the plane that hit the Pentagon

[LSK]

From the 9/11 Report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

"At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.59 At 9:32, controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control "observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed." This was later determined to have been Flight 77.

At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House. American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The hijacker pilot then advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove toward the Pentagon.60"

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=2480+S+Glebe+Rd,+Arlington,+VA&ie=UTF8&z=12&ll=38.870654,-77.055702&spn=0.191118,0.43396&om=1">map of DC

WHY did the plane have to do that turn? It seems like it was headed towards the Pentagon and did a circle in the sky only to be heading towards the Pentagon???

What am I not getting here?

:shrug:

[bushatbooker]

1. Why no one saw it "spiral down"?

That's what I always wanted to know.

[petgoat]

9. Supposedly the pilot of a C-130H saw the 757.

The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, said it "pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away." O'Brien said he was asked "to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that.” The 9/11 Commission Reports that it is a C-130H and the pilot specifically identifies the hijacked plane as a 757. Seconds after impact, he reports, “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.” <9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004>

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline_pf.jsp?timeperiod=0:10am-11:50pm%2011%20Sept%202001&timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=355

This very same C-130H was also very near Shanksville. Reportedly it was 17 miles from Shanskville
at 10:03 when the 9/11 Commission says flight 93 hit the ground.

(Let's see--cruising at 333 mph the plane would cover 5.5 miles per minute, which puts our C-130H
1/2 mile from Shanksville at 10:06 when the seismographic evidence says UA93 hit the ground.)

Things that make you go hmmmm...

[Nozebro]

10. “Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.”

Lt. Col. O'Brien didn't say he actually saw anything crash into the Pentagon. With all due respect (and great admiration for your work), don't you agree that O'Brien's statement is akin to someone casually turning on their television set and seeing the WTC fires and saying: "looks like those fires are about to cause the buildings to crash" or "looks like that plane caused the WTC to collapse"?

[savemefromdumbya]

12. C130 surveillance plane

[mirandapriestly]

33. Several witnesses said they saw another plane

along with the one that was supposedf to have hit the Pentagon (although I don't know if they actually saw it hit), one even identified it as a C130 transport plane and said it looked like it was trying to keep the other one off radar or something, Kevin Wheeler, I think the name is.

[Beam Me Up]

2. Check out Pilots for 9/11 Truth:

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org

There is a forum there. You might find it very interesting. At the very least you can ask your question in one of the sub forums and see what kind of answer you get.

[G Hawes]

3. My guess

and it's only a guess, is that it's because the plane was too high for the hijackers to make a direct approach to their target at that point and had to lose altitude in order to try to carry out their mission. since the hijackers are dead, it is impossible to ask them directly.

[mirandapriestly]

4. Yes, that Hani Hanfour was a crack pilot by all accounts

I'm sure that's exactly what happened.

[DrDebug]

5. Hani was the best pilot ever. We lost an ace on 9/11

Not only did he make a perfect 270 degree turn at 350mph. He flew several feet above the ground without even touching the lawn and made impact at the NRO who were having an exercise in "plane crashing in buildings on 9/11 9 AM" and the accounting department.

Hani is the best pilot the world has ever seen. They should have enticed Hani to work for Uncle Sam, because he was one of the finest pilots. They tried to make a computer simulation of his stunning flight, but five years later they still haven't been able to quite figure it out yet. Hopefully we'll see a part of his skills in the footage which is going to released soon, however they already said that the impact part couldn't be CGIed, so I guess we have to wait even longer for that part...

[G Hawes]

14. No, he wasn't a particularly good pilot

the turn wasn't great, the approach wasn't smooth or level, and he hit a bunch of obstacles on the way. i cant remember where exactly but i read an analysis of the flight data by pilots and they weren't impressed with his flying skills at all. they said it was obvious that he wasn't particularly well skilled but that it was easy to hit a building as opposed to trying to land a plane safely.

[G Hawes]

13. I don't think he was a particularly good pilot

If he was, to use your term, a "crack pilot", he probably would have made the direct approach, which would have been much more difficult.

[canetoad]

27. Do you ever muse about the redunancy of the 'sarcasm' tags?

Personally I believe they should be outlawed, because if you cannot pick up on it, the tags ain't gonna help in overall understanding of the post. Just me.

[mirandapriestly]

28. Oh, that explains why

He could have hit the main offices with an unobstructed path, including the Secretary of Defense but instead chose to hit a bunch of accountants and budget analysts (good luck for certain Pentagon officials (and Dov Zakheim) who because of that were unable to answer questions on missing budget information because of the people who had been killed on 9-11 in the pentagon (they used that as the excuse), but not a particuliarly wise choice for a "terrrorist"). No, "For some reason they went 270 degrees out of the way at high speed, and performed a very sophisticated maneuver with no possible military advantage." (http://www.pentagonresearch.com/attack.html)
Also explains why he chose to go out of his way to hit the first and only section of the Pentagon undergoing renovation to strengthen the building against a terrorist attack.


It also must explain why he just flew right over the unprotected White House.

Another quote from, "Pentagon Research" :
"So you're nervously flying a 757-200 for the first time. Years of planning have gone into the operation. Your goal is to strike at the heart of America and inflict as much damage as possible. You have the significant psychological/emotional pressure to succeed as a martyr in the world of radical Islam. You have no idea when interceptor jets are coming. So you decide to pass the unobstructed front of the building, do a maneuver that a seasoned 757 pilot would find challenging, enter Reagan International air space, risk the whole mission on lamp poles, hit a containerized generator trailer, clip a cable spool or two, demolish two construction trailers, fly through a tree and hit the only blast resistant and least occupied wedge of your target?"

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/attack.html

seems as though some disagree with your assessment of his flight skills:

"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."

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.

[Joanne98]

38. 2 trillion dollars got "lost" because of the missing budget info....

After Arthur Anderson collasped, the audit duties went to a new accounting firm and they couldn't find TWO TRLLION DOLLRS! I think we should hang ALL OF THEM! I want the money back!

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. I think the official story took the flight path for the C130

that was 'chasing' Flight 77 and claimed that it was the flight path for Flight 77.

Here are few eyewitness reports (from http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/other.html) about the C130 which did descend rapidly and did fly in a circle around the Pentagon.


Allen Cleveland --
Soon after the crash (Within 30 seconds of the crash) I witnessed a military cargo plane (Possibly a C130) fly over the crash site and circle the mushroom cloud. My brother inlaw also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield. He said that he saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary RD in Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it.
www.spooky8.com/reviews.htm

Scott P. Cook --
As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. It was coming from an odd direction (planes don't go east-west in the area), and it was descending at a much steeper angle than most aircraft. Trailing a thin, diffuse black trail from its engines, the plane reached the Pentagon at a low altitude and made a sharp left turn, passing just north of the plume, and headed straight for the White House.
www.clothmonkey.com/91101.htm

Kenneth McClellan --
A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington 'at an unusual angle,' said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman. Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane 'to let us know where it's going,' McClellan said. The C-130 pilot 'followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon,' he said.
www.dailypress.com

John O'Keefe --
Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.
www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091201l.html

[Brundle_Fly]

7. it had to hit the section that was

in fact just reinforced for such an event, it was virtually empty offices and the section where the least damage would occur.

thanks for the fact checking Osama! :sarcasm:

[Ezlivin]

22. It also hit the "accounting and finance" section of the Pentagon

Who, if you recall, had compiled a report just released on Sept. 10 reporting that the Pentagon had lost track of 2.3 trillion dollars.

It's just a coincidence that this was the area hit on Sept. 11.

Just a lucky coincidence.

[Nozebro]

8. About that "plane" -- don't you think if AA 77 had hit the Pentagon, we'd

have seen credible evidence of it by now? Ask the CT'ers here what evidence they can provide that proves that AA 77 was even a scheduled flight on 9/11.

[Make7]

21. The BTS database lists it as scheduled to depart at 8:10 am on 9/11/01.

 

  Source: www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/airline_ontime_statistics/
 

I'm not sure that the BTS database can really be said to be proof, but I thought you would accept it as a source in light of previous statements:

Nozebro previously said:

"The authoritative records of ALL flights are made and kept by the Bureau of Transportation Services."

"The BTS (Bureau of Transportation) keeps meticulous records of ALL scheduled flights - and they do NOT show FL 77 as a scheduled flight for 9/11..."

"If it's a fact, it would be in the BTS records."

- Make7

[Nozebro]

23. Thanks. When did they add that data? And, since you're such a good

BTS researcher, would you please show the BTS records for "wheels off" time, the airplane's ID #, and whether or not that particular plane has been listed as having been destroyed. I've read that the plane that was designated as AA FL 77 was never officially listed as having been destroyed and that it in fact has been observed and even photographed (might have been in Chicago) since 9/11.

The BTS records (schedule lift-off time, actual lift-off/wheels off) time etc. may or may not have been altered. My understanding is that the BTS records did NOT reflect FL 77 as being a scheduled flight...as of shortly after 9/11 whenever some of the first 9/11 researchers looked into these issues.

Thanks.

[Make7]

24. You've got it all backwards.

Flights 11 and 77 have been claimed not to have flown that day because they didn't have any BTS information for years after the attacks. However, they were registered as destroyed in January 2002.

Flights 175 and 93 apparently were flights that day because they were in the BTS database, but it is claimed that they didn't crash on 9/11/01 because the registrations for those planes weren't canceled for a number of years.

You really need to reacquaint yourself with Gerard Holgren's work.

As I said in my last post, I don't hold the BTS database in as high of regard as you seem to. It doesn't appear that you even understand what information is in their database. Anyway, here is some information for you:

    Departure Time:    8:20 AM

    N-Number:          N644AA
    Manufacturer Name: Boeing
    Model:             757-223
    Serial Number:     24602
    Year Manufactured: 1991

    Certificate Issue Date:  05/08/1991
    Cancel Date:             01/14/2002
    Reason for Cancellation: Destroyed

- Make7

[Nozebro]

26. I recall seeing a copy of the BTS records which did NOT list AA 77 as

a scheduled flight on 9/11. That was shortly after 9/11. You probably remember that, which may partly explain why you want to have it both ways with the BTS data. I also recall a DUer that posted a photo of one of the 9/11 planes AFTER 9/11. I believe it was at O'Hare Field. I understand. It's kind of like wanting to use the term "CT'er" as a way to undermine the messenger, yet you have to be very careful about using that term, because if 9/11 was a conspiracy, then the invasions of two countries cannot be justified - never mind that the invasions took place without any proof that a crime had been committed. It must be a dicey situation to be in.

BTW - what exactly is an "OCT'er"? Is it someone that claims 9/11 was a criminal conspiracy? See, I think 9/11 was a False Flag operation, not a conspiracy.

[Make7]

43. Let me try this again.

 

Nozebro wrote:

I recall seeing a copy of the BTS records which did NOT list AA 77 as a scheduled flight on 9/11. That was shortly after 9/11. You probably remember that, which may partly explain why you want to have it both ways with the BTS data.

In my previous post I wrote: "Flights 11 and 77 have been claimed not to have flown that day because they didn't have any BTS information for years after the attacks."

That means there was no information (that includes no scheduled departure time) in the BTS database for flights 11 and 77 for years after the attacks. According to Holmgren the scheduled departure times were added sometime around September 2004.

I am not trying to have it both ways with the BTS data - I clearly stated when I posted AA77's scheduled departure time that "I'm not sure that the BTS database can really be said to be proof". If you would actually go to the BTS website you can read their disclaimer where it states:

"BTS makes no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this website and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this website."

My intention was to point out to you that the scheduled departure time actually is in the database, so you should stop claiming that it isn't. You really should read the updates to Gerard Holgren's papers on the subject. Perhaps you can use them to reference the pre-updated data if you think that will bolster your case.

Nozebro wrote:

I also recall a DUer that posted a photo of one of the 9/11 planes AFTER 9/11. I believe it was at O'Hare Field.

I recall DulceDecorum claiming that pictures had been taken, I never saw any photographs though. Of course, that was a couple of years ago - you're probably thinking of something else, considering you've only been here a few months. I must have missed whatever post you are talking about.

Nozebro wrote:

BTW - what exactly is an "OCT'er"? Is it someone that claims 9/11 was a criminal conspiracy?

Well, it might help to examine the context of how "OCT'er" has been used here at DU. (By you.)

"The intent & meaning are clear, but if you were trying to defend the OCT, you'd probably consider the Clintonian defemse of parsing words. What else can they do? The facts, logic, common sense, and coverup aren't on the side of the OCT'ers, so they try a little of whatever will pass as sounding reasonably like they may be on to something...other than more BullSpinning."

"If there are as many actual OCT'ers here as there are OCT'er usernames here, then we ought to hear from at least five or ten of 'em giving a substantive explanation for what's missing that ought not be."

"Threads like this scare the uknowwhat out of OCT'ers. They'd much rather you bring up something about fire temperatures where they can then cite an opposing opinion from a leading right-wing "expert"."

"The OCT'ers are very very good at distracting and otherwise trying to undermine the quest for truth about what really happened and who is behind it, but there are some very bright people right here on this DU forum that are quite capable of piercing thru the OCT fog and revealing the truth."

"Maybe all the OCT'er was doing was wasting time by distraction. Sometimes it seems like OCT'ers will say anything to disrupt, distract, and discourage people from getting the truth out about 9/11. Reminds me of the long-standing GOP policy of using tactics designed to discourage people from even bothering to go to the polls. They know they can't win an election any other way. The numbers just aren't there. Their voters WILL vote, but there aren't enough of them to win if the Democrats can get their voters to particpate.

Think maybe that kind of thinking has crept into the minds of the OCT'ers here - otherwise, how do you explain their aggressiveness? You don't normally expect PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS (and they are, AREN'T they? aren't they?) to be that way, right? These folks here seem h---bent on picking a gnat until everybody ends up so frustrated they just go home. THAT is a WIN for them...in their eyes. It's all in the game of true lies, propaganda, and disinformation."

"Huge embarassment to OCT'ers that their main evidence is tiny hole in the wall. The Gov't has now released two videos and neither one of them shows a B757 crashing into the Pentagon. If YOU were an OCT'er, you'd probably be trying to save face too - by engaging in all sorts of logical fallacies, flame baiting, and OCT'er Spin, in hopes of changing the subject, denigrating those that see thru the OCT lie, and generally trying to disrupt, distract, and discredit those of us that are interested in finding out more of the details of the truth that 9/11 was an inside job. No matter how many OCT'ers are recruited and given a quick course in how to identify logical fallacies (and how to use them, too), the facts are ALL on our side, and that has got to be a HUGE embarassment to OCT'ers and their truth suppression goals."

"He raised NO real issues. He did what OCT'ers here do all the time. He just ranted like OCT'ers do here all the time. All fluff, no stuff."

"Even in your OCT, the WTC buildings were "military/intel" centers. You mentioned that there were "many high powered businesses" in the WTC. Yes, yes there were. Co's like MARSH. You know all about them, right? You didn't just wake up yesterday and decide to become an OCT'er here at DU. You "know some stuff", so the company "MARSH" isn't something you've never heard of in OCT-land, is it? WTC-7? Military/Intel?"

"He's part of the fake opposition. Just a milder version of an OCT'er. Not as aggressively obnoxious."

"The reality that counts is that video which does NOT show a plane crash and if the OCT that you and the rest of the OCT'er Batallion support was the truth about 9/11, the video would show a B757 crashing into the Pentagon. Clearly, it shows no such thing. Not even a model airplane. (it was ALREADY inside the Pentagon, safely stored in a closet)

Reality -for better or worse - is not dependent on your denial of evidence your own side produced (no pun intended)."

"Am I saying that every single OCT'er is ignorant of the basic facts? No, but I think their current use of tactics to distract and suppress the truth is a shot at those of us who do know the facts and know how to think critically about them."

"Maybe "they" are concerned that you don't buy into the "Faith-Based" 9/11 Conspiracy Theory and that as a thinking person, you might already or soon will - know that the whole thing is a lie, and you might share what you know with someone that's still in the "Faith-Based" mode. Like all those good people here aka OCT'ers. They're just your plain, average folks who are convinced by the "evidence" and by faith in "The System" that Osama really, really is the #1 EvilDoer behind 9/11."

""Caveman Did It" Theories are a huge embarassment for OCT'ers. No one has produced a shred of evidence in the five years since 9/11 when Bush said he'd provide proof that OBL was responsible for 9/11. That's gotta be a HUGE embarassment to the OCT'ers whose mission seems to be one of distracting, in order to cover up their embarassment at having no proof for their fairy tale that a cave-dwelling gentleman with a terrible kidney problem, was behind 9/11 -- less than two months after having met with the local station chief in Bahrain where he had gone for kidney dialysis in July, 2001. (not to be confused with his hospitalization on 9/10 at Rawalpundi, Pakistan)"

"No wonder OCT'ers have to resort to so many aggressive truth suppression tactics: lack of proper & complete training & testing."

"Do you even read what YOU post, or are so fixated on OCT'er talking points, you forgot to?"

"Look at the OCT'ers here. They all, to a username, claim to be progressive Democrats!"

"The perps will never admit responsibility and the media perps won't either, so who will tell the people? It sure won't be easy. What the people will hear is confusion, distortion and claims of coincidence from an even larger group of OCT'ers. Who knows how many are currently being trained right now for just such a purpose ("tomorrow, we'll cover how to sound smart and credible while using logical fallacies, worded to sound reasonable")."

"Yes, can't we all just get along? Who needs anything more than OCT'er "explanations", evasions, distractions, distortions, disruptions, messenger shootings, messenger smearings,lgocial fallacies,and other nonsense designed to undermine legitimate inquiry into the largest (to date) False Flag operation ever conducted in the U.S.A.?"

"BTW - it's not too late to get out while you can. One less OCT'er here won't cause any noticeable decline in the OCT PR output."

"Does the Pentagon have a contract with David Copperfield to produce illusions for OCT'ers?"

"Better to pay attention to what TRUTH Seekers say or claim. It's not realistic to expect OCT'ers to be any help in finding the truth about anything which could mean the OCT Fairy Tale is just that."

"Remember - most OCT'ers (at least the ones here) are smart, well-trained, very knowledgeable, resourceful, creative, paid handsomely (just kidding - don't try to use that as an excuse to try and get me banned. it's ONLY a joke), and they are very quick to spot minor errors that they can then use against the interest of those of us in the Truth Seekers Movement. Anything that can be distorted or used to distract, will be. I think it's better to not give them that kind of opportunity."

"OCT supporters need what is impossible to have, Mr. Segar. OCT'ers can't provide ANY credible evidence for their claims, much less "strong" evidence. So far, the only "evidence" they've produced was either faked, manufactured, eyewitness "accounts", and government-sponsored reports. If the OCT was true, by now, there would be abundant credible evidence and no need to withhold evidence, suppress evidence, and invade the Net with a virtual "Army" of
pro-OCT promoters/defenders/propaganda/disinformation troops."

"I expected the OCT'ers to act as the enemy of truth they are, but I would hope that friends of the truth would bother themselves to read the article (not just the TITLE of it), despite the fact that the author proves that UAL 175 could not and did not crash into WTC2."

"Analysis of UAL FL 175 & WTC2 (read this before the OCT'ers do)"

"The difference is: Jones is probably on more solid ground whenever he says something, whereas you don't have to necessarily believe the nonsense you espouse since it's almost never anything more than OCT'er spin."

"With the OCT'er Brigade working 24/7 to bolster the boosh lies about 9/11, it's necessary to be vigilant."

"The OCT'ers have mostly left the building because their efforts to sell the 9/11 fairy tale have failed. Most of those folks are very smart, well-trained in argumentation and advocacy, very knowledgeable about the facts and the evidence, and they are/were energetic and aggressive."

"If there WAS any credible evidence, I wouldn't have asked the question But you KNOW that, don't you? You're not exactly a new OCT'er here, so you know very well why 9/11 Truth Seekers doubt the claims of you and yours about alleged phone calls from 9/11 flights.

Maybe one of your cohorts can do better than your faith-based OCT'er logic, but I really doubt it."

"Your guess about what the OCT'ers HERE will have to say about that? My guess: deny, deny, deny."

"Other than Jazz, he's the only OCT'er I'm aware of that has been banned."

"I'm sure the OCT'ers have a good answer & I'm surprised they haven't responded to your very reasonable, logical point."

"We engage with OCT'ers every day. It's fun & they need the workout."

"It's the common language of OCT'ers (Official Circle Talkers)

What else would you expect from someone trying to "defend" (whether out of personal belief or _____) the indefensible?"

"Oh, and rest easy, OCT'ers. The PR campaigns will continue into the indefinite future. I have it on good word that new contracts are being ironed-out and readied for signing."

What is an "OCT'er"? Who were you referring to in all those posts? I'm not really sure how you are using it. That term might mean "Official Circle Talkers". Or perhaps it's just someone the disagrees with you. Since you're the one that so often uses the term "OCT'er", why don't you tell me what you think it means? I don't want to believe that you would use a term so often without actually understanding what it means, but you have called some people here both a "OCT'er" and a "CT'er". And you have called people that don't believe the government version of 9/11 as "OCT'ers" before. At this point maybe these terms have lost all meaning for you. Perhaps that is why you feel the need to ask what it means.

Nozebro wrote:

I think 9/11 was a False Flag operation, not a conspiracy.

If more than one person was involved wouldn't it be a conspiracy?

I thought you were the one that implied that there was a conspiracy to frame Osama for 9/11. Was that not part of the plan for 9/11? Or was that not a conspiracy either?

- Make7

[Nozebro]

44. Thanks. That helps firm up even more the truthfulness of charges that

AA FL 77 couldn't possibly have crashed into the Pentacon building. Apparently you had some of the same problems as I had researching the BTS records. I assume that you, like me, tried to find records that would buttress the notion that AA FL 77 did indeed take off from Dulles on 9/11.

I wonder who "cooked" the databooks in '04 and who held the gun to Mineta's head & told him to get it done?



Re: conspiracy. NO, 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy and boosh certainly would never say that. Otherwise:

1) His responses (illegal invasions) would subject him to charges before the World Court.

2) His responses would be indefensible as a matter of law, since a criminal act (assuming Osama & Co. did it) doesn't justify starting wars, and he would therefore be subject to charges before the World Court.

[Make7]

47. Only to someone that already believes that.

I did find information that Flight 77 took off from Dulles between 8:20am and 8:21am. You seem to believe that the research done by others into the BTS and FAA aircraft registry databases actually proves something one way or the other. However, the conclusions of those other researchers based on that information leads to some obvious questions that I don't recall ever being addressed.

• Why would actual flights be used for UA175 and UA93 and not be used for AA11 and AA77?


• Why would the FAA registry be updated to show N334AA and N644AA as destroyed after a few months, but the registration for N612UA and N591UA wouldn't be canceled until years later?


• Why would anyone use databases that use information supplied by the airlines themselves as proof when the radar data, ATC communications, FDR data for N644AA, and DNA evidence indicates that the information in the databases is simply incorrect and/or not adequately updated?

Nozebro wrote:

I wonder who "cooked" the databooks in '04 and who held the gun to Mineta's head & told him to get it done?

Let me get this straight. You claim that 9/11 was not a conspiracy, yet you think someone forced Mineta to "cook" the BTS database in 2004? So they weren't conspiring to cover something up?

Nozebro claimed:

Re: conspiracy. NO, 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy and boosh certainly would never say that.

Really?

Our country must also remain on the offensive against terrorism here at home. The enemy has not lost the desire or capability to attack us. Fortunately, this nation has superb professionals in law enforcement, intelligence, the military, and homeland security. These men and women are dedicating their lives, protecting us all, and they deserve our support and our thanks. They also deserve the same tools they already use to fight drug trafficking and organized crime -- so I ask you to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack - based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute - I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/index.html

What conspiracy was he talking about then?

- Make7

[SidDithers]

45. Holy crap, those are all examples of that poster using "OCT"?

Inigo Montoya would have said to him, "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means"

Excellent compilation.

:toast:

Sid

[Make7]

48. Yes, and that's not all of them. Yet he asks me: "what exactly is an "OCT'er"?"

Edit for grammar

I hope that one would know what it means after using "OCT'er" dozens upon dozens of times. Maybe his attempts to redefine things around here have only served to confuse the issue.

I wish he would have answered my questions about how he was using the term - that may have helped clarify things.

:shrug: Make7

[savemefromdumbya]

31. 2002?

[hack89]

34. The date the paper work was approved.

Canceling a certificate is a bureaucratic process - I have never personally met a speedy bureaucracy.

[savemefromdumbya]

30. depends what one means by 'depart'

[savemefromdumbya]

11. the plane that DIDN'T hit the Pentagon

no plane hit the Pentagon
Flight 77 was fictitious

[LSK]

15. so your saying flight 77 never took off?

It never flew anywhere, it completely didnt exist?

Wasnt Barbara Olson supposedly on it? What happened to her and others who were suppposed to be on it?

In "Loose Change" flight 93 landed in Cleveland. What happened to the people on 77?

[savemefromdumbya]

29. nobody

if you ask they won't tell you.

[Nozebro]

36. If it did take off, there should be BTS records of that, but unless they've

gone back in and done some "fixing", I don't believe there's any evidence that FL 77 took off. Was it even a regularly scheduled flight?

[Joanne98]

40. She's in the Bahamas with Ken Lay.

And I'm NOT being sarcastic. I think they are both still alive....

[reprobate]

46. Not Cleveland. Area 51. Olson et. al. now occupy the same freezer

as the saucer aliens.

[Larry Ogg]

16. And let’s not forget after the plane supposedly hit,

All the Pentagon employees were in there business suits and ties out picking up the debris. (In there suits and ties!) This was very strange indeed. I guess I’m too accustomed to seeing; after a passenger jet filled with people crashes, forensic people in white bio suits investigating the crime seen, figuring out what happened, and picking up all of the fragmented human remains. Or maybe they were certain there were no bodies on that plane and they needed to clean it up as quickly as possible.

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. The way they reacted to the fires was also odd

for a crash with passengers and possible survivors/victims inside the building, they sure didn't work very hard to put out the fires quickly. Most of the time they only had two lines, sometimes three hosing down the building from the front. For long periods, fire raged in other sections with no attempt to put them out. Why didn't they put more equipment on the fires? It wasn't like there was enough room to park the trucks or equipment available, this is DC after all.

[Nozebro]

19. It only makes sense if the boosh 911 CT is a lie. Then, it makes plenty of

sense, as part of the cover story and since no one will tell the people that the booshco CT is a lie,
Mr. and Mrs. Sixpack see no reason to question anything either, and never mind the Army of professional advocates that work night and day to sell the boosh lies and suppress the search for the truth.

[SidDithers]

25. Professional advocates?...Why, Nozebro, what are you suggesting?...nt

Sid

[mirandapriestly]

32. He's making a general comment about those who are

employed to push propaganda. Do you deny that there are persons in the media who push the viewpoints of the current administration and their corporate sponsors?

[Nozebro]

35. Why do you ask, Mr. Dithers? I'm sure you feel you have a point somewhere.

Do YOU know any professional advocates, Mr. Dithers?

[Norrin Radd]

18. Also, why weren't people evacuated earlier? n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. Why did Rummie keep Command & Control in a building

that had fires burning through it on the other side?

I would guess they have their own air supply, but in a old building like the Pentagon, the fire could easily spread and I doubt any area, was sealed enough to keep out the smoke.

[Joanne98]

42. The show must go on. Who knew they were such good actors..

Maybe we should start our own internet academy awards show. Once a year we can nominate the best political theatre. With the leading actors and actresses. The prize could be a golden shit statue. We can have them handed out by people dressed in "V" costumes. We can put it all on youtube and let the people vote. It would be a gas!

[Joanne98]

37. It didn't want to hit the east wing. Where Rumsfield was sitting...

So it had to do that fancy turn so it could hit the west wing that was under construction. Terrorists are really considerate. Wouldn't you agree? (sarcasm)

[Nozebro]

39. One of Osama's friends at The Company probably told him where Rumsfeld

had his office. So, the credit for sparing Mr. Rumsfeld should probably go to Osama.

[Joanne98]

41. I agree. The "softer" side of Osama exists. lol