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

a reply to: Jacobu12

Because the operator was in a different timezone. It was 7:15 where the operator was, so the time of the call was recorded in their timezone.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jacobu12

Because the operator was in a different timezone. It was 7:15 where the operator was, so the time of the call was recorded in their timezone.

Oh i get you now the office was not located near Washington, more of central location maybe?

a reply to: Jacobu12

If you are implying the stamp is 2 hours earlier for the call then

Could be the capturing system is in the Mountain timezone so the time is marked local, 2 hours early. I don't know for sure without researching it.

a reply to: Jacobu12

Yes. They time stamp it based on where the operator is. I don't know exactly where they were, but the time stamp would have been based on their location, not where the phone was.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Jacobu12

If you are implying the stamp is 2 hours earlier for the call then

Could be the capturing system is in the Mountain timezone so the time is marked local, 2 hours early. I don't know for sure without researching it.

The website has few typos. The first call was actually made at 9.16am not 9.15am. She made the call an hour after leaving the airport, this is a long time for the hijackers to have not taken the plane ( they could have taken over before this) They literally only 20 minutes out from hitting the Pentagon though when she made her first phone call. Do we know when the flight tower lost the plane or could not contact it?

Cool, nice to check in twice a day or so and see you guys got this down.....all the details....half of em anyway....phone huh?

a reply to: Jacobu12

The hijacking occurred between 8:50 and 8:54 am. Indianapolis gave them instructions to climb, which they acknowledged, and at 8:54 they began deviating from their assigned heading.

a reply to: Jacobu12

I didn't see a website typo of 16. Not sure what you are mentioning. The data image show the 7:15:34 start at the first call shown.

Surprised you are not questioning the Dec 31 1969 dates... hint: 0 value.

These three Operator-dialed calls are identical in pattern to the call manually numbered 4-7, which had the typed explanations on it. And yet the only identified call, the “Olson” call (Records 8 and 9), manifested the same pattern of calls 4-7 having no record of time tracking, and no credit card charges.

Would this be unusual for the airphone? no record of time tracking, and no credit card charges. the calls also show no number for the person on the other side of the line? different handsets (i.e., CSC Call ID

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Jacobu12

I didn't see a website typo of 16. Not sure what you are mentioning. The data image show the 7:15:34 start at the first call shown.

Surprised you are not questioning the Dec 31 1969 dates... hint: 0 value.

Start time and event time have different times what does that mean?


Dec 31 1969 dates... hint: 0 value oh i noticed it that's why i am asking you guys is this unusual no time was tracked in the other post?

I don't see a printout for these two calls on that website roadgravel?

Similarly call 07:25:48 – or 09:25:48 EDT – (manually numbered 16-19) was Operator-dialed and showed no recipient.

And the third call, 07:30:56 – or 09:30:56 EDT – (manually numbered 20-23) was also an Operator-dialed number showing no recipient.

I don't know that system software but it might be the time the operator closed the call in the system.

The Dec dates are fields unused and probably have 0 stored. Some DBs/system use 1-1-1970 as a start date = 0 so it would be reported as that date minus time zone correction and DST correction. Seems to make if mountain time zone, just like the other stamps.

The article seems to give the details of what seems questionable. The possible removed destination number would only be needed if the call didn't go to the number that is claimed. But then maybe there is another reason it is not there.

We don't have a data person for the company telling us, just someone trying to do their own analysis, although there is some mention of info from the phone system personnel.

Because the customer dialed “0”, the typing implied, there was no “Terminating #” (meaning no recipient) except for “0”. The call was then handed off to the AT&T Operator and the “domain” changed to OSPS. This 102-second call, to be billed via the AT&T Operator, was not traceable to a recipient listed on the raw data report, and there was no credit card number showing on it, so the call, as recorded later on the trial exhibit graphic, was deemed to have been made to an “unknown number”.

This might be stating that operator dialed calls that are handed off to another telco won't have the destination number. This system will not be aware of the number. That could explain the empty numbers.

The author of the article can probably be more informative the me. I don't have time now to really get in depth into that data.

originally posted by: roadgravel

Because the customer dialed “0”, the typing implied, there was no “Terminating #” (meaning no recipient) except for “0”. The call was then handed off to the AT&T Operator and the “domain” changed to OSPS. This 102-second call, to be billed via the AT&T Operator, was not traceable to a recipient listed on the raw data report, and there was no credit card number showing on it, so the call, as recorded later on the trial exhibit graphic, was deemed to have been made to an “unknown number”.

This might be stating that operator dialed calls that are handed off to another telco won't have the destination number. This system will not be aware of the number. That could explain the empty numbers.

The author of the article can probably be more informative the me. I don't have time now to really get in depth into that data.

www.911myths.com... You find a printout for the last two calls on this site

This is odd.
Mercy Lorenzo, also an operator with AT&T, received a call from a female passenger on flight 77 requesting to be transferred to telephone number 202514-2201. The female passenger advised the plane was being hi-jacked. Hi-jackers were ordering passengers to move to the back of the plane and were armed with guns and knives. Lorenzo indicated the pilot might not yet be aware of the take over of the plane.
Additionally, the number provided was the number of the passenger's husband.

He is a Sergeant and resides in Washington,

Sergeant so seems like another woman was ringing to find her husband?

Lori Lynn Keyton, Secretary, Department of Justice (DOJ), Washington, D.C., telephone number (202) [redacted, date of birth [redacted] was contacted telephonically at her residence through the DOJ Command Center at (202) 514-5000. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, Keyton provided the following information:
Keyton was working in Ted Olson's Office this morning. She is regularly called there to cover the telephones. 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.

6 and 8 uncollected calls ( false statement) there is only 4 maybe 3 if a woman rang her sergeant husband? Phone call at 9.00am she's off by over 16 minutes and never happened. Barbara first phone call was at 9.16 am.

a reply to: roadgravel

Well I don't know how att works but T mobile operator assistant calls don't show a number. You are just charged for the time I've used it a couple of times by dialing 611.

So it wouldn't surprise me if an operator assisted call doesn't have information.

Another oddity.

The event time last call ended at 9.31.19. Remember those clocks people haha, another weird coincidence?

a reply to: Jacobu12

I have posted two times discussing this already, two days ago, read what i said and stop asking me the same question.

Stop lying.

You have ignored this 5 times.

Now you lie about it.

You are a liar.

Prove me wrong and quote where you addressed my simple yes or no question of whether you made up the claim of flying only inches off the ground for 6-10 seconds.

a reply to: Salander

Sorry friend, yes or no answers work sometimes, and then sometimes they don't.

and in this case it does. I guess my question about what a poster in this thread said goes way above your head.

Analysis of the FDR shows it to be a forgery, according to Dennis Cimino, and he makes a very persuasive case. So yes or no on how many feet above the ground AA77 had to be is absurd and impossible, because we are talking about a myth. AA77 did not strike the pentagon.

What in the hell does this have anything to do with what I am asking another poster about their own words?

Trying to split hairs on this issue is an exercise in frustration, because it is a myth and cannot be proved. It is rather an exercise in mental masturbation, because it didn't happen.

NO the mental masturbation is asking a simple question and getting ignored and now saying they have addressed it when they haven't.

Another instance of mental masturbation is trying grasp how you can interpret what I am trying find out the way you have.

It's possible, even probable, that some sort of airliner made a low level fly by, but it did not strike the building. That is a "no" answer.

A 'no' answer to something I never asked.


BRAVO, but you only win the silver award for complete nonsense when relying to a simple post.

originally posted by: Jacobu12


My contention is Hani was a spy who was willing to die for he's country of birth.

One thousand four hundred years ago there was a man called the Prophet Mohamed.........................