Raytheon Employees were on every 9/11 flight that hit a target?

[spooked911]

Flight 11:
Peter Gay was Raytheon’s Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html


This division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk. (ISR Journal, 3/02)

Kenneth Waldie was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon’s electronic systems.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

David Kovalcin was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon’s electronic systems.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html

Flight 175:
Herbert Homer was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html

And for some very strange reasons he was listed for several days as having died in the while working in the Pentagon.

Flight 77:
Stanley Hall was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare.
One Raytheon colleague calls him "our dean of electronic warfare."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm

Charles S. Falkenberg:
He worked on "EOS Webster" a mapping system which provides Landsat Images, which are part of the mapping system for the Global Hawk technology.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020302091225/http://ivanova.gsfc.nasa.gov/hdfeos/notes.html


Raytheon is working on Global Hawk piloltless aircraft program.


Now, if this is not coincidental enough for you:
What are the odds that Raytheon also had one office in the WTC2?
(AP, 9/11/01)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/tenants.html

It was located in 91st floor in WTC2.
Raytheon shared the floor with Washington Group and Gibbs&Hill.

While 13 employees of Washington Group died
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-employer/page101.html

None died from Raytheon and Gibbs&Hill:
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-employer/page101.html

This is rather surprising as after the hit of the second plane only four people survived who were above the 78th floor where the plane hit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml

(Research from former DU member John Doe II)

[MercutioATC]

1. Raytheon has 79,000 employees.

http://www.hoovers.com/raytheon/--ID__11261--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml

I'd bet they have an employee on almost every rush-hour flight out of major airports every day. Doesn't sound so suspicious to me.

[spooked911]

5. You wonder how the company gets any work done, if every employee

is flying out of every flight at all the major airports every morning. :)

By the way, was there any other company that had employees on all these flights? For instance IBM has more employees than Raytheon. Did they have people on all three of these flights?

[spooked911]

6. Here's an even better one-- the Pentagon has several million employees.

How many were on flights 11, 175 and 77?

:O

[Make7]

11. There was at least one.

A man named Bryan Jack.

Pentagon economist may have lived if at his office

By Haya El Nasser, USA TODAY

Had Bryan Jack gone to his Pentagon office and settled at his computer at 8 a.m. Tuesday as he normally did, he might be alive today.

But in a cruel twist of fate, Jack was headed to California to give a lecture at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. He was aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when it slammed into the Pentagon at 9:40 a.m.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/17/jack.htm

What an odd coincidence that someone that works at the Pentagon was allegedly on the plane that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon. Maybe he was the one who allegedly hijacked the plane as part of some military exercise.

:) Make7

[spooked911]

24. Even more coincidentally, the pilot of flight 77 was a Navy officer

who used to work at the Pentagon and officially, flight 77 crashed into the Navy section of the Pentagon-- it took out the Office of Naval Intelligence.

But the fact that 11 Raytheon employees (out of 79,000) were on the three flights is striking in comparison to having only 1 Pentagon/Defense Department employee (out of a few million) on the flights.

[Make7]

25. A couple of things seem odd to me:

1. I count 6 Raytheon employees listed in your OP, and now the number has jumped to 11. Could you list all of their names and how their jobs were related to remote-control technology? (As you seem to suggest in Post#23.)


2. In Post#6 the criteria was Pentagon employees, now it has turned into Pentagon/Defense Department employees.

___________________

So, is the theory that the plane that struck the Pentagon was being guided by remote-control and by having Raytheon employees on board they somehow helped to facilitate the proper functioning of the system? (Or perhaps they were just being eliminated because they "knew too much"?)

Or is the theory now that an ex-Navy officer who previously worked at the Pentagon was the pilot that flew the plane into the building?

Does the fact that apparently no Raytheon employees were aboard Flight 93 somehow explain why it did not reach its "target"?

-Make7

[MercutioATC]

7. Well, Raytheon does a lot of contract work...

Those people have to travel.

As far as IBM, I have no idea. I'm not overly concerned with what companies had employees on the planes that crashed.

[Make7]

8. Isn't Raytheon's corporate headquarters less than 20 miles from...

... Logan Airport? Do you really think it is unusual for a number of employees from a company that big to be flying out of the closest major airport every workday?

And do you actually find it odd that a large defense contractor has employees flying in and out of Washington DC on any given workday?

I don't think there is anything unusual about that at all. However, I do think it is odd that every single one of the planes involved was manufactured by Boeing. I haven't been able to prove that they are part of the conspiracy yet, but I don't think it is possible that it's just a coincidence. :)

-Make7

[MercutioATC]

13. Great theory! BOEING is where it all starts!

:tinfoilhat:

[janedoe]

14. I think you are right!

You may want to review the remote-control feature of Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 aircraft. But then, again, you may want to put your head in the sand. -- I guess we'll see. :-)

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/200back/back4.html

[Make7]

15. Try this on for size:

afdb


You found something about a remote-control feature at the link you posted?

-Make7

[oblivious]

17. Are you saying the remote-control feature does not exist?

[Make7]

19. Not at the link she posted.

Why don't you show me where I can find information about the remote-control feature available on 767's and 757's? Apparently janedoe must have inadvertently posted an incorrect link. Perhaps you know where the information she is talking about can be found to help further our understanding of the issue.

-Make7

[oblivious]

20. Your tin-foil hat implies that you think remote control is ridiculous.

I find that amusing.

[Make7]

21. That is not what I meant by it at all.

Glad you are amused anyway.

:) Make7

[philb]

29. 2 of Boeings exceeded their software limits- thus had no pilot

(from another source)
Two of the aircraft exceeded their software limits on 911
The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls.
They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.
No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.
The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.
The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.
There is only one way this can happen.
As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.
Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.
Another piece of critical evidence: the voice recorders came up blank. The flight recorders that were recovered had tape that was undamaged inside, but it was blank. There is only one way this can happen on a 757 or 767. When the aircraft are commandeered via remote control, the microphones that go to the cockpit voice recorder are re routed to the people doing the remote
controlling, so that the recording of what happened in the cockpit gets made in a presumably safer place. But due to a glitch in the system on a 757/767, rather than shutting off when the mic is redirected the voice recorder keeps running. The voice recorders use what is called a continuous loop tape, which automatically re passes itself past the erase and record heads once every half
hour, so after a half hour of running with the microphones redirected, the tape will be blank. Just like the recovered tapes were. Yet more proof that no pilot flew those planes in the last half hour. Eight of the hijackers who were on those planes called up complaining that they were still alive. I'd bet you never heard about our foreign minister flying to Morocco and issuing an official apology to the accused, did you?
No, terrorists did not fly those planes, plastic knives and box cutters were in fact too ridiculous to be true.

[Wilms]

30. Links? n/t

[Make7]

31. I'm sure you have at least a few more sources....

...other than that article posted by someone named Anonymous.

I found no information about remote control of 767's and 757's on Boeing's website. (Even after following the link janedoe so thoughtfully provided.) No one seems to be able to help me find information about this apparently common feature on these planes.

Now you post an un-sourced article that claims that these airplanes can take off, fly to a location, and land without a pilot at all. This may seem odd, but I can't find information about that on the manufacturer's website either. Perhaps you could point me to where this can be found.

I find it difficult to believe that a g limiter, if such a thing is actually implemented on 767's and 757's, would not have an override that could be engaged for emergency situations. I imagine you have more detailed information on how this particular feature works on these aircraft. Could you please post a link or some other way to find out more about it?

Thanks,
Make7

[thewormman]

32. Not according to...

>>>>>>They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.<<<<<<<

I spoke about this with a man who has over 45 years in aspects of aircraft design, working on projects for the UK military and commercial aircraft including Boeing 757's.

He had never heard of any restrictions on manoeuvrability for the pilots of these planes, He said that when flying them if there was any restrictions it could lead to a collision in the case of a near miss when a very violent manoeuver might be required to avoid that collision.

As he put it, how does the pilot switch off a peice of software, in the split second he may have before a mid air collision?

If there is any official Boeing specifications for a system like this, he has never heard of them, but if they do exist would someone post a reference to prove or disprove this once and for all?

[MercutioATC]

16. I see I've created a tinfoil-coated joke.

Unintentional, but I still think it's funny.

[LARED]

18. Remote comtrol features?

There is not a thing in that link about remote control.

[spooked911]

23. Also, it wasn't simply random Raytheon employees.

These were all top people associated with remote control technology.

That CAN'T be a coincidence.

[thewormman]

26. Any sources?

**These were all top people associated with remote control technology.**

Any sources for that info?

[Informed Citizen]

2. Great post!!!

Spooked,

This is big. Its deductive, but strong. As you may know Raytheon was testing their remote control and flight termination technology for passenger planes on Sept. 6th, 2001. The fact that all four planes on 9/11 were only 25% at capacity during rush hour, and that there were a disproportionate number of Raytheon employees on board suggests to me that these planes were a part of the Vigilant Warrior hijack drill. The victims thought that they were a part of a ride along for a live fly terror drill that ended differently than they thought it would.

- I.C.

[oblivious]

4. Yes, that makes sense.

[Old and In the Way]

10. If your hypothesis is correct, i'm betting they were assigned to the

military exercise. They may well have been involved with retrofitting the planes to allow RC capabilities. If this was an inside job, well, they'd have to be taken care of, too.

I wonder if the FBI did any clean-up at Raytheon immediately after 9/11?

[spooked911]

22. Good thought and great question!

[oblivious]

3. I'm just wondering which division "Electronic Systems" is in.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/listing.html

Do you suppose it's part of the Electronic Warfare Systems division? It shows only 680 employees in the right-hand column.

http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/rsas/overview/ews/

Is so, that's a coincidence that really makes you go hmmm.

[Old and In the Way]

9. Was remote control part of the Vigalent Guardian exercise?

If this was a major simulation of terrorist hijackings of aircraft, wouldn't some of the planes be equipped for RC flying to test the ability to take over the flights and keep them from becoming flying bombs? I wonder if these Raytheon employees were on as part of the exercise? I also wonder if the "hijackers" were also parts of the simulation?

Has the government confirmed whether 77, 175, 11, and 93 were part of the exercise? I'm betting all of them were. Why don't we know the answer to this question?

[nomatrix]

12. Go to Paul Thompson 911 timeline

for his NEW research into military exercises on that day.

Fasten your seatbelts.


http://www.complete911timeline.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

[thewormman]

27. Flight 77 and anti-radar technology

I was intriqued by this little snippet on Stanley Hall who was on Flight 77 which had very strange radar sightings...

>>>Stanley Hall, 68, of Clifton, Va., was "our dean of electronic warfare," said a colleague at Raytheon, a defense contractor. Hall, director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare, helped develop and build anti-radar technology.<<<


http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/12/victim-capsule-flight77.htm

[k-robjoe]

28. Anti-radar (!)

I just got tipped about your post pr e-mail (word flies), by John Doe II, who is banned - sadly - and can´t post to thank you for this find. Thanks.

[spooked911]

33. something very suspicious about Kolvacin

http://www.legacy.com/Sept11.asp?Page=TributeStory&PersonId=91838

Mr. Kovalcin, 42, was a passenger on Flight 11, on a business trip for Raytheon, where he was a senior mechanical engineer. ...
She remembers that her husband had trouble sleeping two nights before his departure. "He woke me up at 3 a.m., and said 'I'm pacing the house. I can't sleep,' " she said.
"I rubbed his head and tried to calm him down. He was very distressed, but had no idea what it was. Then three days later I remembered, and thought, 'Holy cow, I wonder what that was about.' "
The morning he left home he had written a note for his family: "Rebecca, Marina and Mommy, I will miss everybody very much. See you Friday night." At the end he added, "I fed the dogs but not the fish."
Profile published in THE NEW YORK TIMES on December 9, 2001.
David Kovalcin, 42, an engineer for Raytheon from New Hampshire, was headed to the West Coast for business on American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston Tuesday morning. He left a note for his wife of five years and their daughters--ages 4 and 1--telling the three how much he would miss them while he was away, said a cousin of Kovalcin's wife.
Profile courtesy of THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE.

Did he know something was going to happen with flight 11?

Flight 11- the flight that didn't get recorded in the BTS data base for some strange reason?

[MercutioATC]

34. "I fed the dogs but not the fish." The proof we've all been waiting for!!

If THAT doesn't prove a conspiracy, I don't know what does.

:tinfoilhat:

[spooked911]

35. it's secret code, don't you know?

[Andre II]

36. To be added

Carl Max Hammond Jr. working for MITRE.
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-name/page41.html

MITRE does research for Global Hawk:
http://www.mitre.org/news/events/tech03/sensors.html


Herbert Homer not only was not only working for DoD but more precisely:
Herbert Homer, as described
"..worked for Raytheon Co." was the DCE CACO under DCMC Commander - Col.
Bryon Young of the RSC Corporate Management (Raytheon)
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/GlobalHawk.shtml
Source:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.acq-ref.navy.mil/reflib/raytheon.pdf
(p. 14)

He also had the strange fate to be declared dead at the Pentagon and on AA 11.
For further info:
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.1370.0

[petgoat]

37. Mitre also had major contracts with the FAA.

According to Indira Singh, Mitre worked with PTech on the FAA software.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/021405_faa_knew.shtml

[philb]

38. David Kovalcin of Raytheon "will miss everyone very much"

September 10, 2001 - The wife of David Kovalcin, an engineer for Raytheon who would be on Flight 11, said her husband woke her up in the middle of the night complaining he couldn't sleep and that he seemed "very distressed" but she didn't know why and he would leave a note for his wife and two daughters Tuesday morning saying "I will miss everybody very much."

[rumpel]

39. Why would they sacrifice valuable employees, though? Another possibility

is that they were there to rig and prep the planes, but had to disappear to complete the make belief. Maybe they are somewhere asuming a new identity etc. like the hijackers that were not on the planes.
But then again, these people are so sinister I would not be surprised...