Ted Olsen and flight 77 the phone calls that never were.

a reply to: Jesushere

He stood upstairs, meaning the front of the plane. Wrong phrasing could simply be from the stress of the moment, as was saying Flight 12. As for the door, maybe they were able to try it before they were pushed to the back of the plane, and couldn't get it open. And then tried calling the cockpit. There's so much she didn't say that could explain why she said that.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Jesushere

He stood upstairs, meaning the front of the plane. Wrong phrasing could simply be from the stress of the moment, as was saying Flight 12. As for the door, maybe they were able to try it before they were pushed to the back of the plane, and couldn't get it open. And then tried calling the cockpit. There's so much she didn't say that could explain why she said that.

You got no evidence upstairs means the front of the plane. Could it just mean the plane had stairs?

Sorry, that made no sense at all, once the plane was hijacked. After that, they are getting nowhere that door.

a reply to: Jesushere

It, not a mistake that someone would make what made her think she was on flight 12?

Flight 12 was the call sign for the leg from Los Angeles (LAX) to Boston (Logan)

I guess you never made a mistake in times of high stress ...........

Still did an admirable job of giving the seat assignments of the hijackers

Guess that doesnt happen in the basement

a reply to: Jesushere

Hijackers sprayed MACE/Pepper Spray in First class cabin to drive out the passengers

She was working coach class (id herself as Number 3 giving position on the flight)

The other flight attendants gave her info on hijackers - would also (Presumably ) have a copy of the
manifest giving seat assignments

Would be able to match hijackers to seats . Lets see ..... Middle Eastern type - CHECK. Arabic name on manifests
CHECK Looks like got a winner here .......

As for door - at least one flight attendant would carry the master key called BOEING key which would open cockpit door

Hijackers took test flights in weeks/months before to view activities of passengers and flight attendants

Used these flights find out which of them would be carrying the keys

a reply to: Jesushere

The plane does not have stairs. Period. That means "upstairs" means something else. You seem to believe that anyone that makes mistakes is proof of a false event, and that in the real thing everything would be said perfectly and no mistakes would be made. That's far from the truth, and backwards to how it would be.

As for the door, there would have been some initial confusion as the hijackers were herding everyone to the back of the plane, where one person, if they were near the cockpit could try to get into the cockpit and find out the door was blocked.

a reply to: Zaphod58

ZAPHOD

Would planes being be carrying ammunition for their internal gun if not on alert status?

If so what type of ammunition - Practice ? Non Explosive Ball ?

This excerpt from HISTORY COMMONS gives quotes from 174 th Fighter Squadron (174th FS) based at Hancock Field
in Syracuse NY

Earlier on, shortly after seeing the second plane hitting the World Trade Center at 9:03, a commander of the 174th Fighter Wing called NEADS to offer fighter jets to help (see (After 9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001). They’d said: “Give me ten [minutes] and I can give you hot guns. Give me 30 [minutes] and I’ll have heat-seeker [missiles]. Give me an hour and I can give you slammers.”

Here is page from HISTORY COMMONS giving timing of alerts for various airbases that morning

www.historycommons.org...

a reply to: firerescue

It depends. Sometimes they'll carry training ammunition for center of gravity issues, other times they don't carry anything at all. It's all dependent on what kind of training is coming up. That's about right though. The gun is fairly easy to load. The longest part is getting the belt into the feed, and then it's just a matter of feeding the rounds in. A 250 round load doesn't take long, and would give them some kind of ammunition.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
But of course, a pilot who could barely fly a single engine Cessna would be able to pull that off right?

Kindly substantiate your claim that Hani Hanjour “…could barely fly a single engine Cessna”, and in qualified terms, please, not just an armchair pilot's assessment. Explain how the FAA saw fit to confer a commercial pilot certificate to someone so inept in your eyes. Account for the effect his training in jet simulators had on his ability to fly a real one. For that matter, state your own suitability for judging Hanjour’s capacity to put the nose of an aircraft onto a large office building.

originally posted by: Rollie83

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
But of course, a pilot who could barely fly a single engine Cessna would be able to pull that off right?

Kindly substantiate your claim that Hani Hanjour “…could barely fly a single engine Cessna”, and in qualified terms, please, not just an armchair pilot's assessment. Explain how the FAA saw fit to confer a commercial pilot certificate to someone so inept in your eyes. Account for the effect his training in jet simulators had on his ability to fly a real one. For that matter, state your own suitability for judging Hanjour’s capacity to put the nose of an aircraft onto a large office building.

I research these things. I'm not a pilot. What's your credentials that support your expertise?

From one of his instructors:

Hanjour tried to rent a Cessna from Freeway Airport in Bowie, Maryland (about 20 miles from Washington) just a month before 9/11, but was refused because his piloting skills were so weak. Instructor Sheri Baxter says that she and another instructor took Hanjour for three test runs and found he had a hard time just controlling and landing the Cessna. They refused to rent him the plane.

truthandshadows.wordpress.com...

And veteran pilots weighed in on the matter:

One of the alleged hijacking pilots, Hani Hanjour, was credited with having mastered the most difficult maneuver of that day, namely plunging Flight AA77, a Boeing 757, horizontally into the ground floor of the Pentagon at approximately 500 mph. An experienced military pilot, Gary Eitel, told author Michael C. Ruppert that the maneuver performed by that aircraft, as described in official reports, was beyond the capabilities of 90 percent of even the best and most experienced pilots in the world.2

Commander Ted Muga, a retired Pan-Am commercial and military airline pilot with years of experience, stated in a media interview in 2007:

The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet.  And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult.  And it would take considerable training.  In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it’s not for military maneuvers.  And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. (…)  I just can’t imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.3

The above evaluation is corroborated by Capt. Fred Fox, a retired commercial airline pilot with 33 years experience flying for American Airlines:

I know from my experience that it would have been highly improbable that even a seasoned American test pilot, a military test pilot, could have flown a T-category, aircraft like the 757, into the first floor of the Pentagon because of a thing called Ground Effect.4

Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret.) says:

I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.

aldeilis.net...

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

The maneuver at the Pentagon was not nearly as tightly controlled as everyone claims it was. It was a loose, wide spiraling descent, that was all over the map.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

I research these things. I'm not a pilot. What's your credentials that support your expertise?

As assumed, you have no direct qualifications, but instead select factoids to suit your narrative. Me? I’m a 35-year, FAA-certified commercial pilot and CFI, licensed to teach aeronautics. I’m also an aerobatic competitor, and an MEL piston and jet pilot. Importantly, I’ve been in the position of evaluating pilots wishing to rent aircraft, so I can put your Cessna-renting excerpt in context.

Renting an aircraft is more difficult than getting a license, just as it is with automobiles. But in aviation, the extra scrutiny is even more pronounced. When a pilot wishes to rent, the first requirement is to show credentials—in Hanjour’s case, that included a commercial certificate backed by about 600 hours in the cockpit. After the paperwork, an instructor goes flying with the applicant to evaluate actual skills—not just to fly safely, or with adequate skill, but to make sure the renter isn’t going to abuse the airplane. Yes, CFI Baxter didn’t think Hanjour flew well enough, on initial evaluation, to have renter’s privileges, but that doesn’t mean what you think it means. I’ve flunked many applicants on renters’ checkrides, and some of them were very skilled pilots. I refused privileges to a C-5 pilot—at the time the world’s largest aircraft—because he kept trying to flare the Cessna at twenty feet over the runway. I directed additional instruction for a Navy pilot because he flew his approaches like he was landing on a carrier, and was on track to damage our fleet’s landing gear. Other applicants flew fine, but their foreign accents prevented proper communication over the airwaves, so we disqualified them.

By the way, CFI Baxter’s boss, Chief Instructor Marcel Bernard, said this about Hanjour’s evaluation: “He failed because he showed problems landing the airplane and the flight instructor had to help him,” Bernard said. But Hanjour's problems were nothing unusual, Bernard said. “There’s no doubt in my mind that once (Flight 77) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it.”

This makes sense, because Flight 77’s maneuvers were not as difficult as you think, and just to give you some context, the easiest thing to do in an aircraft is to put the nose on a point. Ask any instructor, it’s the one thing a student can reliably do on the very first lesson. AgarthaSeed, if I gave you an hour’s instruction and then put you at the controls of a 757, you wouldn’t be able to navigate, stabilize, take off or land, or do anything precise at all, but you sure could crash it.

As for the testimonies of the pilots you’ve mentioned, they don’t impress me in the face of the hundreds of pilots I know whose views directly contradict theirs. But don’t believe me…go somewhere and meet professional pilots in person, and see if any of them think Flight 77’s maneuvers were un-flyable. The fact is, your pilots’ testimonies are in the extreme minority, so what is their relative worth? A specific comment about Fred Fox—his comment about “ground effect” is factually wrong, and if you consult impartial experts you’ll understand this for yourself. Perhaps he’s been mis-quoted, but if I had a student who persisted with this understanding of ground effect, I’d wash her/him out.

a reply to: Rollie83

Sorry, fellow forum writers, for the seven false postings which appear above my last. My mouse had a problem.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: AgarthaSeed


A) You act like it comming from a sub or land instillation would take ANY less people lol..


It wouldnt.. it would still require 100+ people and plenty of red tape..

B) no I am not..

If it were done by the book. It takes thousands to orcastrate..

It only taking a hundred or so. Would be a skeleton crew..

You have radar instillations everywhere.. some civilian. Most Specifically meant to track missles and airplanes..


C) there is no motivation you can list that my trailer park @$$ can’t think of an easier way to do it..

Start a war??

Blow up a couple daycares..


Destroy files??

It’s way easier to shred them, or fake a fire..


Why do you think those pushing it are forced to fall back on obscure motivations like “control..”


Because it doesn’t make sense with ANY REAL LIFE MOTIVATION..

We’re living the motivation. Destabilized M.E., security state, endless war for the war profiteers...

And theres the LACK of charred anything at the impact site so I don’t know what you mean by bringing up paperwork.

The Manhattan project was the best kept govt secret because of compartmentalization. Nobody knew what they were working on and even with a couple of spies that had some knowledge of what was going on. Compartmentalization if 1000+ people prevented the bombs ingredients from being known.

You don’t even need to worry about top brass or ATC looking the other way because they were already doing so because of all the training excercises going on that day mirroring the event.