rules and regulations. Was the issue of cockpit doors a suggestion, or a requirement? These things matter in lawsuits.Fair enough.
**
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know enough about it. I just remember hearing about the government telling airlines to stregthen their doors.
Yes, a small exaggeration. Also inaccurate because, of course, not everyone who crashes dies. In fact, most folks I knew who have had impact accidents in airplanes are still alive and well.
I was making a point, the point being that a pilot can certainly be held liable for just about anything that goes wrong on a flight.
The NTSB suggested more than once to the airlines that they strengthen the cockpit doors. Since the early 1970’s and their spate of hijackings the pilots had also lobbied for stronger doors. That’s thirty years of folks asking for better cockpit doors. The airlines rejected the idea, citing cost as the problem.
The manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus, etc.) were more than willing to design and manufacture secure doors and, judging by how fast they were installed after 9/11, probably already had designs for such drawn up.
Likewise, anti-missile technology has long been available for airliner jets. It is, however, expensive. Therefore, the only jets with that option installed are usually owned by heads of state. Probably some hot-shot big corporate guys own them, too, and maybe Columbian drug lords. The point here being that we have the technology, it’s even in place, but unless the customer is willing to pay for it the manufacturers don’t install it.