Raytheon and Flight 77

[Minstrel Boy]

A couple of things I've recently learned about Raytheon have got me wondering about Flight 77.

A 727 was flown by remote control to a military airbase in August 2001, without aid of a pilot (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/2001/10/2/remote-pilot.htm), using Raytheon's guidance technology. Raytheon is the third largest defense contractor in the United States. Oddly, one of those killed on Flight 77 was Stanley Hall, director of program management for Raytheon's Electronics Warfare Division. A colleague called him "our dean of electronic warfare" (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm).

That control of Flight 77 could have been taken from the hijackers is a little too out there for me to embrace. But frankly, I'm at a loss to otherwise explain how Flight 77 - supposedly piloted by Hani Hanjour, so unskilled he was denied a Cessna just three weeks before - could be flown so aerobatically a flight controller believed she was following the path of an F-18, perform a 270 degree turn over Washington, spiral down thousands of feet in a matter of seconds, and go out of its way to hit the naval side of the Pentagon: the one side which was virtually empty for reconstruction; the only side whose exterior wall had been hardened to withstand attack. Not only could Hanjour not fly a Cessna, but we're told he wasn't interested in learning how to land. Yet the aircraft, in the few images released from a Pentagon security camera, is shown to have landed perfectly on the lawn before striking the ground floor.

I don't buy the "no plane hit the Pentagon" theory. Occam's Razor and all that. I believe it was Flight 77. But I'm damned if it was Hani Hanjour at the controls.

[jmcgowanjm]

1. it'simpossible to do a 270degree turn and descend

over 6000' in the time/space allowed w/ a 757.

Everytime I see that AAdvantage ad and they
show the nose of that 757, I ry to imagine
the damage it would cause.

And remember that Lockheed crashlanding
in Omaha? You know, the one that was a
miraclelanding w/ohydraulics?

Ain' t no way that energy hit the Pentagon
and did so little damage and disappeared.

[acerbic]

2. Huh?

is shown to have landed perfectly on the lawn before striking the ground floor.

I guess "perfect" is a subjective word but still, I would never call landing with the gear up and 3 times faster than the normal landing speed "perfect"... :eyes:

[Minstrel Boy]

3. Granted, "perfect" is the wrong word.

Obviously this wasn't a typical landing. It was even more difficult. For the plane to strike the first floor, with its belly skimming the ground at excessive speed, requires unusual skill. Hani Hanjour?

[acerbic]

4. The point: that simply isn't LANDING

Obviously this wasn't a typical landing. It was even more difficult.

"Not only could Hanjour not fly a Cessna, but we're told he wasn't interested in learning how to land."

Learning how to LAND is learning how use the flaps, landing gear and other widgets, controlling the air speed and rate of descent etc.

So Hanjour didn't learn how to do that but only how to fly the plane at full speed and aim it at something. That is learning how to crash. What's the big mysterious inconsistency?

[Minstrel Boy]

6. point taken N/T

[acerbic]

7. You seem to be in the wrong forum...

That just isn't how we argue here. How is this thread now supposed to reach 150 posts? :-)

On edit: looks like that "problem" just got "solved"...

[ramblin_dave]

9. The term "landing" shouldn't have been used

Nor should focusing on bad terminology be used to refute an argument. Your wording "learning how to crash" is just as bad. These guys weren't learning how to crash. They were learning how to take control of a plane far from its target and guide it to a near perfect impact.

Flight 77 was hijacked over West Virginia then flew on to southern Ohio before reversing course and heading back to Washington. The approach to Washington was from the north and the plane descended in a spiral at flight speed. Planes normally slow down when landing, guiding a plane at high speed in a near to ground final approach to the wall of the Pentagon was a very difficult maneuver.

To think that a person who had never flown a real 757, who was even deemed to be a poor small plane pilot, could pull this off with near perfection the first time he tried is too much to accept.

Now it could be that Hanjour was not the pilot and someone else with more experience unknown to the FBI was at the controls. But what we have been told is that the guys the FBI believes to have been on board did not have such expertise.

[acerbic]

11. Not quite...

Nor should focusing on bad terminology be used to refute an argument.

If the argument is that they couldn't do it because they hadn't learned how to land, it can quite appropriately be refuted by pointing out that it wasn't the kind of landing they hadn't learned.

[plaguepuppy]

12. Pretzle logic

"wasn't the kind of landing they hadn't learned"

No, it was actually something much more difficult than a normal landing. It was a steep descending 270 degree turn followed by a flat ground level approach.

Ask your flight instructor, it's not part of the normal curriculum, even for fighter pilots (not at 2" off the ground anyway).



"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself."
— Joseph Pulitzer

[ramblin_dave]

14. That's not the argument

The idea that they hadn't learned how to land isn't the argument for why it's hard to believe they pulled off the attack. What they did wasn't "landing" in any normal sense of the word. Besides, as far as I know, Hanjour did train and was able to land a small plane.

The argument is that these guys did not have enough skill and experience to think they could do what they did on the first time ever to fly a 757.

[acerbic]

25. It was exactly the argument to which I replied just here:

"Not only could Hanjour not fly a Cessna, but we're told he wasn't interested in learning how to land. Yet the aircraft, in the few images released from a Pentagon security camera, is shown to have landed perfectly on the lawn before striking the ground floor."

The argument is that these guys did not have enough skill and experience to think they could do what they did on the first time ever to fly a 757.

Yeah, when "the official version" of what "they did" is picked from where the most implausible conjecture could be found and further embellished with individual imagination like "graze the ground at an altitude of a few inches without touching it"... :crazy:

[Ready4Change]

5. Depends on which viewpoint you are talking from.

If you are saying "they were part of a conspiracy to hit the Pentagon but do as little actual damage as possible" then it would be difficult. However, I can see how one could train a person to do so, using just a basic PC a flightsim package.

However, if you choose the viewpoint of "terrorists who just plan to hit the Pentagon, period." then I'd say the task of hitting the Pentagon is fairly simple (again, train them using a PC and a flightsim package) and the way this hit occurred was a near miss. The so called "perfect landing on the lawn" was a "nearly lawn darted instead of hitting the planned target."

The first viewpoint requires a vast conspiracy. The second requires a vast coincedence. I haven't decided which I buy into yet.

[plaguepuppy]

8. Try talking to someone who actually knows about flying

Calling that little stunt a near miss is like calling it a near miss to split the other guy's arrow in the bullseye instead of just hitting the bulleye itself. You really think it's easy to make a steep descent, graze the ground at an altitude of a few inches without touching it and hit the building exactly at ground level? And you consider this a "near miss?"

Anyone who has flown a real plane can tell you a maneuver like this is not just difficult, it's damn near impossible even for a highly trained pilot. Why aim for the side, why not just push the yoke forward and aim for the roof? It's a much bigger target and would have caused vastly more damage.

So these supposed hijackers are smart enough to pull the hijackings off without a hitch, but so stupid that they pull an extremely difficuly maneuver so they can hit the least occupied, recently reinforced part of the Pentagon to minimize the damage. Do you propose that they were just showing off, or did they suffer from OCD and want to make everything as neat and clean as possible?

[dofus]

10. I was under the impression

that flight 77 came in very low, under the radar for a good deal of it's final flying time, and that it more or less came straight in to the Pentagon, that the story of the 270 degree turn wasn't true.

For what my opinion is worth, the landmarks of Washington DC are very easy to see from the air, especially on a brilliantly clear day, as that one was. And if all you want to do is crash the plane, just aim and take it straight in. I hardly think that would be so difficult.

But what do I know? I've never taken flight lessons, and playing a little with the Microsoft flight simulater hardly counts, does it?

[plaguepuppy]

13. Sorry, the 270° turn is true

[Robb]

15. Allow me an ad hominem attack

The image is from the "Power Hour". Their attention to fact-checking is on par with my dogs' attention to flossing.

I won't even get into their wild interpretations of "fair use", which includes plagarism and stealing webpage code.

That said, isn't the 270 is based on eyewitness reports? Do we have those somewhere?

[Old and In the Way]

17. As far as I know, this map has never been disputed.

But, of course, neither have we had any official details of 77 released in which to confirm this. I wonder why that is?

[RH]

22. It is disputed.

Please see my "Proved by what?" message.

[plaguepuppy]

18. Actually the term is "ad site-inem"

Sure, whatever, it was the 1st copy of the map I could find.

[Robb]

19. Right on

...but still, I spent a few minutes looking, and found one site that says it's based on eyewitness reports (which they don't source), another that it's based on radar tapes (which nobody has).

I don't mean to attack any sacred cows, but where do we even get the idea there was a 270 degree turn in the first place?

[RH]

23. where do we even get the idea

It was the official version

see e.g.
http://www.newsbytes.com/news/01/170005.html

"The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said."

[Robb]

26. Well,

It's on the state department's propaganda sites. I'd say that qualifies as an unofficial official version of events. ;)

[RH]

21. Proved by what?

The trajectory shown on the map you post is definitely wrong. The definitely plane did not fly directly over Arlington Cemetery, nor was there ever any sort of reason to suppose that it flew in over Washington from the north.

I spent a lot of time searching for eye witness reports. Not one of them that I ever saw expressly confirmed the 270 degree dive. Above all the other aspects of the event this would therefore most reasonably be described as the "Official Version".

Why then is everybody otherwise aparently so keen to doubt the official version so blithely willing to swallow this one?

:shrug:

[Old and In the Way]

16. Actually, I set up the same basic scenario in MFS2003

I basically used the same altitude and direction as the map below and then tried to see how hard it would be to crash into the Pentagon.

As it turns out, it's very hard. I think the first 15 times I tried it, I stressed the airframe in mid-air (read destroyed). It was only with the right combination of airbrakes, throttle, and descent rate that I managed to get close to the Pentagon.

Now maybe a simulation doesn't count, but if Hanjour was as bad a pilot as we are told, I really don't know he'd have accomplished a 7000' descent/270 degree turn and put this exactly where it ended up doing the very minimumal damage in lives and structural damage to the Pentagon. And on the 1st attempt, no less.

[plaguepuppy]

20. Sim city

If anything the real thing would be much harder than the sim, considering that even a good sim uses a simplified model of flight physics. Just for starters I'm sure they don't include ground effect interactions which would be very strong at the near-zero altitude involved.

[Old and In the Way]

27. I absolutely agree.

I assume that the "real thing" was far more complex to control than the MSF version. It was interesting, nonetheless, to set up a simulation and see how difficult this feat would have been....particularly on a one shot basis. He and the Pentagon were both extremely lucky...him for hitting the building and they for having the least possible amount of damage in an airliner crash scenario.

Would this guy have any clue what would be required and in what sequence to accomplish this feat? This is a major question in the 77 crash that was never been adequately explained. The trajectory should certainy be a matter of public record.....so why haven't we seen this detail released? Maybe the angle was less than 270 degrees...if so, this approach is even more severe than the map indicates.

[RH]

24. Yes ... but

I would also doubt the competence of Hanjour to accomplish the feat if the said feat was indeed his intention and if indeed he was flying the plane.

On the other hand I have never yet heard of anything in terms of hard evidence to substantiate the presumtion that the Pentagon was a deliberately pre-meditated target. Nor have I yet seen anything specifically to prove that Hanjour was indeed at the controls.

Both of the notions appear to be entirely conjectural.

[Abe Linkman]

28. In fact

I have yet to see anything in terms of hard evidence to substantiate the claim that Mr. Hanjour was even on FL 77.

The notion that he was is entirely conjectural. And, it sounds like Mr. Harvey is postulating a sort of "magic bullet" theory of the flight. Either that, or a plane with a mind of its own.

[RH]

29. In fact

Bodies were recovered, including those alleged to have perpetrated the crime.

The bodies were not positively identified but if one of them was not Hanjour, whose body then would it have been, where is Hanjour now, and why else would he have paid cash 11 days in advance for a one-way ticket on Flight 77?

[LARED]

30. Some real basic issues

1. If the transponders were turned off, how does anyone know what the altitude was prior to making the 270 deg turn into the Pentagon? (Assuming the 270 is correct)

2. The flight path seems to line up well with quite a few 'good' targets. Namely the Capital building, and a few high profile monuments. Is it feasible that the Pentagon was not the prime target or was possibly one of a few choices the pilot had? I have always doubted the ability to hit the White House as it is largely surrounded by buildings taller than it.

3.For all anyone knows the pilots was aiming for the Capital and due to poor skills started the turn to the target and everything went wrong thus "ditching" it into the Pentagon.

4. If one assumes the Pentagon was the target the pilot could have missed the target by a lot and still hit the building. The Pentagon is a huge building after all.

5. Perhaps the pilot was far more skilled than he is given credit. Are simulators that hard to get? Perhaps that maneuver was simulated 1000 times prior to 9/11.

[Old and In the Way]

31. We really don't know much, do we?

And those that do, aren't talking. What drives me crazy is how this whole improbable event could have happened...52+ minutes after the 2nd WTC crash.

[Abe Linkman]

32. Which is it then, GPS or "Amazing Hamji" and his flying machine?

I thought the Official Story defenders were still peddling the "they didn't need to know how to fly because they used GPS to get to their last scheduled stop before THE END".

Which theory do you subscribe to?

[Must_B_Free]

33. you know,

Who the fuck suicide bombs a plane on a horizontal axis?

Wouldn't you dive straight into the target?

Why go through some elaborate maneuver to hit it some special way?

On that map, couldn't he have just turned right and dove into it instead of banking some huge turn and then doing a stunning descent right into the 1st floor?

Wasn't that running much more of a risk of crashing on the lawn in front of the building?

And the hole looks more like someone drove a van through there, rather than a huge jet.

[RH]

36. Yes, except that

I have never yet seen a 90 foot wide van.

:hurts:

A low wall was damaged when the port side engine nacelle hit the ground in front of the building. If you look carefully at the photos of the vicinity that particular result can be seen clearly enough.

On the other side, to the south, there was dent in the front of the damaged electricity generator and a scrape mark across the top of it, consistent with the impact of one of the flap track fairings under the wing. The generator (how much would it weigh?) was also pushed in towards the building, hit by the starboard engine. A tree behind it was also completely demolished.

Please then estimate the distance between the two particular impacts that I descibe and compare with the dimensions of a B757, or explain how the impact of a van, a much lighter plane or an explosion would ever have achieved the same effect. Except to find that it does indeed fit with the dimensions of a speeding B757 there is no other reasonable explanation of the given damage pattern.

[RH]

34. Some answers and more questions.

:toast:

1. Re. altitude we have the word of the C130 pilot who had been asked to investigate after taking off from Andrews on a routine flight (according to the official version).

:freak:

2. & 3. Yes the plane was lined up more or less directly with the Capitol when it hit the Pentagon but the question still arises, why choose the tricky route over the Arlington hill past the Sheraton? The more obvious route would have been to follow the Potomac into Washington. Possibly the plane had flown to the south to feign as if to intend to land at DCA.

B-)

4. The fact that the part of the building that was hit was the only part to have been strengthened against attack seems to me to speak against the same being intended by terrorists. The suspects were known to have previously been in the vicinity. Surely they would have bothered to take a look and if the project was indeed well planned they should have known that the work was all but complete. If perhaps one or two of the reinforced windows were missing because of the building work then you'd have a clear reason to attack there but I have never yet seen anything written to that particular effect.

:shrug:

5. If the pilot was skilled and well rehearsed then the other question looms even larger, why plan to fly past Washington only then to circle round to hit the Pentagon from the west where you'd already come from? If the intention was theatrical it would then have made more sense to fly in low enough to attract attention but as it it was the plane was hardly if at all ever noticed to be north of the Potomac.

:silly:

The scenario that makes more sense to me is that the 270 degree turn version was a misinterpretation of a manoeuver performed by the C130 or another aircraft that was thus indeed a military interecptor as originally understood by ATC. The B757 flew in low from the west and when its pilot saw the C130 descending aggressively the altitude was reduced to evade the attack and panic ensued alongside the 'ground effect', ergo the Pentagon was hit by accident, except to the extent that it was thus an own own goal by the US defense forces. Possibly there could also have been some electronic interference with the aircraft's navigation, from the interceptor or from cell phones aboard the object.

It could even have been that the proper pilot was still at the helm. Sure as hell an inclination to cover that up would then have ensued. The Barbara Olson "what do I tell the pilot" version would seem to fit with that and how wonderfully convenient then the "Stand down" and the "No Boeing" distractions would be!

This hypothesis is as yet a speculative interpretation but if it is demonstrably not correct then let us please have, for instance or at least, the name of any independent eye witness who definitely saw the same B757 fly north or east of the Potomac, or on any course clearly other than from the south west.

One may also wonder why Hanjour's body could not be identified and why we should not be told more about the positions of the suspect body parts in the Pentagon in relation to the various parts of the plane. That was all supposed to have been recorded by the FBI.

[Abe Linkman]

41. More hogwash

and wistful conjecture on the part of a long-time defender of the Official Story Conspiracy, who shoehorns a B757 into a small hole in the side of five story building, claiming as proof that it happened, NOT any evidence of it happening, but rather because there were objects in the vicinity of the building which he claims suffered damages on 9-11, and that damage could only have been as the result of Hami Hanjour's Amazing Flying Machine, aka AA Fl 77.

Hans Christian Andersen: your legacy is not threatened by RH's fairy tales.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[westerby]

38. Pentagon maneuver impossible to train in a simulator

Your point 5 does not convince.

According to an expert, you can train a landing maneuver on an airport. It is, however, not possible to train to fly in a building by means of a flight simulator, because the map in such a simulator offers only predefined and realistic locations.

[LARED]

42. Not trying to convince anyone;

merely speculating that the pilot may have had simulator training. IF that is true AND the Pentagon was the target his ability level MAY have been more advanced than people are SPECULATING.

As to whether a simulator could have been used. I'm not convinced it was impossible. Unlikely perhaps, but not impossible. Using your scenario why couldn't the simulation be set up so the pilot did the turn as a simulation to emergency land at an airport runway. The fight path and altitude at impact sure looks like it was an emergency landing.

[westerby]

43. I repeated only expert opionion

I saw him on German TV. He explained that to hit the WTC would be possible for someone with some training and not too difficult, but that the maneuver necessary for the Pentagon was indeed very difficult and could not haven been trained in a simulator.
What I understood was that it is not possible to program the simulator to simulate a landing in any desired place but only on airports, using real maps. However, it was not a long explanation.
The expert assumed that the terrorists had commercial pilot's licenses and were therefore able to accomplish that maneuver, and he said it might be possible that the actual spot of impact was not the intended one.

[Abe Linkman]

45. Not answering a legitimate question, either.

Is it YOUR position that FL 77 arrived at its final destination ( if you consider the Pentagon to be that ) via GPS...or via Hani's amazing flying skills?

And, while you're at it: does your defense of the Official Story embrace the GPS alternative to Moe and The Boys on Fls 11, 175, and 93?

Who flewed the Wherdy Go planes, Lared? GPS or "Bad Boys sent by the Caveman"?

[RH]

48. GPS fly aeroplanes?

GPS locates a global position.

Flying an aircraft is another matter.

[Abe Linkman]

49. What's the answer, then?

Some on your side have said they used GPS to program the auto-pilot, some have said they used GPS, but only to assist them as THEY flew the aircraft, and I've heard they flew the planes (but no mention of GPS).

What is your position? In plain English, please.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Abe Linkman]

52. Have you forgotten it, Ron?

Communicating clearly isn't one of your strongsuits, I know.

Please state your "preciously" opinion in ENGLISH. You know what the questions are. They are very simple. Why won't you answer them?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

56. Who flew?

The bad boys.

Flying into the WTC is easy once you're in the air. Flt 93 was ditched so it requires no great skill to accomplish that either. As for Flt 77, this thread has pointed out there are many possiblities.

I personally don't see the need for a GPS. Once your flying in the right direction visually aiming the jet into the WTC is simple. Locating downtown DC visually ain't real hard either.

[Abe Linkman]

58. So, we have you on the record saying _____.

You "don't see the need for a GPS", but you left yourself a little wiggle room, right? Now, would you ask the gentlemen (or lady/ladies) who, like yourself, also support the Official Story Conspiracy ... would you help me prod them to take a stand on the issues of whether or not the Caveman's boys used GPS to program the autopilot, or did they "wing it" based on your theory that they could just viusally aim the jets and they'd go there. The new "Segway" theory of precise flying and pinpoint targeting.

[RH]

65. Wrong again.

It is of course not at all a matter of leaving oneself any wiggle room, nor of leaving oneself anything at all.

It is rather, hopefully, a matter of examining all the evidence, with whatever sundry possibilities arrising by elimination as a result, and only as a result of such a discipline.

If it is not even seriously possible by now to appreciate the difference, then this is much more of a complete waste of time than I had ever dared to imagine.

[paulthompson]

35. Hani Hanjour

I'm on the road and have little time to respond, but a few relevant points from memory.

1) Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot. He tried to learn how to fly for nearly 10 years, and still totally sucked. Just a month before 9/11 he was taking yet more flying lessons, and the instructor literally took him aside and tried to talk him into giving up his dream of ever becoming a pilot. The instructor even said he would refuse to go back up in a plane with Hanjour at the controls, he was so apalled at his lack of skills.

2) We don't know if Hanjour was even on the plane. The first list of hijackers numbered only 18 - it was a day later that Hanjour was added. Apparently the delay was because there was no plane ticket found with his name on it, even weeks later. Nor was he on the boarding list, the only of the 19 to not be on either list. My guess is that he was added to that flight because the FBI quickly learned how he'd repeatedly crossed paths with the other hijackers, had flight training, none of the other hijackers on that plane had flight training, and without him there would only be three hijackers for that plane.

As an aside, supposedly al-Qaeda praises him as one of the four pilots.

3) Accounts vary as to when, but Flight 77 was seen on radar before it got to Washington and remained on radar until right before the crash. One flight controller has decribed watching the 270 degree turn, and claimed relief because she assumed that it was a fighter, and that only fighters could make such manouvers. All the known maps of the flight routes have failed to include any part of the return route of Flight 73 from over West Virginia.

4) If I remember, there are only one or two eyewitnesses who saw Flight 77 much before the exact Pentagon approach, if anyone at all. Apparently it did this amazing manouver over Washington (nearly?) completely unnoticed at a time when presumably some people might be paying special attention to unusual plane manouvers given what happened twice in NYC already. Some have said there was too much glare from the angle it was approaching to explain the lack of eyewitnesses.

I have long suspected that there was a last minute switch between some of the hijackers and more talented pilots. In truth, none of the four pilots were very good - Hanjour was simply the worst. If al-Qaeda seriously left their most important operation of all time in the hands of such incompetent yahoos, then they were complete idiots.

5) Regarding Raytheon, they have many strange ties to 9/11. For instance, three of the four hijacked planes are known to have Raytheon employees on them, and as far as we know, all of these employees could have been working on Raytheon's Global Hawk remote control program (it's hard to be sure, but one can guess based on which cities they worked in and their published skill sets. For instance, its hard to see how Stanley Hall would not have been involved in that program given his talents). Another connection: at least some of the bin Laden family were flown out on private planes from Raytheon's own airfields.

[RH]

37. Hanjour paid cash for a one-way ticket

PATERSON, New Jersey (CNN) -- At least one of the suspected hijackers who intentionally crashed a passenger jet September 11 purchased his plane ticket from a travel agent in a northern New Jersey town near where the alleged ringleader of the attacks was spotted this summer.

Hani Hanjour paid cash August 31 -- 11 days in advance -- for a one-way ticket on American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, at ATS Travel in Totowa, New Jersey, according to two employees of the independently owned agency who spoke to CNN on the condition of anonymity.

Totowa is the neighboring town to Paterson where, CNN has previously reported, Hanjour was one of at least four suspected hijackers who shared a one-bedroom apartment for $650 a month, rent paid in cash each month by Hanjour, according to the building's landlord.

Along with Hanjour, suspected hijackers Ahmed Alghamdi, Nawaf Alhazmi, and Salem Alhazmi lived there part of this year. ATS travel is less than two miles down the road.

Hanjour was accompanied by suspected hijacker Majed Moqed, according to the travel agents, and Moqed did the talking. The pair was clean-shaven, well-dressed, and low-key. Hanjour and Moqed initially asked for two first class seats on a morning flight to Los Angeles, California. The agent told them a ticket cost $2,220 from Newark and $1,842 from Washington Dulles; they went with the Dulles flight. But they changed their mind and bought only one ticket--for Hanjour, requesting a front aisle seat; he got 1B. For identification, Hanjour presented a Virginia driver's license with a Falls Church address.

Four Virginia men are charged with providing Hanjour and three other suspected hijackers illegal Virginia identification cards less than five weeks before the attacks.

When Moqed and Hanjour tried to buy Hanjour's ticket with a VISA card, it was declined. They left and Moqed came back 20 minutes later after withdrawing the exact amount from Hudson United bank down the road. He handed over the cash in a bank teller envelope. Moqed, who also flew on Flight 77 too, bought his ticket at Dulles, the FBI told the travel agents.

Neither Hanjour or Moqed or any of the hijackers had done business at ATS before.


......

full story:

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/10/29/inv.hijackers/

[paulthompson]

61. clarification

You'll note I said that for weeks there was no story of Hanjour having a ticket, not that there was never such info. For instance, check out this link from the Washington Post about a week after 9/11 if I recall:

"(Hanjour's) name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html

Of all 19 hijackers, this is the only one where it was suggested there was no ticket. This started to cause waves, for instance check here, a blog of someone well known enough to write articles for the Wall Street Journal:

http://edwardjayepstein.com/nether_WWDK2.htm

So in mid-October, a story comes out about him having a ticket, but this is much later than info on the other hijacker's seating and tickets, which was known almost immediately. For instance, the complete seating plan for all Flight 11 passengers was published about 2 or 3 days after 9/11.

Was this story invented to fill in a hole of a hijacker not having a ticket? I don't know. Certainly we've seen many lies, so I wouldn't put it past them. But clearly, at the time he was labelled the pilot, there was no evidence of him actually being on the plane at all, which was my point. And there's still no evidence of him having any seating assignment.

[RH]

67. Yes, thanks.

It would be good to have that cleared up beyond doubt.

Perhaps there was an administrative screw up over the ticket sale and registration.

No doubt it will be suggested that the story was faked, anomalies are routinely said to be evidence of fakery but since when was ordinary life a perfect affair? If the whole of the 9/11 affair was faked, surely they'd have been willing and able to make a better job of it, in advance, without having to leave so many loopholes for any nosy mischief maker to crawl through, and where ever was the need to fake so much of it anyway?

Cover ups most often arise over cock ups.

[Robb]

39. Wait, wait, wait...

Paul,

So the only suggestion of this 270 degree turn is a single unnamed ATC, who didn't know enough of her job to know what a/c it was? I mean, fighters also have ID transponders, so something she "thought" was a fighter would've "read" as a fighter as well. No one here finds that fishy?

So we believe this 270 business, which seems to suggest a bunch of stuff, without any corroboration? And it winds up in government docs in the official version of events, and we just swallow it and play along?

I'm seeing a lot of selective skepticism here.

[plaguepuppy]

40. selective skepticism

"So we believe this 270 business, which seems to suggest a bunch of stuff, without any corroboration? And it winds up in government docs in the official version of events, and we just swallow it and play along?"

And this is the only thing so far about the official story that you find problematic?

[Robb]

44. Only in this:

It seems to be you're (and it's not just you) picking one part of the official story to believe, because it supports the "exceptionally skilled pilot" part.

Seems to me the 270 story has far less to back it up than, say, the cell phone calls.

[Abe Linkman]

46. Can't we all be a little more precise?

"Seems to me the 270 story has far less to back it up than, say, the cell phone calls."

Since you were talking in the context of FL 77, I presume you mean the alleged cell phone calls made by Barbara Whatwashernamethatday. If so, what do YOU have to "back it up," other than the claims of liar Ted Olson? (keep in mind even his story changed...one detail of which was that Babs's cell phone morphed into being a "seatback" phone - then ther e was the credit card business, which morphed into who knows what)...but go ahead and tell us YOUR version. Complete with backup facts or reasoning. For some very odd reason, the gov't hasn't found it convenient to provide any evidence, so your reasoning is an acceptable substitute for now.

[Robb]

47. No one's doing this

...But here's an extreme example of the problem I'm trying to point out:

Thesis: "Flight 77 was actually an F-16 or guided missile."

Support 1: Government said Olsen called from cell phone. Story is single-source, so it's a lie.

Support 2: Government said Flight 77 made a difficult to impossible turn and descent for an airliner. Story is single-source, but supports the thesis, so it's true.

See where I'm going with this?

[ramblin_dave]

55. You're making assumptions

You're assuming all those who question the official account of the Pentagonattack don't believe the Olsen call story but do believe the difficult descent story.

Actually I accept the Olsen call story until such time as an independent investigation could prove otherwise. We basically have Ted Olsen's word for it. I don't worry about small details such as cell phones because Olsen or reporters could easily confuse seat back phones with cell phones. He said he got the call and there should be a record of it.

I accept the reporting of the Dulles ATC account about the fast descent until such time as an independent investigation could prove otherwise. Why would someone make that up? Anyway there should be logs or multiple testimony.

[Abe Linkman]

57. Do you selectively believe people, or just high-ranking Teds?

"He said he got the call and there should be a record of it."

The Gov't gave an "official account" of all the events; why do you believe Ted, but not your government?

[ramblin_dave]

59. Your question makes no sense

I don't necessarily believe Olsen. He says he got the call. In a real investigation there would probably be evidence presented that he got a call from his wife's cell number or from the seat back phone during the time in question. Until then I just accept his account as part and parcel of the story of flight 77.

[Abe Linkman]

60. NO, a real investigation would show that the story is a lie.

Do you believe things Bush tells you? How about Limbaugh? Cheney? Boloboffin? Lared? Acerbic, Anableptic, Paul Thompson?

But, even without an investigation, anyone is objective and has studied the known facts, is not very likely to accept Ted's fairy tale.

[RH]

64. a real investigation?

How many FBI people and others do you think were involved with the various investigations after 9/11? How many different organistaions do you think for instance were involved with the forensic examination of body parts? Would your intellect ever extend to considering the the elementary mathematics, hence perhaps the somewhat more sophisticated issue of probability?

It is really very simple.

If somebody happens to point me to several web links that obviously enough exist, and when furthermore the given references appear to indicate that many other diligently intelligent people must have looked yet deeper into an issue, and very often with their own direct experience to judge from in order to satisfy themselves, then yes, I shall probably see fit to think that some credence may reasonably be vested in their direction. I may also thus, perhaps, arrive at a favourable judgement as to how much time a given contributor has spent on intelligently objective research.

:toast:


If, on the other hand, if others turn up with little more to offer than a familarly perpetual boring incantation of bad faith, apparently intended mostly to denigrate or at least to distract from the work that others put in, and with very little to show for themselves (or of themselves) except to indicate that they'e hardly looked beyond their own ignorantly imaginative prejudices, then a somewhat different conclusion is reasonably to be come to, with all due respect.

:hurts:


Now why, I wonder, should such a disposition be so continually difficult to appreciate?

[RH]

63. Why would someone make that up?

Dulles ATC did not identify the B757, nor did it mention the C130.

Why would the C130 be forgotten?

[ramblin_dave]

54. The 270 item

Actually one can argue that hitting the Pentagon with a 757 going at flight speed would have been very difficult even if it had come directly from the west for a straight in approach. Now you'll argue how do we know it was going at flight speed? Then you'll want to know how can we know it was an inexperienced pilot? And on and on.

Thing is we can only "know" what has been reported. We have not had an in-depth, independent investigation. So everything we think we "know" is in question.

Nevertheless the story that's out there as reported by contemporary accounts is that inexperienced pilots took control of flight 77 somewhere over WV, flew out to Ohio, doubled back to the DC area, appeared on radar at Dulles reportedly going very fast and circling around to its final approach, was observed by a military cargo plane pilot in the final moments and impacted the west wall of the Pentagon.

[RH]

66. if it had come directly from the west

or more precisely, from the south west, and at treetop height, then that would arguably have been a more difficult strategy because the Pentagon would then be out of sight, beyond the hill where the Navy Annex stands. Psycholically it also fails to make sense. When aiming for a target it it not intuitively natural to want to see it well before hitting it?

This would not though be a reason to justify the 270 degree turn, because the much more sensible approach route would have been to fly further north, to follow the Potomac River directly into Washington from the west. It would then hardly be possible to miss the Pentagon, if that were the given intention.

[paulthompson]

62. Not just one person

There's a lot of evidence for the turn. Here's some info from the timeline. You may find more details if you follow the linked articles, cos I didn't include everything, for instance the comment of the turn looking like something only a fighter could do. The article that the blip could be confused with a C-130 or something else is a complete nonstarter. For instance, the turn happened even before the C-130 got in the air, which was at 9:36. There was nothing else in the air at the time of the turn.

It is extremely curious though - the various contradictions in when the plane was first on radar, and how close it got to the White House.

(9:27 a.m.) Vice President Cheney and National Security Advisor Rice, in their bunker below the White House, are told by an aide that an airplane is 50 miles outside Washington and headed toward it. The plane is Flight 77. Federal Aviation Deputy Chief Monty Belger says, "Well we're watching this target on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off. So we, have no identification." They are given further notices when the plane is 30 miles away, then 10 miles away, until it disappears from radar (time unknown, but the plane is said to be traveling about 500 mph and was 30 miles away at 9:30, so 50 miles would be about 3 minutes before that). The Dulles tower flight controller who is said to first spot Flight 77's appearance near Washington, Danielle O'Brien, previously claims she doesn't find its radar blip until it is around 12 and 14 miles from Washington, and that Cheney is notified only after that. O'Brien's account does not jibe with the fact that the FAA warned that the plane was headed toward Washington at 9:24 (see 9:24 a.m.).

9:30 a.m. Radar tracks Flight 77 as it closes to within 30 miles of Washington.

(9:30 a.m.) Chris Stephenson, the flight controller in charge of the Washington airport tower, says that he is called by the Secret Service around this time. He is told an unidentified aircraft is speeding toward Washington. Stephenson looks at the radarscope and sees Flight 77 about five miles to the west. He looks out the tower window and sees the plane turning to the right and descending. He follows it until it disappears behind a building in nearby Crystal City, Virginia. However, according to another account, just before 9:30 a.m., a controller in the same tower has an unidentified plane on radar, "heading toward Washington and without a transponder signal to identify it. It's flying fast, she says: almost 500 mph. And it's heading straight for the heart of the city. Could it be American Flight 77? The FAA warns the Secret Service." So does the Secret Service warn the FAA, or vice versa?

(9:33 - 9:38 a.m.) Radar data shows Flight 77 crossing the Capitol Beltway and headed toward the Pentagon. But the plane, flying more than 400 mph, is too high when it nears the Pentagon at 9:35, crossing the Pentagon at about 7,000 feet up. The plane then makes a difficult high-speed descending turn. It makes a "downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn is so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there no fight for control going on." It gets very near the White House during this turn. "Sources say the hijacked jet ... several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House." The Telegraph later writes, "If the airliner had approached much nearer to the White House it might have been shot down by the Secret Service, who are believed to have a battery of ground-to-air Stinger missiles ready to defend the president's home. The Pentagon is not similarly defended." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer suggests the plane goes even closer to the White House, saying, "That is not the radar data that we have seen. The plane was headed toward the White House." If Flight 77 passed within a few miles of the White House, why couldn't it have been shot down by the weapons on the White House?

(9:37 a.m.) The blip representing Flight 77 that radar technicians have been watching on their screens disappears. Its last known position is six miles from the Pentagon and four miles from the White House. Supposedly, just before radar contact is lost, FAA headquarters is told, "The aircraft is circling. It's turning away from the White House." The plane is said to be traveling 500 mph, or a mile every seven seconds.

---

A mile every seven seconds or nine or whatever if it was going 400 mph, shows to me how truly remarkable it was that the plane hit the exact bottom of the first floor of the Pentagon, flying so low that it clipped light poles but still didn't manage to crash.

Does anyone here seriously think that Hani Hanjour was capable of such a move, or would have been trusted with such a move by any terrorist plotter with half a brain?

Oh, and by the way, I fully agree with the below comment that we can't know any 9/11 fact for sure 100%. We can only make best guesses, since there is so much disinfo, clear contradictions, and inaccuracies. For instance, just look at all the various accounts of when Flight 77 first reappeared on radar, if it even ever disappeared, which is also doubtful. There's another account of 9:20 that I haven't even added yet, giving a number of different accounts, not to mention all the contradictions of who first noticed it.

[RH]

68. extremely curious though

"the turn happened even before the C-130 got in the air, which was at 9:36. There was nothing else in the air at the time of the turn."?

Definitely not according to the pilot of the C130, i.e.

"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so.
It was like coming up to an intersection. When air traffic control asked me if we had him in sight, I told him that was an understatement -- by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away.
That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us."


Not quite the same then as the other version, i.e.

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
.... "That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."


Why no mention at all of the C130 in the reports of the ATC radar observations?

When understandings contradict to that extent I doubt them.

Somehow the C130 got from Adrews Air Base (from the east), over Washington and then over the Pentagon (from the west), through the smoke, apparently in pusuit of the B757.

So how then did it do so if not through something like a 270 degree turn?

And how did the C130 pilot know where to chase the B757 if (as
he asserted) he lost sight of it in the mean time? No sale. I don't buy it.

The pilot's version comes from an article by Bob Von Sternberg.
It was originally at href="http://www.startribune.com/stories/1576/3213501.html"
but the link is defunct. It may still be around on Lexis Nexis or elswhere.

To my mind the version from the control tower (sees the plane turning to the right and descending) does not endorse the 270 degree turn version. The 270 turn would have taken the plane over DCA or to the east of the airport and only then behind the Crystal city buildings for a few seconds. How very odd then to see no specific mention of the turn/dive from Chris Stephenson when it would have passed so flagrantly across the authorised DCA flight paths!

I tend to prefer the other official version:
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer suggests the plane goes even closer to the White House, saying, "That is not the radar data that we have seen. The plane was headed toward the White House."

If Flight 77 passed within a few miles of the White House, why couldn't it have been shot down by the weapons on the White House?

Perhaps it was. Why else would they be so strangely keen to let the 'No Boeing' nonsense go on for so long? They must surely have more than enough evidence to kill that off overnight if they'd really wanted to.

:hurts:

It stinks.

[ramblin_dave]

69. I don't see a big contradiction

between the pilots account and the 270 degree turn account. The C130 was heading north and west out of Andrews and saw the 757 up and to the left at 10 o'clock some 4 miles away. Then at a mile or two away the 757 made an aggressive turn right in front of the C130.

We shouldn't try to pick appart these accounts and insist on perfect matches. The C130 pilot is describing a plane that is coming in from the north or northwest and descending at the same time then turns aggressively. This turn would have to be towards the west in order to eventually be on the approach to the Pentagon from the west.

The 757 could have been seen as flying toward or near or over the White House. That's plausible. The descent could have been close to a spiral but maybe not a perfect one. Anyway these citations reinforce the basic contention that the 757 was descending from the N-NW and turning to get west of the Pentagon for the final leg of the attack.

[RH]

70. How did

Radar show Flight 77 ..... dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes

With no responder they don't have that information, do they? All they have is a blip on the screen.

I would insist upon a better match because both of the witnesses were supposed to have been trained professionals decribing the same event, and when the C130 pilot gave his version he'd already had nearly 12 months to get his act together.

One contradiction would especially be for instance in the geography you point out: The C130 pilot does indeed seem to describe a plane that came in from the north or northwest.

On the other hand the ATC described this:

"Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … I had literally a blip and nothing more."

Where then exactly did the two planes fly? I have never yet seen even as much as a completely unambiguous account of which way the 270 degree turn went, clockwise or anticlockwise.

The problem is then yet more confused by this:



Photo taken by Linda Brookhart, TFI VP, in restricted airspace near the White House on September 11, 2001. While identity of this airplane is unknown, it is not the plane that struck the Pentagon minutes later.
http://www.taxpayfedil.org/dcterror.htm


I am reluctant to trust the C130 pilot's version. They were remarkably slow to come forward even to admit to the existence of the C130, albeit that it should have had by far the best view of the event, and if the C130 perhaps had something to do with causing the B757 to aim for the Pentagon (or even to hit it by accident or from being crippled by attack) that would possibly be a pretty strong reason to dissemble the subsequent version of events.

[RH]

71. To be clear

The contradiction I had in mind was "nothing else in the air at the time of the turn".

If the C130 in the air did affect the intentions of the approaching B757 then the mistake could hardly be more important.

[Abe Linkman]

72. It helps that Hani Hanjour (Ace Pilot) was at the controls.

That boy could flat fly, couldn't he.

[RH]

73. and BTW

further to
"a controller in the same tower has an unidentified plane on radar",

according to what was the controller in the same tower?

My understanding has been that the controller was at the other (Dulles) airport.