It Was Flight 77

[crispy]

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/

[crispy]

1. dammit

Goddammit I already exceeded my max file transfer LOL

Anyone feel like hosting this for me ;(

[DulceDecorum]

2. No

:evilgrin:

[dick_eastman]

101. let crispy himself rebut this reply from eastman

:kick:

Hello fellow Democrats.



Here is the small-plane finding you're arguments did not engage:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/94

Here are specific answers to each component of your effort:



It Was Flight 77 that Flew over the Pentagon
Debunking Anonymous Pentagon Frame-up Cover-ops


An anonymous writer (crispy) makes this true but, in isolation, misleading statement:

"The damage done by the flying object to nearby light poles, the Pentagon's facade, and other objects is consistent with the measurements of a Boeing 757-200."

What does that fact buy you, crispy? What does it buy you as an explanation of broken dishes on the floor to say: "The broken dishes on the resteraunt floor are consistent with a giraffe scaring the waiter by breathing down the back of his neck." Being consistent with and being narrowed down as the only possible cause are two very different things. So what about the critical fact that other events are also consistent with the downed pole data; or the fact that witnesses placed the Boeing 757 on a path that passes north of lamppost #1 as it crossed from west to east towards the Pentagon and Reagan National Airport one mile beyond.

Crispy also makes this statement:

" By examining the damage, it is possible to conclusively rule out the possibility that a missile or small jet struck the Pentagon on September 11."

This of course is exactly the opposite of the truth, of what can be "ruled out." It is the Boeing 575 that is too short to fit the image in the security camera's pictures of the attack -- which pictures crispy fails to include in his selection of pictures.

Look here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rumsfeld_9-11_involvement/message/71

or here

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/94


Next crispy avers:

"Numerous witnesses said the plane knocked down light poles. Thanks to the work of Ron Harvey and his website, Spot the Lamp Poles, we know the location of each of the five downed poles"

Here crispy attempts to misrepresent "the prosecution's" argument by suggestion that the prosecution has denied that poles were knocked down. And crispy engages in Ron Harvey's falsehood that witnesses saw the Boeing knocking down the lamp posts -- when in fact Riskus saw the poles down after the event, the taxi driver, Michael England, saw the Boeing only after his car was hit by pole #1. Truth is only one man says he saw the Boeing hit a pole -- but he says that the pole was hit by a lowered wheel! -- when all other witnesses reported the Boeing with wheels up!



Next, in order to look like he is presenting hard data crispy presents an a satelite photo map of the Pentagon area with this comment:

"The following image is from Eric Bart's website: We know for sure that the plane knocked the poles down (as opposed to them being taken down for replacement or planted) because 1) the poles were found nearby, severed or otherwise damaged near the top, 2) many witnesses said that the plane was knocking down lamp poles, and 3) the poles were situated along what we know to be the plane's trajectory."

But again, crispy misleads. The poles not a question that is in dispute. I have long acknowledged the existence of the poles as soon as I finally got my hands on an actual picture of one (Ron Harvey was not forthcoming with me at the time) -- in fact it was the pole data in contrast to the witness accounts that first suggested the presense of two converging aircraft paths.

So it turns out that crispy is merely stating exactly what the small-plane school has been agreed was the approach path of the killer jet for over a year. To do this crispy draws a perpendicular to the wall and calculates the angle from the perpendicular -- drawing on all the prestige of protractor mathematics and space satellite images -- giving crispy's page a wonderful "technical" look that lends prestige to his revelation that yes, in fact, everyone is right about the angle of the killer jet. (I say 55 degrees from the wall, he says 42 from the perpendicular -- not much difference. A lot of work to "prove" a point that everyone on all sides has already accepted in the first place. But oooh how techincal it looks!

Crispy's conclusion which is again not new and not acknowledged by me, is that the plane took down poles that were each at most 45 feet from the center line of the approach path line to column #14 on the Pentagon wall, given by the ASCE engineers as place where the nose of the killer jet hit the west wall. But I have already shown this and explored the possibilites at great length here:



and here

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/31

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/32

Elsewhere I have asked:

Did the F-16 blow down all the lamp posts orjust the first three, leaving the Boeing to get the northmost two? Or were the poles brought down as part of the coverup, by explosives or an airborn lazer, or, was the killer jet one of the military's secret aircraft, or a custom-built aircraft with a wider wingspan than the F-16 -- as one witness reported a business jet that appeard capable of carrying "no more than 12 passengers."



And I gave his response in this posting to the Red_Jihad list for 9-11 investigators:

From: Dick Eastman <[email protected]>
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 2:42 pm
Subject: Lamppost Counudrum The biggest challenge is the lampposts -- for both the "boeing thesis" and the "small-plane" thesis

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Red_Jihad/message/4

Check it out.

The bottom line of all this being that the poles are inconclusive as to what knocked them down, but not as to where they were knocked down -- whereas the Pentagon wall, the security camera pictures, the witness accounts, the exposed planting of debris evidence, the presence of a four-engine distraction plane over the capital in illegal airspace at the moment of the crash -- are all conclusive proofs -- each a serious hole in the official story that by itself requires a genuine national investigation. The poles remain problematical insofar as their downing can still be explained in many different ways -- and no investigator has narrowed down alternatives to say exactly how each pole was brought down (poles on and three and two by the killer jet and ple five by the overflying Boeing for example) or whether a wider plane -- at least two witnesses reported a plane that was of a size between the F-16 and a jetliner (see below for an example).

But what about the proofs that crispy, focused on the poles, has totally ignored? These proofs have nothing to do with the poles (see links above) yet are conclusive in establishing that the Boeing was observed in locations yielding an approach path that got nowhere near pole #1 -- although poles #s 4 and 5, which were in the known path of the overflying Boeing could have been knocked down (or blown down) by that plane.


In short crispy is almost right when he writes:

"whatever hit the Pentagon had to have a wingspan of at the very least 90 feet" --

but to be rigorous and accurate crispy should have said:

"whatever hit the Pentagon had to have had generated force sufficient to knock down lampposts within a distance of at least 45 feet from either side of engineers' disignated line of killer jet approach to column #14 -- a width of force from either 1) the moving mass of the wing, engine or fuselage or 2) the intense cyclonic turbulence that comes off the tips of the wings of high speed jets and can easily bring down lampposts or cause planes that are caught in the wash to become upset and even crash.

But this assumes that all the poles were brought down by just one plane -- an assumption that the known converging paths of the observed Boeing and the pole-downing killer jet does not permit crisply to make.

Thus for two reasons these facts from crispy -- well known to all investigators -- about the poles' spacing does not narrow the options down to a plane the size of the Boeing 757 or even to one plane doing all the downing.


Next crispy shows a picture of damage to the left of pillar #14, which Eastman also shows and which Eastman agrees fails to uniquely support his thesis. But it is the damage to the right of pillar #14 that Eastman uses to prove that the Boeing did not hit the Pentagon. There are several features of the damaged wall that prove no two-engine jetliner hit that wall.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zionist-Op9-11/message/2

Next, it seems that crispy, instead of locking horns with my conclusions as derived from the evidence, instead chooses to tilt with a claim that no one has made, when he says:

"It is evident from the preceding pictures that there is a plane-sized hole in the facade, thus ruling out the missile theory,"

Who ever tried to prove the missile only from the damage to the wall?
Yes there are powder burns from the flash of the warhead, doubtless intended to blind observers to facilitate the magic getaway of the 757 in a puff of smoke. Yes there is another hole on the second level that is too far from column #14 to have been caused by the killer jet, and which indicates a missile attacke the wall. But certainly only a fringe of investigators are saying there was a missile without a plane -- and all of the "small-plane" theorists conclude from evidence that there was also a missile.

Is dear old crispy suggesting that any investigator has claimed that the missile made the hole made by the killer jet?

Yes there was a missle and likely two missiles in addition to the killer jet and the Boeing. The fact is that there is evidence of two missiles -- one with a flash-explosion missile warhead that created the white-hot explosion recorded in the second picture from the security camera, defintely a missile warhead with proximity fuse that provided the flash that enabled the Boeing to slip unseen behind the explosion -- and a second missile that entered the building at the second-floor at well to the right of the damage caused by missile and killer jet in the vacinity of pillar 14. See:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zionist-Op9-11/message/2

From that glaring misrepresentation of the small-plane thesis, crispy then proceeds to his this argument:

"and the hole itself is, according to the ASCE, 96 feet, with apparent wing damage extending beyond the hole for a total of ~141 feet, thus ruling out the small-plane theory."

First, the ASCE does not make any claim of one hole of 96 feet in length. There entire analysis is of pillars and the degree of damage done to each. There is an area of damage on the first floor that is 75 feet in length. This is a serious misrepresentation, crispy. You may want to retract it.) The ASCE, does not make any of crispy's claims about wing damage to the outer wall. In fact, Sarah Roberts and Ron Harvey have not eliminated any possibilities with their tortured analysis of the photo in question and neither does crispy in borrowing it.

Now, ,most important to me is the fact that crispy has nowhere addressed my claim that if the Boeing nose hit at the determined angle then the starboard engine would have had to have hit somewhere between columns 16 and 18, but there is clearly interior room partition (non-structure-supporting wall) still intact, where, had a Boeing engine crashed there it would have smashed throught the wall still standing.

Finally, crispy attempts to read more (and less) into what the witnesses tell us about the crash:

"The witness accounts nail the coffin shut on other-plane theories. "

But let us look at what these witnesses are saying here and what they are NOT saying:

" ''The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus...' Albert Hemphill, 9/11/01"

Yes, I often quote that one too. The man saw the Boeing 757 as it approached the Pentagon prior to its flyover and landing at Reagon National. Hemphill did not see the Boeing hit the Pentagon. Ron Harvey wants you to assume that which the witness actually never said.

" 'It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question.' Tim Timmerman, 9/11/01"

Timmerman is the only man Eastman accuses of lying -- he is the man who saw engines and wings fold up and enter the small hole etc. Timmerman contradicts the other witnesses.

" 'Foam 61 to Fort Myer. We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side. The crew is OK. The airplane was a 757 Boeing or a 320 Airbus.' Alan Wallace, 9/11/01"

Again, we have a statement that is hearsay, Wallace is reasonable connecting witness accounts of seeing a Boeing with the fact of an explosion and damage -- it is a deduction made, because who would dream that this was a classic US disinformation black-op involving a day stealth surgical attack and a decoy airliner -- the CIA's specialty.

" 'I duck, I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane...' Ian Wyatt, 9/11/01

Once again, is crispy trying to prove to us that there was a Boeing there that day -- or is he trying to set up a straw-man Dick Eastman -- Jim Hoffman- A.K. Dewdney etc. before people who haven't read these investigators, making them think that investigators concluding that the killer jet was a small-plane are claiming too that there was no Boeing on the scene???? This is not the first time that would-be "small-plane" debunkers have tried to pull this kind of thing -- obviously crispy is a good politician seeking to serve the common good and believing that worthy ends justify these kinds of stretches. That is where we differ clearly -- I say know the truth and then the truth will be the touchstone telling you the politics to follow.

ANyway look at the way crispy uses these quotes, creating the false impression that they refute the small-plane explanation, when in fact they do not:

" 'This was not ... a Learjet, Gulfstream something like that. It was a bigger plane than that.' Joel Sucherman, 9/11/01"

Sucherman, I have long maintained, probably did see the killer jet. Ron Harvey, crispy and other Bush apologists and pro-war others do not tell you that Sucherman also heard a sonic boom, which is of course a datum consistent with a fast stealth attacking fighter and not with a Boeing 757.

"...I saw a big silver plane and those double A's.' Mike Walter, 9/12/01"

Yep. He sure did. He saw the Boeing that disappeared into the flash and subsequent flame and smoke, only to land a mile away. Harvey wants you to think Walter is telling you that he saw the Boeing go into the Pentagon wall, when he only saw its approach from the Hotel and Naval Annex.

" 'Just as we got even with the Pentagon, I looked out to the front and saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it, and it looked like it was coming in to hit us.' Mitch Mitchell, 9/13/01"

The killer jet and the Boeing converged upon the crash point -- the killer jet skimming the grass and the Boeing above 80 feet from the ground (Potomac floodplane) on which the Pentagon sits, having flown downward from over the Sheraton hotel and the five-story Naval Annex west of the crash.



In short, crispy's quotes prove nothing and are by themselves consistent with the small-plane explanation of events as well as any other.

And so dear old crispy has fired blanks at the small-plane theory, hoping that you would think they were lethal hits. And he has omitted addressing the most well-known and still-unassailed evidence and analysis behind the small-plane thesis: the security camera pictures.

Again and again in a dozen forums I have asked asked Ron Harvey and Sarah Roberts to give some answer -- any answer -- that dismisses the video-camera proof of the too-small plane, of the obvious nothing-else-but missile smoke trail, and the too-big too white-hot explosion twice as high as the Pentagon that is consistent only with high-explosives of a missile warhead -- the flash that aided the disappearing act of the Boeing over the roof of the Pentagon on its way to Reagan National one mile away.



Oh, but there is more; crispy attaches a postscript:


"Regarding fallacies posited by the no-plane or small-plane believers:"

"Pictures like the one above have been touted as photographic evidence no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, because of the absence of a discernible, plane-sized impact hole. One cannot be seen only because the stream of water obscures the hole."

Yes, but all the other pictures that do show the hole, crispy does not mention. Crispy shows one of the pictures that shows nothing and honestly(?) concludes from that that none of the pictures show anythingthing telling! Is he just throwing this in to make it look like he is being thorough in dealing with all evidence, when that is just what he is NOT doing?

"Then there is the oft-repeated claim that the Boeing would have had to pierce through six load-bearing walls. This is false. The plane struck between the first and second floors; those floors do not have gaps between the five rings as the top three floors do."

Another disingenuous stink bomb from crispy. I found out about the outer three rings adjoining at the lower floors in November of 2002. I admit I had been taking about 6 heavy walls being penetrated by the engine that broke through c-ring's first-floor wall. The discovery changed nothing of what the evidence we were building our case on relied on. The fact is irrelevant to the development of the proofs. No arguments supporting the small-plane explanation are based on the fact of the merging of the rings at the lower levels. The factoid buys crispy nothing.

"Seeking out and individually debunking each and every fallacious or illogical claim posited by those who maintain that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a Boeing 757-200 requires more effort than I want to devote to such an already apparently bogus scenario."

Yes, crispy, I too find it difficult to spend time writing these defenses of what should be obvious from just one of my evidence postings -- have a father dying of cancer and a daughter getting married next month and a wife falling apart under a sense of neglect -- yet I have had to come out of retirement people see your well crafted attack and get confused.

Crispy: "However, if concerned individuals would like me to refute some specific argument made by the "no-Boeing" crowd, or believe that the evidence presented thus far does not adequately demonstrate the infeasibility of the "no-Boeing" scenario, they may reach me at this email address. In that event, I will update this page with the argument (possibly including the email as well) alongside its refutation."

So you are a refutation service. You say you'll refute things before you even see them. Like I said you are a good politician, a guy loyal to a cause, a cause which requires, at the moment, refuting the small plane thesis.

Did he succeed,fellow Democrats????



Thanks, crispy. YOU OFFER TO REFUTE -- WELL HERE ARE ALL THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE SMALL PLANE THAT YOU DID NOT TOUCHE -- THERE ARE ABOUT FOURTEEN OF THEM, BUT SIX BASIC ONES -- READ THE FIRST ONE AND YOU WILL FIND LINKS TO THE OTHERS.


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagonconspiracy/message/9

Dick Eastman
No to Nader -- stay united -- stay with the truth.
---------------

Edwards-Sharpton would be a good ticket.

So would Kerry-Kucinich.

Those choices would really hobble the GOP campaign managers.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

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

[crispy]

103. Response

You assume the “photographs” are authentic, presumably because they support your case. You assume that if one accepts that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, one must also believe in the authenticity of the photos. This is not true.

Note that no single witness mentioned a white trail of smoke following the plane.

I could go through your yahoo sites and point out every fallacious claim you make, but I’m not going to do that. What I will do is attack key pillars of your theory to demonstrate that it is not possible.

You posit that the “killer jet” was what knocked down the light poles. Because your beloved F-16 does not have a wingspan of 90 feet, you invent some “intense cyclonic turbulence that comes off the tips of the wings of high speed jets and can easily bring down lampposts or cause planes that are caught in the wash to become upset and even crash”. Even disregarding the fact that your pseudo-science is complete bullshit, every one of the light poles was severed or otherwise damaged by a physical object. Look at the photos.

You cannot truly demonstrate that there were two planes, the Boeing and an F-16. It can’t be done without distorting the evidence. Try to prove me wrong.

[crispy]

105. Anyone?

Anyone want to answer? Want to back up Eastman? Anyone here believe in Eastman's theory? Perhaps you can provide a scientific explanation for cyclonic turbulence rolling off the 30-foot wingspan of an F-16 that is capable of slicing poles 90 feet apart clean in half.

[DulceDecorum]

106. ANOTHER THREAD

crispy, most people will not look at a thread that has over 100 posts, especially the dial-up crowd.
But we are slicing you to ribbons on the
It was NOT Flight 77
thread.

I dare you to repost that last paragraph there.

[Bolo Boffin]

107. Slicing Crispy to ribbons???? LOLOLOL

I doubt you've even clicked on the link to his site, Dulce. You sure as hades aren't discussing what he's saying over there.

[Bolo Boffin]

108. So what about the other thread?

most people will not look at a thread that has over 100 posts, especially the dial-up crowd.

Too bad for them. Let them get cable modems. It's really rude of you to use this as an excuse to start an new thread on this subject and rename it to your liking.

But then it's rude of you not to answer two simple questions, Dulce. That's getting to be par for the course, isn't it?

It WAS Flight 77.

[JackRiddler]

3. Maybe one day I will...

Because I am an agnostic on the AA77 question, because in fact I think the time wasted on it has been monumentally displaced given the paucity of the available evidence compared to, say, the WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapses, and because people should stop inventing speculative scenarios and just demand the damned video evidence from the Marriot, gas station, etc. (plus subpeonas for those witnesses), I am considering on my next update simply placing a pro and a con page head to head and leaving it at that.

[mn9driver]

4. You're wasting your time.

The :tinfoilhat: folks don't want facts or analysis unless it reinforces what they already believe, or perhaps ratchets it up another notch.
It was the Martians that did it, Roy! Yeah, this grainy blob in this impossibly blown up frame PROVES it!

Been there, banged my head against that wall.

Nice page, by the way.

[Abe Linkman]

5. Attn: Official Story Conspiracy spokesperson:

Are there any links to articles with photos and descriptions of the recovery of FL 77 passengers and crew remains at the Pentagon?

[crispy]

6. Gotta "hand" it to ya

One man said he saw the hand of a child. What reason do you have to believe he was lying?

[Abe Linkman]

7. "crispy" was no help. Would someone pls. read THIS...

and tell me if you know of any links to articles that you consider credible evidence of recovery efforts at the Pentagon involving the remains of passengers and crew on FL 77.

I'm aware of articles that talk about Pentagon personnel, but there doesn't seem to be anything definitive in the way of proof regarding the recovery of remains of FL 77 folks.

Some articles say that there were no remains. Some posters here at DU claim otherwise.

Like so much else involving 9-11 events, the issue of actual remains of people from FL 77 FOUND and recovered AT THE PENTAGON is a mystery.

Is there any actual proof that ANYONE died at the Pentagon who wasn't an employee there?

[BeFree]

9. Yeah, me too

For as much as I've read about 9/11, I've yet to see the first shred (no pun intended) of evidence of AA77 passengers or craft at the pentagon.

The only evidence I've seen is evidence that AA77 was somehow lost from radar, then it supposedly re-appeared. And all I hear about that re-appearance is that it went below radar range. Hmmm.

But never any conclusive evidence that AA77 actually hit anything.

Each time I've asked someone who buys the 'Official' theory to point out some real evidence concerning AA77, they too seem to disappear.

[mn9driver]

10. Some wreckage photos at this link.

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

Believe 'em or not, there they are. All you have to do is look.

[DulceDecorum]

23. Those pieces of "wreckage"

prove NOTHING.

EVERY SINGLE PIECE
OF EVERY SINGLE PLANE
THAT FLIES IN US AIRSPACE
IS RECORDED BY THE FAA.

NOT ONE of those photographed pieces
has EVER been identified as coming from the aircraft known as Flight 77.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/140903enginepart.html

Due to the almost TOTAL lack of debris
from ANY OF THE 9:11 planes,
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
has been UNABLE to investigate the alleged crashes.
Hence the apparent lack of interest
into the event that shut down the national airspace
that is displayed on this page.
http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/prsrel0100.htm

To put it simply,
No transportation debris = no NTSB investigation.

[LARED]

24. Can you provide a more direct link that states this

No transportation debris = no NTSB investigation.

The link you provided has hundreds of links. Which one states the above?

I frankly don't buy that no debris equal no investigation. I think it's more like if the reasons for the crash is known (ie a hijacker crashing it into a building on purpose) why have an investigation to determine the cause of the crash, as it's already known.

[mn9driver]

27. (Sigh) What did I tell you, crispy?

Big pieces did survive: landing gear, engine parts. I'm sure documentation of their "FAA serial numbers" exists (of course, it's forged, right?):tinfoilhat:

Tiny shreds and ash don't have serial numbers because you would have to write really really really really small.

RE: the NTSB. As you say, "to put it simply":

No need to investigate the cause(it was a deliberate criminal act)=no NTSB "investigation". The NTSB did use investigating teams to help analyze the wreckage, but the results belong to the FBI, because it was a crime, not an accident.

It has nothing to do with "transportation debris", or lack of it.

[DulceDecorum]

37. There is NO documentation

BECAUSE there was NO DEBRIS.

mn9driver says:
Big pieces did survive: landing gear, engine parts. I'm sure documentation of their "FAA serial numbers" exists (of course, it's forged, right?)
:tinfoilhat:

N612UA Flight 175
Serial 21873
FAA registration issued 1/18/1984
FAA REGISTRATION STILL VALID

N644AA Flight 77
Serial 24602
FAA registration issued 5/8/1991
FAA registration cancelled 1/14/2002

N591UA Flight 93
Serial 28142
FAA registration issued 7/1/1996
FAA REGISTRATION STILL VALID

N334AA Flight 11
Serial 22332
FAA registrationm issued 1/6/2000
FAA registration cancelled 1/14/2002
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm

Great big pieces DID indeed survive.
The whole damn plane.
So claims the FAA N-number registry.
(of course, it's forged, right?)
:tinfoilhat:

As for that crack about tiny shreds and ash,
are you back to claiming that the plane was "vaporized?"

What the hell kind of Penta-heat burns up an entire jetliner
and leaves a child's hand and a stewardess' arm
and plastic badges and laminated paper Geneva Convention ID cards
while obliterating the black boxes?

The only part of your post that makes any sense is
"No need to investigate the cause(it was a deliberate criminal act)"
Yeah.
You hit that nail right on the head.
http://foi.missouri.edu/whistleblowing/moussaouimemo.html

[mn9driver]

38. Off we go...into the wild blue yonder....you crack me up, Dulce.

I guess I will write a bit more after all.

I could explain Aircraft registrations to you, Dulce. I do actually know a bit about them.

I could explain what happens to aircraft structures in violent crashes, followed by hot, confined fires. I do actually know a fair amount about that, too.

But I won't. Because it would be a complete waste of my time. You believe what you believe. All the explaining and factual information in the world won't change that.

[Abe Linkman]

39. How about just a little explaining where you feel DD is wrong?

"All the explaining and factual information in the world won't change that."

You said you "won't." Did you mean you "can't"?

[mn9driver]

42. No. I meant I won't. I do have 5 minutes, though, so

really quick:

1.Aircraft registrations are cancelled by the owners of the aircraft. American went to the trouble of cancelling both of theirs, United hasn't bothered. They will eventually expire on their own.

2. Airplanes look solid, but they are mostly hollow. The structure is mostly made of thin aluminum riveted together in geometries which make it rigid. Stomp on a beer can and hold a welding torch on it for eight hours and tell me what's left.

In spite of DD's protestations to the contrary, the larger heavier pieces of all 4 9/11 aircraft survived (turbine sections, landing gear). The photos you see on the web of this wreckage are unofficial pictures taken by rescue or other crash scene personnel. The official wreckage photos are not available as they are part of the FBI criminal investigation. Eventually, they will become part of the public record.

I'd say more, but I type slowly and 5 minutes is up. Of course, all of the above is lies, lies I tell you!:crazy:

[DulceDecorum]

48. Have you seen what FEDERAL LAW

has to say about reporting accidents and aircraft registration?

If those two carriers expect to remain in business then they have no choice but to obey the law.

Concerning 9:11,
we have many and serious questions
pertaining to what the two airlines have done so far
and also on what they have failed to do.

Furthermore,
we are also interested in finding out
WHY the FAA is NOT actively enforcing the law
WHEN
these incidents caused the national airspace to be shut down
AND
two wars (so far)
are being waged
as a direct result.

[mn9driver]

52. There's a difference between N number registration

and an Airworthiness Certificate. Get back to me when you learn it.

[DulceDecorum]

57. Since you brought up

the subject of airworthiness certificates,
perhaps you would care to answer ONE question.

A while ago a Swissair plane crashed.
The subsequent investigation indicated that the crash had something to do with the In-Flight Entertainment system and also with the fact that when things started to go wrong, the pilot had no way to turn the darn thing off.
So the FAA had a look-see and issued some airworthiness directives aimed as reducing the possibility of a repeat performance.

AirSafetyWeek, March 26, 2001
"Hazards Penetrated Supplemental Certification Process."
Changes Ordered for In-flight Entertainment Systems
In-flight entertainment systems that cannot be turned off unless pilots pull circuit breakers must be modified, disconnected or removed outright. Operators of 74 U.S.-registered aircraft have 18 months to accomplish the work, according to a battery of airworthiness directives (ADs) issued March 2 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The directives stem from a wider investigative net cast by the FAA after the fiasco over the IFE installed in Swissair MD-11 and B747 aircraft. When one of the MD-11s crashed at Halifax, Canada, in 1998, and burned Kapton wires were recovered from the IFE, Swissair officials immediately ordered the same IFE installations disconnected on remaining aircraft. Circuit breakers were pulled and power cables literally were cut and capped, pursuant to complete removal at a more deliberate pace.
The FAA had approved the system's installation under a Special Type Certificate (STC).
<snip>
March 2001 FAA orders operators to modify, deactivate or remove various IFE systems on some 180 other aircraft (29 months after Swissair disconnected the improperly installed IFE on its aircraft).
Sources: FAA, TSB, BAZL, Swissair

Modify, Deactivate, Remove
Summary of Mandated Actions
* B737-300 and B737-700. Modify IFE. FAA rationale: "The IFE system...is connected to an electrical bus that cannot be deactivated without also cutting power to airplane systems necessary for safe flight.... Also, there is no means available the flight or cabin crew to remove power from flight manual (AFM) and cabin crew the IFE system without pulling circuit breakers.... The airplane manual do not provide clear instructions on how to remove power from the IFE.... This condition, if not corrected, could result in...inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane..." Mandated modifications include installing a master switch to cut IFE power and explaining its functioning in the AFM.

* B757-200. Deactivate air-to-ground telephone system. Rationale: Similar to B737 above - no
means to cut power with pulling CBs. Emergency procedures not revised to advise crew.

Let us take another look at that last paragraph:
B757-200.
DEACTIVATE AIR-TO-GROUND TELEPHONE SYSTEM.
Rationale: Similar to B737 above - no means to cut power with pulling CBs.
Emergency procedures not revised to advise crew.

Does this mean that
the FAA is telling ALL the operators of ALL Boeing 757s to
DEACTIVATE the AIR-TO-GROUND TELEPHONE SYSTEM?

Oh my!
Is this the Airworthiness Directive they are referring to?

AD/B757/69 Air-to-Ground Telephone System
FAA STC SA1727GL 9/2001
Applicability: Model 757-200 series airplanes modified by United States Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA1727GL.
Requirement:
1. Deactivate the In-Flight Phone Corporation air-to-ground telephone system approved by STC SA1727GL in accordance with the following procedures: a. Remove the circuit breakers listed in the following table: ............
2. Air-to-Ground telephone systems may not be installed on any aeroplane in accordance with STC SA1727GL.
Note: FAA AD 2001-14-01 Amdt 39-12311 refers.
Compliance:
For Requirement 1 - Within 18 months after the effective date of this Directive.
For Requirement 2 - As of the effective date of this Directive. This Airworthiness Directive becomes effective on 6 September 2001. Background: This Directive requires the deactivation of the Air-to-Ground telephone systems installed by STC SA1727GL. This action is required to ensure that, when necessary, the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the telephone system. Inability to remove power from the telephone system during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin.

Well, according to that,
on September 6, 2001,
the FAA instructed that ALL Boeing 757s be deprived of Air-to-Ground telephone systems.
Now, just suppose that United Airlines and American Airlines had paid the least bit of attention to the FAA.
We know for a fact that they were not at all interested in complying with FAA AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES. And we also know for a fact that the FAA is not interested in holding them accountable.

Just suppose that those two carriers were at all interested in complying with FAA AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/CurrentFARPart!OpenView&Start=1&Count=200&Expand=14#14

American Airlines Flight 77, was a Boeing 757-223 (N644AA).
United Airlines Flight 93, was a Boeing 757-222 (N591UA).
These two planes were not supposed to have a functioning air-to-ground telephone system.

Good thing that neither American Airlines, nor United Airlines, nor even the FAA give a damn about the airworthiness of the planes flying over your head, because if they did, then we would NOT have those calls from Barbara Olson, Mark Bingham, Todd Beamer, Jeremy Glick and all the people who managed to use the recently-outlawed Boeing 757 air-to-ground telephone system.

So what if the plane could have caught on fire with that system in heavy use?
The FAA doesn't appear to care, so why should anyone else?
Heck, the FAA didn't even bother to revise the emergency procedures to advise the crew that the air-to-ground telephone system was no longer functioning.
(Think of the impact the lack of this information would have had on the stewardesses of Flight 11.)

So what if the ability to control smoke or fumes in the flight deck of the 757 in an emergency situation was impaired?
The important thing is that the passengers on board Flight 93 and Barbara Olson aboard Flight 77 managed to complete air-to-ground calls using a telephone system that was hazardous to the integrity of the aircraft they were inside.

They may all be dead, but they really lucked out.
And so did the planes.
Especially the ones that are still registered.

So my question to you,
mn9driver,
is this:
Should the owners/operators of N644AA and N591UA
have swiftly complied with AD/B757/69 ?

(See,
I can too tell the difference
between an N-number and an airworthiness directive.
Anything else you care to bring up?)

[mn9driver]

61. AD's, STC's as Airworthiness Cert.'s? The problem w/the Web, DD

is that it gives everyone access to scads of information that they may not be properly equipped to interpret. If you're really that interested in Aviation Mishap Investigation, there are courses you can take, internships; lots of ways to get the background you need to make sense of what you are collecting.

Additionally, you will need to learn how to hold a consistent thought from the beginning of a page to the end.

Unfortunately, I have no more time for this. Get some real education and we'll talk more.

[DulceDecorum]

63. How do you think I'm going to get along

Without you when you're gone?

And you NEVER answered my question.
:cry:

[DulceDecorum]

65. About those "expiring" UA registrations

N-NUMBER 612UA
Aircraft Serial Number 21873
Aircraft Manufacturer BOEING
Aircraft Type Fixed wing multi engine
Aircraft Model 767-222
Engine Manufacturer P&W
Engine Type Turbo-jet
Engine Model JT9D SERIES
Year Manufactured 1983
Registrant Corporation
Name UNITED AIR LINES INC
Address BOX 66100
CHICAGO , IL-60666
US
Registration Date 18 January 1984
Airworthiness Certificate Type Standard
Approved Operations Transport
Status The Triennial Aircraft Registration form was mailed and has not been returned by the Post Office.
Aircraft Transponder Code 51773757
Copyright©1998-2004 Avitop.com

N-NUMBER 591UA
Aircraft Serial Number 28142
Aircraft Manufacturer BOEING
Aircraft Type Fixed wing multi engine
Aircraft Model 757-222
Engine Manufacturer P&W
Engine Type Turbo-jet
Engine Model PW2040
Year Manufactured 1996
Registrant Corporation
Name UNITED AIR LINES INC
Address 1200 E ALGONQUIN RD
ARLINGTON HEIGHTS , IL-60005-4712
US
Registration Date 01 July 1996
Airworthiness Certificate Type Standard
Approved Operations Transport
Status The Triennial Aircraft Registration form was mailed and has not been returned by the Post Office.
Aircraft Transponder Code 51721341
Copyright©1998-2004 Avitop.com
http://www.avitop.com/search/nnumb.asp

Hands up
all those who think that that the Post Office did not deliver the Triennial Aircraft Registration to the correct address.

Hands up
all those who think that United Airlines is trying to hide something.

Somehow or other, despite the fact that the FBI is involved in the investigation of the destruction of those planes, the FAA appears to have lost interest in enforcing US Federal law.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/stVIIpAspiiich441.html

591UA was first registered in 1996.
Counting three years gives us a renewal date of 1999 and then 2002.
That plane is LONG overdue.
612UA was first registered in 1984.
Again, counting in threes gives us renewal dates of 1987, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, and again, 2002.
We are in 2004.

What do they mean that they have not yet received the Triennial Aircraft Registration back from United Airlines?
It would seem that they indicating that United Airlines has committed a violation of

Sec. 47.51.
(b) The FAA Aircraft Registry will forward a Triennial Aircraft Registration Report to each holder of a Certificate of Aircraft Registration whenever 36 months has expired since the latest of the following registration activities occurred with respect to the certificate holder's aircraft:
((7) The submission of a Triennial Aircraft Registration Report under this section.
(c) The holder of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration shall return the Triennial Aircraft Registration Report to the FAA Aircraft Registry within 60 days after issuance by the FAA Aircraft Registry. The report must be dated, legibly executed, and signed by the certificate holder in the manner prescribed by Sec. 47.13, except that any co-owner may sign for all co-owners.
(d) Refusal or failure to submit the Triennial Aircraft Registration Report with the information required by this section may be cause for suspension or revocation of the Certificate of Aircraft Registration in accordance with Part 13 of this chapter.
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/4ADF9F4ACA04ECBC86256959004AECFA?OpenDocument

And would it not be convenient
if the FAA rather than United Airlines
took responsibility for explaining exactly what happened to those two planes?

Yeah folks,
THIS FAA.

Daily News
FAA's Air Traffic Control System Vulnerable To Hackers
By Brian Krebs
September 29, 2000
....In a self-evaluation published Wednesday by the Department of Transportation (DOT), Inspector General Kenneth M. Mead said roughly 900 computers located throughout DOT were vulnerable to attack by insiders such as employees and contractors. The findings follow successful prosecutions of several DOT employees who used those weaknesses to steal passwords and to embezzle more than $600,000 from the DOT.
The IG's office also was able to use the Internet to log on to nearly 270 DOT computers in the agency's private networks, although none of the affected systems were FAA computers. The report also notes that 13 public DOT Web sites were placed inside the agency's firewalls, allowing Internet users to enter the DOT's private networks.
http://www.computeruser.com/news/00/09/29/news15.html

[DulceDecorum]

44. FACT

George W Bush failed to report for a physical.
FACT
George W Bush was not permitted to fly.

FACT
David Charlebois is alleged to have been the copilot of Flight 77.
FACT
David Charlebois' medical certificate expired in May 2001.

QUESTION
When was it renewed?

FACT
David Charlebois appears to have flown on 9:11
with an expired medical certificate.

QUESTION
HOW did Charlebois accomplish what Dubya could not?

You believe what you believe.
All the explaining and spinning of factual information in the world won't change that.

[LARED]

45. And these facts are

pertinent for what reason?

Here's a fact for you as well. Where I work a physical is required BY LAW for each employee every year. I just reviewed my departments list of employees and about 5% are overdue. In fact a few were overdue by nearly a year. They continue to work, they just need to get the physical ASAP.

What does this fact tell you?

[mn9driver]

53. That is nonsense. I explained the medical certification issue

to you in another thread.

I suggest you re-read it and try to understand it. It's not that hard, really.

[DulceDecorum]

56. Tell that to the FAA

they are the ones who are in charge of the rules.

David Charlebois (copilot of Flight 77)
obtained a First Class medical Certificate in November 2000.
His privileges as as an ATP expired in May 2001 when he apparently failed to renew his First Class Medical Certificate.
THAT is why the database reports the medical certificate as expired.

Charlebois could still function as a commercial pilot until November 2001
and as a private pilot for a while longer depending on his age.
mn9driver says that a copilot can get away with having commercial pilot credentials.
Now lets us take a look at:

Sec. 61.3
Requirement for certificates, ratings, and authorizations.
<(a) Pilot certificate. A person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of a civil aircraft of U.S. registry, unless that person--[br /> (1) Has a valid pilot certificate or special purpose pilot authorization issued under this part in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization. ....... and
(2) Has a photo identification that is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising the privileges of that pilot certificate or authorization............
(c) Medical certificate. (1) Except as provided for in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a person may not act as pilot in command or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight crewmember of an aircraft, under a certificate issued to that person under this part, unless that person has a current and appropriate medical certificate that has been issued under part 67 of this chapter, or other documentation acceptable to the Administrator, which is in that person's physical possession or readily accessible in the aircraft.

(2) Act as second in command of a civil aircraft during Category II operations unless that person--
(i) Holds a valid pilot certificate with category and class ratings for that aircraft and a current instrument rating for that category aircraft;
(ii) Holds an airline transport pilot certificate with category and class ratings for that aircraft; or
(iii) In the case of a civil aircraft of foreign registry, is authorized by the country of registry to act as second in command of that aircraft during Category II operations.

<(l) Inspection of certificate. Each person who holds an airman certificate, medical certificate, authorization, or license required by this part must present it and their photo identification as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for inspection upon a request from:>
(1) The Administrator;
(2) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board; or
(3) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer.
<(4) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.>
http://www1.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet

[mn9driver]

59. You dont seem able to take in new information, DD.

I've explained all this. Have fun with your fantasies.

[DulceDecorum]

62. Fantasies?

Fantasies!
DulceDecorum IMAGINED all those FAA regulations?

Sheesh
I haven't heard something THAT lame
since Bobby came back to life on Dallas.

[DulceDecorum]

46. De-registered Aircraft

An aircraft that has been removed from the U.S. Civil Aircraft Register at the owner's request. Aircraft are generally removed for the following reasons: exported, destroyed, salvaged, dismantled, or permanently retired from service.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/definitions.asp

mn9driver,
I assume that you can tell the difference between
9:11:2001 and 1:14:2002.
The aircraft is question was supposed to have been destroyed on 9:11:2001
BUT
it was not de-registered until 1:14:2002.

64. AIR TRAFFIC AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING. An aircraft accident or aircraft incident encompasses all problems related to the aircraft itself; e.g., accidents, emergency evacuations, and in-flight major component failures. An aircraft accident or aircraft incident differs from an AT incident, which includes NMAC's, pilot deviations, vehicle or pedestrian deviations, and other occurrences. AT incidents are discussed in paragraphs 80 to 89. Appendix 2 contains a flowchart summarizing the AT reporting process for aircraft accidents and aircraft incidents.
a. What to Report. AT facilities shall report:
(1) All known and suspected accidents. The Washington Operations Center shall be notified of accidents within 2 hours of the original accident report. AN EXAMPLE OF A SUSPECTED ACCIDENT IS THE SIMULTANEOUS UNEXPLAINED LOSS OF RADIO COMMUNICATIONS AND RADAR CONTACT WITH AN AIRCRAFT.
http://www2.faa.gov/avr/aai/Chap3.htm
http://www2.faa.gov/avr/aai/TABL8020.htm

Now, correct me if I am wrong, mn9driver.
Did you not indicate that the aircraft and their on-board computers use ACARS (Airline Communication Airline Reporting System)?
Then how is it that it took well over FOUR MONTHS for the owners of said aircraft to officially de-register the plane?
And why the discrepancy in dates?

Sec. 47.41 - Duration and return of Certificate.
(a) Each Certificate of Aircraft Registration issued by the FAA under this subpart is effective, unless suspended or revoked,
UNTIL THE DATE UPON WHICH --
(2) The registration is canceled at the written request of the holder of the certificate;
(3) The aircraft is totally destroyed or scrapped;
http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part47-41-FAR.shtml

[LARED]

51. Which part of

An aircraft that has been removed from the U.S. Civil Aircraft Register at the owner's request.

is causing this problem. Think about it.

[mn9driver]

54. Are you really unable to tell the difference between

1.An aircraft accident report.

2.An aircraft N number registration.

3. ACARS flight time reporting.

or are you just kinda kidding me. They're three different things, DD.

They don't have anything to do with each other. Really. I'm not kidding.

Three......different.......unrelated.........things.....OK?

Different rules, different reporting deadlines, different requirements, different everything. Different, different, different.

[DulceDecorum]

58. Is that your final answer?

Or would you like to use a lifeline?

[mn9driver]

60. Refer to #59

[Robb]

17. NSF did a study

on the inter-organizational response to the Pentagon crash. Very interesting stuff, located here.

Possibly salient excerpt:

Recovery and processing of remains presented complex issues, with jurisdictional authority (DoD versus the State of Virginia) initially unclear.Ê Forensics issues, removal methods (who & how), and identification and processing of remains also had to be emergently addressed in the early phase of the operations.Ê Using the incident command structure, this was worked out, meeting the legal requirements of VA and DoD, addressing the very reasonable honor rituals of DoD, and respecting the sensitivity and privacy of the families of the deceased and the mental health implications for the rescue workers.ÊÊ Remains were located and debris removed by US&R and military personnel.Ê FBI evidence recovery teams would respond every time a body was located and collect forensic evidence, including pictures.Ê The Honor Guard, stationed at Fort Meyer, provided the low-key but very disciplined and respectful removal of remains.Ê Finally, the DoD mortuary teams would receive the remains for identification and processing.Ê

[impe]

55. NSF did not do the Study

NSF provided grant funds to GW through a small grants for exploratory research because of the high risk/high pay-off involved with the topic.
SGER's are seed money which program officials can give out without external peer review of the project or subject matter.

[mac2]

104. None of this has been investigated....that's what Families of

9/11 are upset about. Wouldn't you be? Demand better treatment of these people.

[JackRiddler]

33. You're right to bring this up

It is unusual to release photos of the dead, but given the widespread and worldwide doubts about case, this evidence should be demanded.

However, your not finding it on the Internet does not constitute evidence that it does not exist.

I think there's so much more meat to the 9/11 skeptics case, without maneuvering this minefield.

See: WTC 7.

At least three certified-genuine films of this event exist on the Internet. It went down live on TV.

Why waste time with the Pentagon hole details?

[Abe Linkman]

40. Speak for yourself, John Alden.

"Why waste time with the Pentagon hole details?"

[DulceDecorum]

8. Several people

have claimed to have seen Elvis alive - since his demise.
What reason do you have to believe they are lying?

As for U.S. Army Sgt. Major Tony Rose,
the guy who claimed to have picked up a child's hand
I have but one word to say to him.
HAIR.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=2058&mesg_id=2058

EVERY LAST SINGLE PERSON WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE PENTAGON EMERGED WITH THEIR HAIR INTACT.
Rose himself claims to have been slithering on a floor covered with burning jet fuel which was presumably floating atop of the water put out by the sprinklers. This floor was later found to be completely undamaged by the plane, to the point that it was simply resurfaced and put back into operation.
The man is fireproof.
The T-Shirt he placed over his face was capable of filtering out toxins and lung-searing super-heated smoke.
And he finished the day with all the hair he had when he got up that morning.

Rose is alleged to have rescued NINE people from this inferno.
Even the firefighters there did no such thing. Those professionals have stated that the area was almost empty and those few in the vicinity vacated under their own steam.

It takes less effort to believe in the presence of WMDs in Iraq than it does to give credence to this maudlin tale.

[LARED]

12. Yes,Yes, Yes

EVERY LAST SINGLE PERSON WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE PENTAGON EMERGED WITH THEIR HAIR INTACT

And at this very moment pigs are flying around my backyard, Elvis is a bag boy down at the Acme, and Frodo Baggins is dating my daughter.

[LARED]

11. Here's two

http://nmhm.washingtondc.museum/exhibits/911/index.html

WASHINGTON - The National Museum of Health and Medicine has unveiled an exhibit highlighting efforts used by its parent organization, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), to identify the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks at the Pentagon and the crash of United Airlines Flight 93 in Somerset County, Pa.


--------------------


http://www.thelancet.com/

You must register to get access

Lancet 2002; 359 (9335): 807-808 September 7, 2002


September 11: how they identified the victims


At the centre of the identification process was the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the main government agency for postmortem identification of bodily remains recovered from new and old military events. Its efforts were challenged by the destructiveness of the crashes; for forensic specialists, little was left to work with at either site. Nonetheless, advanced preparations for disasters proved useful, perhaps indispensable, to identification efforts. After the crashes, on-site responses were promptly provided by the federal government's regional Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT), a volunteer organisation of citizens and federal employees who provide forensic, mortuary, and family support services after disasters. The DMORT professional roster includes forensic pathologists, forensic anthropologists who specialise in osteology, and forensic odontologists. The crash sites were designated as federal crime scenes, so federal authorities could control access and supervise recovery of remains.

...

Each recovered item was then sent to radiography, photography, and DNA stations for initial identification procedures. Tissue samples from both sites were sent to the mortuary at the Dover, Delaware Air Force Base for analysis and matching with DNA samples from victims and their relatives. A team of forensic anthropologists from the army, the FBI, and the Smithsonian Institution was assembled and, mindful of the need to bring closure to grieving families, worked to identify victims as quickly as possible, working long shifts 7 days a week. This team was led by William C Rodriguez III, one of 51 board-certified forensic anthropologists in the USA, who is often summoned to solve difficult criminal cases. These experts generated a DNA profile from each tissue sample received, and also developed a DNA profile from known reference specimens, such as tissue from biopsy samples, Pap smears, extracted teeth, and saliva from toothbrushes. Surviving relatives provided blood samples. The scientists then analysed the DNA profiles for potential matches.

Their success rate was nearly 100%. From fewer than 900 fragments at the Pennsylvania site, the investigators identified remains from all 40 passengers and crew, plus four unique DNA profiles that could not be matched, presumably those of the four hijackers. The Pennsylvania identifications were completed by Dec 11, 2001. At the Pentagon, identification efforts ended on Nov 16, 2001; 179 of the 184 victims were identified, plus five profiles that did not match family reference materials, thought, therefore, to be the terrorists. No biological material was recovered for the remaining five people in the building or on the aeroplane.

------------


Abe what is the point to your inquiry? There is so much evidence that flight 77 crashed into the pentagon, that the victims were identified that it is almost impossible for me to believe you really have doubts. I liken it to someone that wakes up in the morning to a cloudy sky and demand proof the sun still rose.

[BeFree]

13. Is that all??

That's not evidence that's conjecture, hearsay.

Evidence would be the actual report from the forensics. Evidence would entail all the FBI materials being provided to the public.

If you believe in at least a level of incompetence, then why would anyone now believe that the incompetence has ended?

If you believe in a cover-up, why think the cover-up has ended?

We need cold hard facts. We need evidence from black boxes. We need the cover-up to end.

Still waiting.

[crispy]

14. We need

We need people to look at the facts on hand which already disprove the missile theory and small-plane theory.

[LARED]

15. You will be waiting a loooooooong time

for the evidence you think you need.

========================

Evidence would be the actual report from the forensics. Evidence would entail all the FBI materials being provided to the public.

You want actual forensics reports? LOL. I suggest you request this information via the FOIA. I'm not an expert in such things, but my guess is that that sort of information is rarely made public for good reasons.

If you believe in at least a level of incompetence, then why would anyone now believe that the incompetence has ended?

Incompetence is a universal problem. There is a vast gulf between government incompetence and the conspiracy you are implying


If you believe in a cover-up, why think the cover-up has ended?

I believe there is a coverup of the incompetence leading to 9/11. This cannot even qualify as a conspiracy, as covering up incompetence is a full time endeavor in nearly all aspects of our government.

We need cold hard facts. We need evidence from black boxes. We need the cover-up to end.

There is an abundance of cold hard facts that tell the story of flight 77. It's a choice to ignore them.

Still waiting.

Get used to it.

[BeFree]

16. Still Waiting

Lordeee, it'd be a shame to see some of you folks sitting on a jury. Seems some of ya would be willing to take just a few observations as proof enough that no crime was committed. Even tho serious questions remain un-answered in this case, some of ya'll are willing to say case closed.

That's not American Justice. Why are you willing to deny and/or make excuses for the denial of justice. What is about justice that ya'll don't like, or want?

[LARED]

20. You're mixed up about Ameircan justice

Seems some of ya would be willing to take just a few observations as proof enough that no crime was committed.

In the American system you need to prove a crime was committed. Not prove no crime was committed.

[BeFree]

21. So, ya think there was no crime?

We have proof that a crime was committed.

What we need proof of is who committed it. And all the details of the crime. Some of ya'll seem to be saying that you are satisfied with the cover-up. That is short-circuting Justice. Why do some support this denial of true Justice?

[LARED]

25. Of course there was a crime

Flight 77 was hijacked by terrorists and flown into the Pentagon. All, let me repeat ALL the evidence I have ever seen backs this up.

If you have evidence (evidence based on objective reality) that someone else did this, or that something other than flight 77 impacted the pentagon please show it to me.

[BeFree]

26. Proof

Most of the facts are being kept away from me, and you, and the rest of America. Proof that the case is not closed.

The evidence I have seen is proof of a coverup.

Are you now saying there is no cover-up?

[LARED]

29. No, I stated my opinion already

I believe there is a coverup of the incompetence leading to 9/11. This cannot even qualify as a conspiracy, as covering up incompetence is a full time endeavor in nearly all aspects of our government.

What coverup are you referring to? What proof?

[BeFree]

No cover-up of the evidence?

You believe there is a cover-up of incompetence. But you don't believe that that cover-up includes a cover-up of the evidence?

There's is a funny saying that this conversation reminds me of:

"How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all?"

And, a bonus saying:

"You can't get there from here"

[LARED]

34. How about you answer

my question first?

What coverup are up talking about?

The coverup I am referring to is covering up of the incompetence, perhaps negligence, that allowed 9/11 to happen. The WH, congress, are deathly afraid to remind the American people that they are charged with protecting the country. A job they failed to perform on 9/11.

They are now doing what they have always done when hard things need their attention. They create blue ribbon panels, that get bogged sown for years, nearly everyone plays dumb and acts slow until it's safe (ie - minimal political damage can be done in protecting their positions) to finish up the report.

[Abe Linkman]

31. What incompetence are you talking about?

n/t

[LARED]

35. see 34 n/t

[TrogL]

22. You need to prove a lot more than that

In the American system you need to prove a crime was committed

You need to prove step by step that this person performed the crime and exactly how he did it, or alternatively, prove that he didn't.

We had a case like this in Canada. A group of people was charged with sex abuse of children based upon evidence that eventually turned out to be a psychologist making stuff up.

[BeFree]

28. Thanks. Trogl

First we read that we need proof that a crime was committed, then we read that yes a crime was committed, but still we wait for the facts of the crime that was committed.

Your message:
We had a case like this in Canada. A group of people was charged with sex abuse of children based upon evidence that eventually turned out to be a psychologist making stuff up.

You've stated exactly why we must be careful about concluding that the 9/11 case has been made. ....evidence that eventually turned out to be ..... making stuff up

You, sir, would be welcome on a jury were you to continue to stick to the idea of waiting until all the facts have been juduciously weighed. I congratulate you, Trogl

[Abe Linkman]

18. I don't buy your crash claim. Now; about the Pentagon recovery efforts.

What you provided sounds like more of the coverup than anything else.

"The crash sites were designated as federal crime scenes, so federal authorities could control access and supervise recovery of remains."

As DD has so elegantly put it: where is the "mush"? Where are descriptions of finding the FL 77 passengers/crew "mush" at (or inside) the Pentagon?

AA FL 77 - Wherdy Go?

Passengers/crew - Wherdy Go?

[LARED]

19. And what you have provided sounds like

nothing. Because you have provided nothing. Nothing but ridicious speculation based on fantasy. Believe whatever nonsense you choose.

[Abe Linkman]

32. YOU believe (and sell) whatever nonsense YOU choose.

I have knowledge of many things; but I don't "believe" in fairy tales like the "Wacky Cave Man Did It" Conspiracy Theory. However, I certainly wouldn't deny you the right to continue with your story.

And, since we all have to eat, I might not even want to discourage someone from pedaling nonsense.

[LARED]

36. Well

I'm sure there is equal opportunity for those that want to sell the "Wacky Cave Man Didn't Do It" theory as well.

Does he pay well?

[Abe Linkman]

41. Yessir. Salespeople of all stripes are welcome at DU.

Ask THEM. Their boss must think the "negligence, incompetence, obfuscation" explanation is worth the money.

[HarryLime]

78. Well done, sir

"There is so much evidence that flight 77 crashed into the pentagon, that the victims were identified that it is almost impossible for me to believe you really have doubts."

So just the brief mention in a publication that meaningful evidence was truthfully processed and examined constitutes "so much evidence". That's very persuasive, Lared.

[Jose Diablo]

99. How do we know the tissue samples came fom both sites

and not one site, the 93 site.

"Tissue samples from both sites were sent to the mortuary at the Dover, Delaware Air Force Base for analysis and matching with DNA samples from victims and their relatives. A team of forensic anthropologists from the army, the FBI, and the Smithsonian Institution was assembled and, mindful of the need to bring closure to grieving families, worked to identify victims as quickly as possible, working long shifts 7 days a week. This team was led by William C Rodriguez III, one of 51 board-certified forensic anthropologists in the USA, who is often summoned to solve difficult criminal cases. These experts generated a DNA profile from each tissue sample received, and also developed a DNA profile from known reference specimens, such as tissue from biopsy samples, Pap smears, extracted teeth, and saliva from toothbrushes. Surviving relatives provided blood samples. The scientists then analysed the DNA profiles for potential matches."

:tinfoilhat:

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[demodewd]

43. Alternative scenario

Here's an alternatrive scenario. Flight 77 lifts off and reaches cruise altitude and speed.The transponder then is turned off by remote. Then the crew and passengers are asphyxiated by a lethal gas that is triggered by remote and released throughout the cabin and cockpit. The flight's computer controlled navigation system is overriden by ground control and the plane is landed at a preplanned base . The dead passengers and crew are wisked off AA #77 by military conspirators wearing gas masks and are put into a substitute commercial plane near the size of AA #77 tarted up with AA skin colors and lettering. The plane is then lifted off and controlled in flight again by ground remote. It is programmed to home in on the first floor of the West Wing . It crashes with all Flight 77 passengers and crew on board.

[DulceDecorum]

47. All the flights

appear to have had some VERY valuable people on board.
They are no use to anyone if they are dead.

[demodewd]

50. doubt

I doubt that they would be alive. Better dead...they don't talk that way.

[LARED]

49. Let me see if I understand

Flight 77 is taken over by remote control after all people on board are killed by remote control. These dead folks are taken off after the flight is landed where they are put on a different plane. This different plane is, by remote control then crashed into the pentagon. (I'm assuming the west wing comment is a mistake)

Why bother? Why not just crash flight 77 into the pentagon?

[MercutioATC]

64. Heeheehee...funny :)

The only problem is that AAL77 had a radar return, even without a transponder. The scenario also requires the inclusion (and subsequent secrecy) of a very large number of people. Too many possible failure points...

[demodewd]

66. decoy

#77 was replaced by a decoy that flew out to the Ohio border.How many people acting in secret...15? I contrast that with the innumerable unaccountable variables involved in "hijackers" successfully taking over the plane. If you bank on LIHOP...it becomes MIHOP. You do everything to eliminate the possibility of error.

[DulceDecorum]

68. Double decoy?

Let us continue with our new-found fascination for databases.

If you go to this site
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=9&year=2001
you will be able to access the current NTSB reports for the allegedly hijacked planes of September 11.

Since some readers here suffer from carpal tunnel,
here are the results.

NTSB Identification: DCA01MA060
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of American Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in New York City, NY
Aircraft: Boeing 767-200ER, registration: N334AA
Injuries: 92 Fatal.
This event is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a criminal act.

NTSB Identification: DCA01MA063
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of United Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in New York City, NY
Aircraft: Boeing 767-200ER, registration: N612UA
Injuries: 65 Fatal.
This event is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a criminal act.

NTSB Identification: DCA01MA064
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of American Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in Arlington, VA
Aircraft: Boeing 757-200, registration: N644AA
Injuries: 189 Fatal.
This event is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a criminal act.

NTSB Identification: DCA01MA065
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of United Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in Shanksville, PA
Aircraft: Boeing 757, registration: N591UA
Injuries: 44 Fatal.
This event is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as a criminal act.

OK.
Very good.
Now let us scrutinize these results.

The first thing we see is that the number in the
Injuries column appears to be the number of passengers on the plane.
No problem.
But now tell me people,
HOW MANY PASSENGERS WERE ON FLIGHT 77?
How come that Dulles-Los Angeles plane was SO FULL on a Tuesday morning?

92 + 65 + 189 + 44 = 390
That is the HIGHEST number of passengers casualties
I have seen so far.

For extra credit:
What happened to DCA01MA061 ?
What happened to DCA01MA062 ?
The other numbers are in sequence.
Are there two other missing planes that we are not being told about?

demodewd,
it would appear that some data entry person at the NTSB
has just added fuel to your fire.

[demodewd]

73. re:189

The 189 figure includes the passengers and crew as well as the Pentagon personel. Right?

[DulceDecorum]

74. ALL the other numbers

refer ONLY to the occupants of the aircraft.
They do NOT include people who were not inside it at the time.
You can confirm statistics with the CNN version of the story.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html

So WHY do we have an apparent switch in the accounting system?

Also, it has been pointed out to me,
that the first three letters refer to the airport where the flight originated.

Washington National Airport
has a code of DCA for District of Columbia Airport.
Thus DCA01MA060
indicates that the flight took off from
DCA = WASHINGTON, D.C.(NATIONAL)

I haven't yet figured out what the MA stands for.
I think the 01 is the year though, but that is subject to confirmation.

[MercutioATC]

71. Stealthy decoy...nobody saw a return...

It's difficult to conceal something that big. Wonder how they did it.

[DulceDecorum]

80. Nobody COULD see.

Wright said that he knew that there was a problem when air traffic controllers asked him to give them Flight 93's altitude.
Wright thinks there's ONLY ONE REASON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS IN CLEVELAND WOULD HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM ABOUT THE ALTITUDE. HE SAID THAT IT WAS PROBABLY BECAUSE THE TERRORISTS HAD CUT OFF ALL RADIO TRANSMISSIONS TO AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS.
http://html.thepittsburghchannel.com/pit/news/stories/news-96633920010919-140933.html

"They had the jet coming out of Cleveland and losing it when it came into Pittsburgh airspace. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION WITH IT, AND WE WERE CONCERNED," Murphy said.
Cleveland air traffic controllers called John P. Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport to alert them about the situation. Air traffic manager Dennis Fritz was told that a large aircraft 20 miles south of the airport was bearing down on the facility, which DOES NOT HAVE A RADAR SYSTEM.
Air traffic managers in the airport's tower began scanning the horizon for the Boeing 757 that had taken off from Newark International airport about two hours earlier carrying 38 passengers, two pilots and five flight attendants.
"It was an aircraft doing some unusual maneuvers at a low level, which is unusual for an aircraft that size," Fritz said.
SEEING NOTHING, air control tower workers began to think the aircraft was flying below the 2,800-foot-high ridges in the Allegheny front.
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/957434/detail.html

Was ACARS on the blink that day?
And why would these terrorists cut off all transmissions and yet allow the passengers of Flight 93 to phone home?
It would have been no big deal to throw the air-to-ground telephone system.
Ooops. I forgot.
The pilots (or hijackers) had no way of doing that,
hence the FAA Airworthiness Directive.
United never quite got around to complying with that FAA directive.
As usual.

March 2, 2003
WASHINGTON-United Airlines mechanics under contract with the Air Force were ordered by their managers to falsify paperwork and cut corners while working on the C-17 Globemaster, a troop and cargo carrier that would see extensive duty in a war with Iraq, two recent lawsuits claim.
<snip>
Mechanics are squawking that airlines are skimping on maintenance. Crash statistics don't bear out their complaints -- yet. Gassed up and loaded with passengers, United flight 9921 was preparing to leave Dulles International for Boston on Sept. 4, 2001. But for some reason the front passenger door on the Boeing 737 wouldn't close. Called to the tarmac, the mechanic removed the inner door panel and found the answer: The door was falling off. "I saw all these faces looking out the little windows, and I thought, What if this thing had opened in flight?'" he recalls. One of UAL's maintenance subcontractors had forgotten to connect all the bolts when the jet was overhauled the week before. "It was something that slipped through that shouldn't have," says David Latimer, vice president at Triad International Maintenance Corp. Timco employees involved were disciplined, and controls were tightened.

Both Timco and United, Latimer says, told the Federal Aviation Administration, charged with regulating airline safety, about the problem -- no fines resulted. But the FAA did levy fines in other episodes of maintenance and safety oversight. A United 737 flew 17 flights from Mar. 25 to Apr. 3, 2001 with parts of its fuel system missing or improperly installed. The FAA fined UAL $200,000 for operating the jet in an "unairworthy condition." In another instance, in 1999, American Airlines completed 198 flights with inoperable backup batteries to power the emergency aircraft lighting that guides passengers to the exits in a crash. That, coupled with broken chargers and defective battery cables uncovered in a 1999 FAA inspection of American facilities, resulted in penalties of $1 million.
<snip>
What do United mechanics say? FORBES spoke with more than a dozen in Denver, Portland, San Francisco, Chicago and Washington, D.C., who complain they face disciplinary action for writing up maintenance problems when doing so would interfere with UAL's on-time performance. As one United supervisor in Portland, Ore. told his mechanics, "I want you to be blind and on quaaludes when you go into that cockpit."
http://www.untied.com/ual/news.html

[Abe Linkman]

81. Excellent question, DD. (why cut off transmissions but allow calls)

"why would these terrorists cut off all transmissions and yet allow the passengers of Flight 93 to phone home?"

Maybe one of what you call "the usual suspects" will give us what the "Official" response/answer might be.

[mn9driver]

This isn't an "official" response.

Since I don't represent anyone but myself, but:

..."why would these terrorists cut off all transmissions....

They turned the transponder to "off". This is easy. It has a switch. The switch is labeled. One of the positions is labeled "off".

They didn't push the radio transmit button and talk back to the people who were trying to call them. This is easy, too. Just. Don't. Push. The. Button. And. Talk. Into. The. Microphone.

Of course, they didn't even completely manage this, since some accidental transmissions from the cockpit were heard.

"...and yet allow the passengers of Flight 93 to phone home?"..."

The passenger phones didn't have a switch. They are controlled by circuit breakers. The hijackers didn't know to pull them. There is no sign in the cockpit saying "Pull These Here Circuit Breakers If You Dont Want People Making Phone Calls".

These are long airplanes. There were only a few hijackers. Since everything depended on keeping the cockpit under control, why would they expend manpower by posting guards all through the back?

People in the back were free to do what they wanted. The phones worked. They used them.

[mn9driver]

83. This isn't an "official" response.

Since I don't represent anyone but myself, but:

..."why would these terrorists cut off all transmissions....

They turned the transponder to "off". This is easy. It has a switch. The switch is labeled. One of the positions is labeled "off".

They didn't push the radio transmit button and talk back to the people who were trying to call them. This is easy, too. Just. Don't. Push. The. Button. And. Talk. Into. The. Microphone.

Of course, they didn't even completely manage this, since some accidental transmissions from the cockpit were heard.

"...and yet allow the passengers of Flight 93 to phone home?"..."

The passenger phones didn't have a switch. They are controlled by circuit breakers. The hijackers didn't know to pull them. There is no sign in the cockpit saying "Pull These Here Circuit Breakers If You Dont Want People Making Phone Calls".

These are long airplanes. There were only a few hijackers. Since everything depended on keeping the cockpit under control, why would they expend manpower by posting guards all through the back?

People in the back were free to do what they wanted. The phones worked. They used them.

[MercutioATC]

82. With no transponder, we lose a lot of data, but we CAN see a raw radar

return (actually, it's not quite "raw radar" when you're using a mosaic radar display, but it's the same for this purpose.

No transponder =

1) No beacon code and therefore no computer tracking of the flight (synching of the radar return and computer flight plan).

2) No altitude info

3) No groundspeed info

We DO still see the target, though, and THAT'S my argument...

How did the military launch decoys that were invisible to radar, fly them up to the real flights, "switch" aircraft, and fly away with no radar returns from the now diverted commercial flights? Answer: they didn't.

[k-robjoe]

84. planned?

Was it just a coincidence (great luck for the hijackers?) that flight 77 made its turnaround at the exact point where it was lost from radar, or must we ask if the "slipping away from the radar, and then heading towards Washington" was somehow part of somebodys plan?
(That would be somebody who knew of a radar blind spot...)

[MercutioATC]

85. As far as I know, it wasn't "lost from radar", although laypersons like

to say that. I believe the turn was when it turned its transponder off.

Again, losing transponder data and losing radar data are two different things and frequently one event is misrepoered as the other.

(That's why I started posting in this forum. There are some issues that are much easier to clarify if you have some understanding of the system. Most of the conspiracy "proof" I've seen has been simple misunderstanding. I'm not saying that thinks shouldn't be investigated, I'm just saying that we look like kooks when we don't know what we're talking about).

As far as "radar blind spots", different facilities work with different systems. Approach Controls (like New York Tracon) work with single-radar-site displays (think of the old movies you see with a radar "sweep". ARTCCs (like New York Center and Cleveland Center) work with radar mosaic systems. There's no "sweep" because a computer takes radar data from multiple radar sites, decides which site's data is most likely the most accurate in any given area, and displays that data. Of the two, the "sweep" is more accurate, but is shorter-range (it only uses one site). Radar is a line-of-sight tool so intervening high terrain will cause low-altitude "blind spots". Other than these spots, there are no real "blind spots" unless you're talking about a "sweep" system where the aircraft flies outside the usable range of the radar site. All mosaic systems overlap enough to eliminate high-altitude blind spots (except for out west in certain parts of the Rockies).

[DulceDecorum]

86. Re: "not" lost from radar

--9:37 a.m.: American Airlines flight 77 is LOST FROM RADAR SCREENS.

--9:40 a.m.: Transponder signal from United flight 93 ceases and RADAR CONTACT IS LOST.
--10:02 a.m.: After a review of radar tapes, a radar signal is detected near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/

On the ground, air traffic controllers watching Flight 77's progress westward suddenly lost touch with the plane, which DISAPPEARED FROM RADAR SCREENS and cut off radio contact.

Someone on board Flight 77 had flipped off the transponder, the device that sends a plane's airline identification, flight number, speed and altitude to controllers' RADAR SCREENS.
But soon after losing contact, Dulles controllers spotted an unidentified aircraft speeding directly toward the restricted airspace that surrounds the White House. Federal aviation sources said Dulles controllers noticed the fast-moving craft east-southeast of Dulles and called controllers at Reagan National Airport to report that an unauthorized plane was coming their way.
Controllers had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed -- full throttle.
But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. 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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in THE RADAR ROOM, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away, says O'Brien, "and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west … Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west."
Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building.
"And it went six, five, four. And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second," says O'Brien.
But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver.
"WE LOST RADAR CONTACT WITH THAT AIRCRAFT. And we waited. And we waited. And your heart is just beating out of your chest waiting to hear what's happened," says O'Brien. "And then the Washington National controllers came over our speakers in our room and said, 'Dulles, hold all of our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit.'" http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/2020_011024_atc_feature.html

Those are a just a few of the reasons why the laypersons think that the planes were lost from radar.

[MercutioATC]

87. And, once again, we have an issue created by technical language, not fact.

"radar contact" to an air traffic controller means that you (or the computer) have identified a particular radar return as being a certain aircraft. In most circumstances, the target then acquires a data tag with the flight information and the computer tracks it.

If an aircraft shuts off its transponder, the data tag stops updating in relation to the target and we consider that "radar contact lost". We might never have lost the radar target, but the loss of computer correlation between the target and the tag does constitute "losing radar contact".

Your first quote even seems to support this definition:

"But soon after losing contact, Dulles controllers spotted an unidentified aircraft speeding directly toward the restricted airspace that surrounds the White House."

THAT was an uncorrelated radar target. "Radar contact" had been lost, but the uncorrelated target was still visible on the scope.

See, this is exactly why I post in this forum. Air traffic control uses very specific language that can be easily misinterpreted. Most of the theories that I've seen advanced here are easily identified to be, at least in part, due to a misunderstanding of ATC terminology or procedure.

[Abe Linkman]

88. Technical diversions from Wherdy Go on 9-11

"Most of the theories that I've seen advanced here are easily identified to be, at least in part, due to a misunderstanding of ATC terminology or procedure."

Many of the technical "explanations" I've seen posted here seem more for the purpose of confusing, clouding, and otherwise serving to protect and bolster the Official "Wacky Cave Man Did It" Conspiracy Theory.

[MercutioATC]

91. You really like that "Whacky cave man" line, don't you?

People generally don't understand how air traffic control works. They don't understand how aviation equipment works. They don't understand how our procedures work.

That's understandable. We're "behind-the-scenes" people. Nobody really thinks about air traffic control when they board an airplane. Besides, we generally don't publicize what we do.

I happen to be an air traffic controller. There may be others here at DU, but I have yet to meet them. This puts me in the unique position of being able to shed some light on the discussion.

If you think I'm just trying to bolster the official explanation, don't read my posts. I like to flatter myself and believe that they give people a better understanding of how the system works.

[Bolo Boffin]

92. "Wacky Cave Man" is Abe's last line of defense

When Abe can't respond to the substance of the post, he falls back on his Magritte Defense Line.

You do give us a better understanding of how the system works. I, for one, appreciate it. Thanks for all the information.

[Abe Linkman]

93. "Wacky Cave Man Did It" theory best describes what is being "sold"...

I think calling the O.Story version for what it is, ought to be acceptable to most people here.

bolo: I'm sorry if Osama is offended by my description. If you personally feel moved to apologize to the boy, don't let me stop you.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. QED

[Abe Linkman]

96. Is that "Rendon Group" talk or something else?

"QED"

[Bolo Boffin]

100. Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum)

Latin: "what was to be proven"

I use QED to say that you, Abe, proved my point. I said: you can't deal with the substance of the argument, so you fall back on "Wacky Cave Man"/Rendon Group/H&K red herrings to avoid the discussion. You responded with more "Wacky Cave Man"/Rendon Group/H&K red herrings. I said: QED.

[mn9driver]

94. Having aviation professionals responding to posts

kinda screws up the party. Don't feel bad--your posts are clear and informative. Just don't expect too much......sigh.

[k-robjoe]

89. haven´t seen

I haven´t seen anyone else argue that fl 77 didn´t really disappear from radar. Has anyone else argued so?

[MercutioATC]

90. I wasn't there. I don't know that it didn't. I just know that the terms

used have been misused numerous times in the past.

[k-robjoe]

97. reappear

I don´t have the URL, but :
I believe I have read somewhere that they were expecting it to reappear further to the West (of where they lost it), and were quite surprised when it reappeared further to the East...
(Is it something I have dreamed up?)

[k-robjoe]

98. identify

What about the c-130 that was sent to identify it? Why, if they never lost it?

[Abe Linkman]

67. Are you referring to the "Wacky Cave Man Did It" Conspiracy?

It's a totally implausible scenario. The fact that large segments of the population "bought" it, doesn't change the absurdity of it being so far-fetched as to be almost funny.

"Everyone to his own taste, said the old lady as she kissed the cow."

[MercutioATC]

72. Nope, the "decoy and poison gas" theory. It just doesn't work.

We see radar returns, even if there's no transponder. If an aircraft turned off its transponder, there's still be a primary radar target. Even if that went unnoticed, it'd be picked up quickly on a SATORI (review of the "radar tapes").

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[DulceDecorum]

70. A waste of OUR money

A February 1998 report by Peter Jennings cited records obtained by ABC News which showed that the Rendon Group spent more than $23 million dollars in the first year of its contract with the CIA. It worked closely with the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an opposition coalition of 19 Iraqi and Kurdish organizations whose main tasks were to "gather information, distribute propaganda and recruit dissidents." According to ABC, Rendon came up with the name for the Iraqi National Congress and channeled $12 million of covert CIA funding to it between 1992 and 1996. Writing in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh says the Rendon Group was "paid close to a hundred million dollars by the CIA" for its work with the INC.<2>
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Rendon_Group

[nomatrix]

75. Nobody has noticed this & why?

Where were the satellites monitoring 24 hours high resolution the Capital and surrounding regions?
&
Chuck Burlingame the pilot of flight 77, was he the pilot used in the Pentagon Emergency response exercise?

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
Halfway down the page to the topic:

-snip-
"Why were 3000 NRO employees sent home after 9/11?"

-snip-

"Note that it has been alleged for years that the US has 24 hour high resolution satellite monitoring of the capitol and surrounding regions, where critical government institutions are located. If so, there would then be a record of Flight 77's flight path and imact. Would there be something there to hide?"

-snip-

very bottom of page
Barbara Honegger (who wrote October Surprise) posted a response:

-snip-
"4) the main pilot of the 9-11 Pentagon plane, former Navy and then
Navy Reservist pilot Charles Burlingame, had recently, in a Reserve
assignment at the Pentagon, been part of a Task Force that drafted
the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case
a plane hit the building -- which his own plane then did. It is therefore
very possible -- in fact extremely likely, if not certain -- that this 'task force'
that Flight 77 pilot "Chick" Burlingame was part of was the Cheney
counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon
plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney."

-end snip-

Any research? Did google searches and couldn't find anything else related to this.
Anyone know?

[DulceDecorum]

76. Chuckie-pooh

Let us run the alleged pilot of Flight 77
through the databases
and see what comes up.

Flight 77:
CHARLES FRANK BURLINGAME III :
3230 NAVY DR
HERNDON VA 20171
NOT LISTED on most databases
SEVERAL POSSIBLE ALIASES
ROBERT CHARLES BURLINGAME:
same Rialto address as Seamus Peter:
also uses same Lytle address as Kevin Charles
Name: Robert Charles Burlingame
3546 N Riverside Ave
Rialto, CA 92377
Region: WP
Medical Class: Third
Medical Date: 04/2001
Medical Expiration Date: 04/2003
Certificate Type(s): Pilot Pilot
Certificate Level: Private
SEAMUS PETER BURLINGAME:
same Rialto address as Robert Charles
Name: Seamus Peter Burlingame
3546 N Riverside Ave
Rialto, CA 92377
Region: WP
Medical Class: Third
Medical Date: 04/2001
Medical Expiration Date: 04/2004
Certificate Type(s): Pilot Pilot
Certificate Level: Private
KEVIN CHARLES BURLINGAME:
Robert Charles also uses this address
239 (or 396) Lytle Creek Rd
Lytle Creek, CA 92358
Region: WP
Medical Class: Second
Medical Date: 07/2001
Medical Expiration Date: 07/2002
Certificate Type(s): Pilot Pilot
Certificate Level: Private

Incidentally,
Chuckie-pooh was the ONLY PILOT whose efforts
on September 11, 2001
gained him acceptance into Arlington Cemetery.
The other guys had to find their own mounds of dirt.
Aw heck,
while we are at it,
lets check out some of the other Burlingames.

SHERRY MARIE BURLINGAME: WIFE??
Name: Sherry Marie Burlingame
1733 University Drive Cir Apt 12
Kearney, NE 68845
Region: CE
Medical Class: Third
Medical Date: 02/2001
Medical Expiration Date: 02/2003
Certificate Type(s): Pilot
Certificate Level: Student

MARK DAVID BURLINGAME: BROTHER?? same address as Terry Lee
Name: Mark David Burlingame
301 W King St
Smethport, PA 16749
Region: EA
Medical Class: Third
Medical Date: 12/2003
Medical Expiration Date: 12/2006
Certificate Type(s): Pilot
Certificate Level: Student

TERRY LEE BURLINGAME: same address as Mark David
Name: Terry Lee Burlingame
301 W King St
Smethport, PA 16749
Region: EA
Medical Class: First
Medical Date: 12/2002
Medical Expiration Date: 06/2003
Certificate Type(s): Pilot Flight Instructor
Certificate Level: Airline Transport Pilot

[nomatrix]

77. No pooh, piglet, or Eeyore

The question was there any other sources of the navy reserves pilot Burlingame.....
nevermind.

Next

[DulceDecorum]

79. JS/07/M/378/

Hunting for Woozles and catching Heffalumps
is a term A A Milne might use
to describe the predicament we now find ourselves in.

Why is it
that these FAA certified pilots
BARELY seem to exist prior to September 11?

We know that the alleged hijackers existed BEFORE September 11.
One of them even managed to die about two years earlier.
The fiendish fellow did not permit his own demise to halt his nefarious plans.
He helped mastermind the hijack from within his coffin.
And,
since the show MUST go on,
he showed up in person
on a plane
on September 11, 2001.
And THAT, my friends
is what I call DEDICATION!

The FAA certified pilots of the ill-fated planes
do not seem to have
ACTUALLY had vibrant lives
BEFORE
they died
on September 11, 2001.
http://www.poetryconnection.net/poets/W._H._Auden/1671