What Level Of Skill Was Required To Fly A Plane Into The Pentagon ?

a reply to: Jacobu12

And who is at the other end of the phone for the number 202-514-2201? TED OLSON.....whose phone was answered by Lori Lynn Keyton, who testified that it was Barbra that called. Again, its called chain of evidence. So, yes, Mercy got Sergeant/Solicitor General confused. The REST of the evidence is that Barbra called Ted.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jacobu12

And who is at the other end of the phone for the number 202-514-2201? TED OLSON.....whose phone was answered by Lori Lynn Keyton, who testified that it was Barbra that called. Again, its called chain of evidence. So, yes, Mercy got Sergeant/Solicitor General confused. The REST of the evidence is that Barbra called Ted.

Ted Olson original statement to the FBI was she phoned at 9am and she rang off her cellphone. It's only a year later or more he changed he's story to fall in line with the evidence. Maybe there was a woman ringing to talk to her Sergeant husband?

a reply to: Jacobu12

I saw in one document was someone stated "about 9 o'clock". In the haste, people are not always checking a clock for every thing they do. Other issues are more pressing.

You are not even reading/understanding your own sourced material, if this is your ref...

At approximately 9:00am, she received a series of approximately six (6) to eight (8) collect telephone calls. Each of the calls was an automated collect call. There was a recording advising of the collect call and requesting she hold for an operator. A short time later another recording stated that all operators were busy, please hang up and try your call later.

Keyton then received a collect call from a live operator. The operator advised that there was an emergency collect call from Barbara Olsen for Ted Olsen. Keyton advised that she would accept the call. Barbara Olsen was put through and sounded hysterical. Barbara Olsen said, "Can you tell Ted.." Keyton cut her off and said, "I'll put him on the line."

There was a second telephone call a few to five (5) minutes later. This time Barbara Olsen was on the line when she answered. She called direct. It was not a collect call. Barbara Olsen said, "It's Barbara." Keyton said, "he's on the phone with the command center, I'll put you through."

Keyton advised that there is no caller identification feature on the phone she was using. Keyton didn't know if Barbara Olson was calling from the phone on the plane or from her cell phone

www.911myths.com...

a reply to: Jacobu12

At Ted Olson's office? You seriously think that some other woman called Ted Olson's office from Flight 77? A woman whose voice was recognized as Barbra?

a reply to: dragonridr


Did T Mobile exist in 2001?

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

AA77 was not at the pentagon that day.

Another Truther proclamation without evidence. How ordinary.

I think a 757 type plane was used to attack the Pentagon, the risk would be too great not to use a plane. Someone could have easily snapped a picture or leaked a video and eyewitnesses saw a commercial plane for most part.

Was it Flight 77 or a another 757 plane that crashed at the Pentagon?

For me this as Saudi led operation with CIA co-operation. So i bet money on it, Hani Hanjour was not a terrible pilot. Ted olson is also a big problem, no way can we verify he's story right now. I would not be surprised if the guy was lying, he could be a psychopath of all we know?

There is no reason for a group of conspirators not to use a real plane. If you don't crash a real plane, it's not like you can keep it. Who would you sell it to?


I figure either:

A: The plane designated for flight 77 was modified so it could be controlled by a remote pilot/computer.

or

B: The plane designated for flight 77 was switched prior to take off. The the real plane was modified (the one the manifest said was supposed to be there). And they switched place in the air mid flight.

However option B is complicated by the presence of DNA from the passengers. Making option A more likely.

But option C: They used a missile. That's just a silly option, because they'd have to get rid of the plane either way. It can't continue to exist.

originally posted by: Jacobu12

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jacobu12

How does going on about phone records discredit the 100 plus eyewitnesses that give an account of a large jet hitting the pentagon.

If flight 77 flew under 2 feet for 5 to 6 seconds, flight 77 would have knocked over trees and mowed down vegetation.

Your premise why Hanjour had to an ace pilot is false. Course par for the truth movement.

I sure i have changed my mind and have sided with you guys a plane crashed at the Pentagon? Have settled with a plane, weapon of choice to attack the Pentagon. I know looking at inconsistencies onboard the plane.

Hani Hanjour did not not need to be an ace pilot, he just had to be a better pilot. One of he's last trips to a flight school is telling. The flight instructor there thought Hani had military type flight training? Where did he learn this and by whom? Information we have about hijackers is limited. They arrived to America speaking no English, they needed handlers to take care of them, feed them, house them and pay for everything. My contention is Hani was a spy who was willing to die for he's country of birth.

What he needed to be is incredibly stupid.

Why use a complicated maneuver if a simple one will do just fine?

Is that extra smidgeon of penetrating power he gets from diving at 500 mph worth possibly failing the mission?

Only the stupidest terrorist imaginable would risk the whole operation over that. (But would a stupid terrorist manage all the other parts?)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

One, your original idea was the terrorists "hacked" the numerous flight controls in a short time with a magic remote control while in flight.

Two, for the modified flight 77 theory. You never explained how the jet would have time in the maintenance schedule to have all encompassing remote control system installed. Why the pilots and maintenance crews would not notice the installation of extra gear during inspections and system checks.

And it's been pointed out to you as speed increases, the energy to create damage grows exponentially. And the pilot worked the throttles only once the jet was lined up and on the approach to the pentagon.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

And for the switched jet, their was radar coverage the entire time.

So you have the problems of DNA, Radar, and flight control accounts.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous


Option D might be to make a low level fly-by, for which there is some anecdotal evidence, and have the important things prepared for detonation, so that embarrassing records could be destroyed and those pesky congressional auditors be taken out. Mission Accomplished.

a reply to: Salander

Except, how would a jet you claimed exceeded stress limits, should of failed in midair, pull out of a dive which would create even greater stress, and survive. You are awesome at contradicting yourself.


And didn't you bet it was a drone douglous A3 with way too little wingspan, fuselage diameter, and mass to cause the damage at the pentagon.


And over a 100 plus eyewitnesses and radar attests to a large jet hitting the pentagon. How many attest to a large commercial jet flying off?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

One, your original idea was the terrorists "hacked" the numerous flight controls in a short time with a magic remote control while in flight.

Anyone who tells you doing this would be "sci fi" or "outside the ability of a well funded conspiracy" - is just exploiting your ignorance. Anyone who has ever wired a circuit board knows it isn't really that hard. Not super easy, but not too hard to do if you have time and funding to work out the details prior to actually doing it.

It helps that the plane has a pair of redundant controls. And a legitimate autopilot.

So assuming autopilot is turned on while you are making the changes, lets see what controls you need?

You can see a basic layout in this link: www.quora.com...

You'll notice that most of the gauges are analog. That's the easiest to hack, because that needle is responding to a direct electrical or magnetic signal. You rip it out, put a reader in its place, and now your computer can read that gauge just as well as a human pilot could.

Next the throttles, which send signals to the engines (they don't directly connect to them via a wire or anything). Also easily bypassed. The stick, also certainly doesn't connect directly to the wing control surfaces. Not like the steering wheel in an automobile.

Two, for the modified flight 77 theory. You never explained how the jet would have time in the maintenance schedule to have all encompassing remote control system installed. Why the pilots and maintenance crews would not notice the installation of extra gear during inspections and system checks.

If the modification was done prior to take-off, there wouldn't be an additional gear to see. More likely a software change made to the autopilot, with no visible change at all. Or maybe a circuit board switched out.

Even if a team of engineers were to design a whole autopilot system, the changes from a normal one would probably just be one component or two. Completely impossible to see just by looking.

This plan requires one technician to be in that area of the plane with unsupervised access. Or his supervisor is away for a bit.

And it's been pointed out to you as speed increases, the energy to create damage grows exponentially. And the pilot worked the throttles only once the jet was lined up and on the approach to the pentagon.

It depends on what kind of damage you are going for. Sometimes a slow bullet actually does more harm overall than a fast one.

The energy of the impact increases exponentially. The "damage" is a more complicated question.

But this was a symbolic attack. They knew they wouldn't level the whole building or anything no matter how fast they hit it. Maybe kill 80 instead of 60 personell. Big deal.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

And for the switched jet, their was radar coverage the entire time.

So you have the problems of DNA, Radar, and flight control accounts.

The FDR data is beginning to look more and more like a forgery.

I know these pilotsfor911truth guys grasp at straws a lot, but I can't look past the point they are making on this page:

pilotsfor911truth.org...


So from what I've been able to read about this, during descent the pilot usually stops relying on the pressure altimeter, and starts relying more on the "radio altimeter" (which I assume means the plane's radar system.) . Because the radio altimeter is more accurate at low altitudes and updates itself faster.

According to 911truth guys, the pressure altimeter didn't get set to local ground pressure. It was still set to high altitude pressure. Yet, it still read the correct altitude.

If it is set wrong, it shouldn't be reading the correct altitude. It should read the wrong altitude. But it doesn't.

In a forgery, that's exactly the kind of inconsistency you are most likely to see. The forger wants everything to be consistent. So they set all the values to match up. Even the ones that SHOULDN'T match.

a reply to: neutronflux

Quote were I said it was hard? But your false authority is showing. You have to order expensive parts from suppliers that have limited supplies and distribution. We are talking broadcasting and receiving equipment powerful enough to handle large amounts of data to control a large jet at distance.

What data was received from the jet to get it on target with the pentagon? Video?

How was the controlling handled? One large master antenna? Station to station hand off? What frequencies were used?

It would be time consuming and expensive. Then the paper, money, hardware, and broadcasting trail.

Radar, air traffic controllers, stress to pull out of the dive, and eyewitness accounts means the jet swap is almost totally impossible.

So the install would had to hack scores of components to control scores of flight surfaces, not interfere with continuous system communication monitoring, use already installed hydraulic system, allow the pilots to use the controls, and not be noticed by pilot and maintenance inspections. Especially the power supplies and antenna arrays for the receiving and broadcasting data. I think the pilots and maintenance would question the abnormal power draw on a jets closed electrical system. Abnormal amp draw? Engines working harder to supply the additional draw to power transmitters?

To say it's simple to get the needed parts, get them to work with the existing controls / electrical systems / system language, not cause control and communication errors, installed not to be noticed by pilots/crew/maintenance, be able to pass system checks and inspections, hide the additional power drain and weight from additional broadcasting/receiving equipment, and hide broadcasting/receiving arrays large enough to allow remote control of a large commercial jet shows your petty much clueless. And that is if the OEM hydraulics can be used, and a special hydraulic system was not needed.

Again, the jet would have to have altered maintenance logs, been grounded for a week to the drone system could be installed, the equipment and electrical staff employed, and the expensive and limited supply of parts provided.

You watch too much A Team.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
The stick, also certainly doesn't connect directly to the wing control surfaces.

Dude, Boeing 757s and 767s are Monkey Motion not Fly By Wire.



Control cables run all the way out to the hydraulic actuators on the control surfaces.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Just rip a Guage out? You need to get a converter to take the signal ment for the guage, provide a buffer so a short in the signal to the guage would not short out the entire control system. Maybe an amplifier if the gauge signal is to weak? What if the gauge signal is too powerful? You probably would want redundant systems so one faulty signal doesn't end the mission short. So you have the gauge replaced and a redundant component in place, the signals buffered, properly conditioned, and now what? Hook the signal up to exactly where and what? On a language specific, proprietary closed control system? Using what as a prime mover for the flight controls?

And how you getting the data from the drone 757 back to the control station. Then the control station commands to the 757, the receiving array, conditioned for the control system, and the control system signal to the prime mover for the flight surfaces?

I saw the same antenna with orange paint we used in the Air Force on the video.....two of them....they're bigger than usual....used for remotes

a reply to: GBP/JPY

What video? Can you provide a link or post a photo?

Then none of the pilots or maintenance crews questioned the antennas? Antennas not OEM or in the maintenance logs? Antenna with no PMs?

So you are saying a large nonmilitary jet hit the pentagon?

You posted you had something to do with structures and buildings? Now you are a electronics aviation expert?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

According to 911truth guys, the pressure altimeter didn't get set to local ground pressure. It was still set to high altitude pressure. Yet, it still read the correct altitude.

If it is set wrong, it shouldn't be reading the correct altitude. It should read the wrong altitude. But it doesn't.

Didn't we go over this a little while ago?
The barometric correction was applied when descending through 18000' (it was 29.92 above that level which is standard procedure)
It's recorded in the DFDR and I supplied the exact second it was done to ease your searching time

You'd almost be led to think that PFT have some sort of agenda to mislead.