So, what REALLY happened to flight 77?

[BlueStateBlue]

[philb]

1. FAA radar showed it went to Kansas; don't know where from there

FAA Radar showed Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon:

http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight77.htm

But with all the war games and frudulent war game blips on the screens there was a lot of confusion at the FAA. So it may not be clear which of the blips was Fl 77. but the one plotted here went to Kansas apparently. From there who knows?


But whatever exploded at the Pentagon left radiation in the debris and raised radiation levels in the D.C. area for over a week.
There appears to have been depleted uranium involved perhaps.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/dam-inside.html

[MercutioATC]

2. It does? I don't see that in your provided link.

The site claims that AAL77 turned around somewhere between West Virginia and Kansas. That's a far cry from "FAA radar showed it went to Kansas".

[philb]

3. Somewhere around Kansas border as I remember

If it made it that far, it couldn't have hit the Pentagon.

But with all the extra confusion caused by the war games blips maybe they don't really know which planes went where.

I think these are the people who track the flights for many of the airlines and etc.

http://www.flcv.com/offcom77.html

[MercutioATC]

4. Actually, radar contact was lost on the Ohio/Kentucky border.

From the site you linked to:

"8:57 report by FAA that Fl 77 crashed or landed near Kentucky/Ohio border/ lost on radar"

That's the furthest west the target was seen.

Paul Thompson's 9/11 Timeline also shows this...

"Flight 77's transponder signal is turned off. <8:56, Guardian, 10/17/01, 8:56, Boston Globe, 11/23/01, "six minutes before" Flight 175 hits WTC, Newsday, 9/23/01> Just prior to this, Flight 77 turns around over northeastern Kentucky, and starts heading back toward Washington."

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/flight77.html

I've seen NOTHING that shows that AAL77 ever made it any further west...certainly not to Kansas.

[philb]

15. I posted the link; its the same source used by most airlines

for such radar flight tracks. Apparently no one looked at the web site I posted. What are we talking about if no one looked at the orignal link posted?

Apparently some were confused because the site refered people to another site for background info that no longer exits. But that wasn't relevant to this thread.
The site clearly says Flight 77 went to Kansas.

Does someone know of credible evidence to the contrary? If so, what is the site?

[MercutioATC]

18. A problem with Flight Explorer:

It does what OUR computers do...if it loses transponder data, it just continues the plane along its filed route of flight, whether it's actually going that way or not.

The Flight Explorer depiction is nothing but that.

[philb]

26. Based on what data? what is your source? Do they agree?

[MercutioATC]

27. Well, unless Flight Explorer is psychic...

Unless Flight Explorer is maintaining a national system of radar sites that are better than the FAAs (it's not), how would it be able to track the plane with no radar data? It's a simple question of system capabilities. There's no way Flight Tracker can track a plane any better than the FAA can.

I've explained this before, but it was a while ago. Our system works on what are essentially two parallel systems.

The first is secondary radar input. The plane broadcasts a discrete transponder code and that data is received by radar and piped to different facilities.

The second is the flight data system. The computer knows which planes are scheduled to be in the air at any given time and knows what codes they are supposed to be squawking. When it sees a secondary target near the place where that discrete code is supposed to be, it correlates the flight plan data in the form of a data tag with the radar target.

If the plane isn't recognized by the system but is squawking a discrete code, we get an "intruder" target. We see the target as an "I" and the computer won't correlate it with any data tag.

If the plane is already being tracked and loses/turns off its transponder, the computer will only show a primary radar target (a "+") and the data tag will merrily continue along the filed route or flight, even without being attached to any radar target.

The bottom line is that any system (including Flight Tracker) can only use available data. There was no data available to ANYBODY that would allow them to show AAL77 any further west than the Ohio/Kentucky border because that's where the transponder was turned off. Anything showing AAL77 west of there was simply projecting where it SHOULD have been had it been on its filed route of flight.

[janedoe]

5. I also remember their showing us it went over Kansas

before they lost it. But, I don't know how we tell which is the truth and which is a fib from what "they" say.

[MercutioATC]

6. I doubt it was a reputable source.

Hell, there was somebody here who insisted it was seen in Texas (they had confused DALLAS, Texas with the DULLES Airport).

All official reports clearly state that AAL77 was lost on the Ohio/Kentucky border.

[philb]

17. What is the basis for your belief?

I thought Flight Explorer is a commonly used for official purposes

[MercutioATC]

19. See Post #18 above

[RayUbinger]

7. It didn't exist

There was no Flight 77. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics says so. As recently as 2004, no such flight even appeared on the schedule. To this day, it is still not listed as having taken off. See
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

[spooked911]

8. Welcome to DU!!!!!!!!

Hi Ray!

I've seen your website!

:hi:

[MercutioATC]

9. Dulce, is that you?

Sorry, but this issue has been gone over ad nauseum here.

I'll second the welcome!

(PLEASE don't rely too heavily on the BTS database, though...)

[RayUbinger]

10. It didn't exist, per the original and updated BTS entries

> Sorry, but this issue has been gone over ad nauseum here.

Perhaps you could point me to some place in an FAQ that proves the BTS database was incorrect? And why it took them three years to fix it and they still got it wrong? And how normal it is for them to make similarly major errors in the listings of the other three alleged crashed flights on the same date? (It says 11 and 77 didn't take off and 175 and 93 didn't crash.)

> I'll second the welcome!

Thanks!

>(PLEASE don't rely too heavily on the BTS database, though...)

Any human database is fallible, but this one's supposed to at least be official, and it glaringly contradicts something major about all four allegedly crashed alleged flights.

And then BTS updated about two of them, years later, but only turned them into Scheduled flights, not Departed ones. And BTS changed their whole URL, without a leaving a forwarding address, when they did this?

Are you suggesting this kind of mess is what we should normally expect from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics? Would you be able to support such a position by citing at least one other "error" ever made in the BTS database, let alone four all on the same date?


Thank you,

Ray Ubinger

[MercutioATC]

14. I think you just answered your own question.

"And why it took them three years to fix it and they still got it wrong?"

No database is infallible. When database entries conflict with other available information, you have to ask yourself which is more likely:

(1) American and United airlines are lying.

All of the other FAA data suggesting those airplanes existed and flew is in error.

The people who supposedly boarded those planes never existed and their friends, families, schools and places of business are all lying.

The government is lying about recovering DNA and black boxes.

Those planes, which were regularly scheduled flights, just happened not to be scheduled that day.


OR

(2) The BTS database is in error...something they realized and partially corrected.


Well, which seems more plausible to you?

[RayUbinger]

25. It didn't exist, per the original and updated BTS entries

This is a reattempted rewritten reply. My first seems to have failed to post. Maybe coz I forgot to put a Subject line. I'm used to Usenet where the subject line defaults to its original unless you choose to change it.

MercutioATC writes:

> No database is infallible.

Can you cite any other BTS "error" ever, much less four of them all on the same day that are still wrong four years later?

> ou have to ask yourself which is more likely:
> (1) American and United airlines are lying.

Certainly AA is lying, because the first-hit vid shows a Cessna-sized blob, not a 767. Here's a comparison of what it looked like to what it should have looked like:
http://www.gallerize.com/WTC1_Hit/WTC1_Hit.htm#Page_6

Okay, while I'm at it, United's lying too, because the second-hit vids show that the thing that hit the second tower didn't break aprat at all upon impact. Steel skyscrapers are stronger than aluminum planes. Or else if the speed made the momentum great enough to punch through the front without damage to the craft, then the craft should have kept punching all the way through the back too, like an arrow through a cardboard box.

> All of the other FAA data suggesting those airplanes existed and flew is in error.

"Suggesting?"

> The people who supposedly boarded those planes never existed and their friends, families, schools and places of business are all lying.

I think most of the reported victims were real, and are really dead. They just didn't die in the way the govt-media conspiracy is telling us.

> The government is lying about recovering DNA and black boxes.

I already say the government is lying about it being an outside job, so, sure, they would naturally have lots of little other lies to flesh out the big lie.

> Those planes, which were regularly scheduled flights, just happened not to be scheduled that day.

Or maybe they were descheduled on purpose, having been selected as plot points within the terror-drill scripts.

> OR
> (2) The BTS database is in error...something they realized and partially corrected.

How does the BTS innocence hypothesis account for their changing their URL, without leaving a forwarding address, at the same time that they did the botched "correction?"


Ray Ubinger

Well, which seems more plausible to you?

[MercutioATC]

30. Wow! A lot to respond to. Here goes...

1) No, I can't cite a BTS database error like this one.

2) I didn't see anything on the page you linked to explaining how they arrived at the "correct" size of a 767. Range from the viewer to the aircraft and the building as well as range from the aircraft to the building itself will all have an effect on the apparent size of the plane. I'd also suggest that it you look at the two photos on that page, the depicted planes are shown at different angles (in the first image the plane is banked quite a bit farther to the left). Looking at the tails in both pictures, they appear to be of approximately the same size.

3) The outer walls of the WTC towers weren't load-bearing. Essentially, they were just a skin of thin steel and glass supported by relatively thin steel columns. The WTC towers weren't hardened structures. I don't have a problem with a plane being able to punch through the outer skin and remain relatively intact visually...obviously it would sustain major structural damage but since it's still moving forward at 300+ knots, the damaged portions of the plane are entering the building before the damage becomes visually apparent from outside the building a few hundred feet away. The fact that they DIDN'T emerge intact shows that they weren't some "super replacement plane". They flew through the relatively thin outer shell and started coming apart, hit the BIG steel core supports in the center of the building which broke them into little pieces, and some of those pieces has the residual velocity to exit through the relatively thin shell on the opposite side of the building.

4) Yes, "suggesting". I consider it proof, but some seem not to. I'm allowing for this and using the word "suggesting". It's a pretty well-founded "suggestion", though...

5) Granted, if you believe the crashes were a hoax, the black boxes and DNA were hoaxes, too. If you don't, though, they DO constitute evidence that the planes did crash as reported.

6) The problem with that supposition is that they WERE scheduled. The proof of this is that a lot of people bought tickets to ride on them. Since I didn't specifically check those flights prior to 9/11 I can't offer first-hand evidence of this, but the fact that many other people did choose to book tickets on these flights seems to evidence that they were, in fact, scheduled that day.

7) I have no idea why the BTS did a half-assed job of changing the data. However, if it was an attempt at a cover up, why wouldn't they have done the job right and amended the data to show that the planes actually departed? Hell, if it was a cover up, why didn't they just show that from the beginning? I think this is even greater evidence of database error rather than a conspiracy.

Hope I've made my thoughts a little clearer. Any questions or rebuttals, you know where to find me.

:)

[RayUbinger]

12. I am not Dulce

Regarding MercutioATC's subject line: "Dulce, is that you?"

In case that was directed at me (instead of at spooked911 as I originally assumed),
then the answer is NO,
I am not, and have never gone by, "Dulce," whoever he or she is. I am Raymond Charles Ubinger, of 1917 Glendale Avenue, Durham, North Carolina, 27701-1325, [phone]. I go by Ray. Ray Ubinger. My S11 research speciality is the Naudet snuff film:
http://911foreknowledge.com

Thank you again for the welcome.


Ray Ubinger

[MercutioATC]

13. I WAS serious about the welcome. The "Dulce" comment was tongue-in-cheek.

:hi:

Dulce liked to cite databases as irrefutable proof, even in the face of contrary evidence or common sense. She's been gone a while...

Do you REALLY believe that those flights didn't really exist? Do you believe that the people who boarded them never existed? That their "friends" and "families" all lied?

The BIG question: If the government was competent enough to pull this off without having anybody go public with it, why wouldn't they simply alter the BTS database to support their "story"?

[RayUbinger]

23. And I was serious about the thanks for the welcome :-)

MercutioATC writes:

> Do you REALLY believe that those flights didn't really exist?

I asked first: Do you really believe BTS made a major reporting error regarding each of four alleged flights all on the same day, and then innocently changed their own URL at the same time they finally attempted "correction" years later (only after the "mistakes" became public, and still not changing the flights to "Departed") -- AND innocently forgot to leave a forwarding URL? Can you cite any other BTS error ever, much less four on the same day that are still wrong four years later?

> Do you believe that the people who boarded them never existed? That their "friends" and "families" all lied?

I'm not aware of any friend/family testimony to the effect of watching one of the alleged passengers boarding a flight called AA11 or AA77. How about a ticket stub or purchase receipt with the 11 or 77 printed on it, was anything like that left behind in family possession?

> If the government was competent enough to pull this off without having anybody go public with it, why wouldn't they simply alter the BTS database to support their "story"?

I would say pulling it off w/o anyone going public with it doesn't take competence, it just takes threats. Threats to things like careers and lives.


Ray Ubinger

[MercutioATC]

31. I hate to do this, but look at Post #30.

I'd prefer to answer to you specifically, but I don't have the energy to type all of that over again.

So here goes:

1) Post #30

2) Those things probably exist, but I haven't seen them particularly reported.

3) I can only directly report from the standpoint of somebody who knows Stacey Taylor (the air traffic controller in who's airspace UAL93 crashed) personally. I've known her for years. If she was threatened in any way, she's done a DAMN good job of hiding it. Granted she's just one of many people, but I can state with great confidence that she WAS a witness to the events of 9/11, she WAS NOT threatened in any way, and she DID tell the whole story as she saw it to Tom Brokaw in her interview (so the public knows what she knows). I realize that cloak and dagger threat scenarios are popular, but it really doesn't work that way in real life...at least not in my experience. People talk. Controllers talk (to each other) a LOT. I've never heard of anybody being threatened to gain their silence. Never.

Again, I hope I've made my thoughts a little clearer. Questions or rebuttals? You know where to find me...

[RayUbinger]

11. Earliest reports said it hit WTC!

At least two commentators reported that an American Airlines statement said "Flight 77" hit the WTC. This is from Tim Canale's archive. He had the presence of mind to turn on his VCR, and later made four DVDs out of the recordings. I have a copy of those DVDs.


Some other early reports:

"Flight 93" landed safely in Cleveland with reports of a bomb on board

"Flight 175" crashed in Pennsylvania

A second hit on the Pentagon happened at 10:15, apparently by a second "plane"

Jamie McIntyre's up-close personal inspection: no airliner hit Pentagon

Multiple explosions at Pentagon and WTC after the "plane crashes."

Democratic Front for Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility

Car bomb explodes outside State Dept.


Clearly it took the mainstream media co-conspirators a few hours to get their ducks in a row.


Ray Ubinger

[philb]

16. But Flight Explorer radar track said it went to Kansas

See the original URL posted on this thread.
Its the source of such information used for many official purposes.

[MercutioATC]

20. See Post #18 above

[Ferry Fey]

21. Documenting the next time

"He had the presence of mind to turn on his VCR, and later made four DVDs out of the recordings."

Somthing to remember next time something like this happens. Yes, we may be grieving, may be in a state of shock. But the best way to honor those lost is to keep going, and make those responsible be accountable.

Get those VCRs turned on immediately, 24/7. Get local, national, international news reports.

Set up a thread on each board where people are monitoring the event, to see who's recording what, so that you are not all recording the same source but are spreading it out. Ideally you'd have at least a couple of people doing each source, so the info wouldn't be just on one computer, in one household, or on one server. But watch for new people who volunteer too much help without a track record, as you don't want their documentation "lost."

Save news accounts on the web in both html and hard copy.

[MercutioATC]

22. That's a good plan but remember, early reports are often in error.

There's usually too much confusion to get reliable data immediately after an event like this.

[RayUbinger]

24. Or, early reports could be alternate lies to the final-version lie

Perhaps some of the terror-drill scripts really did include plot points like
"UA93 lands safely in Cleveland with reports of bomb on board"
and
"AA reports that AA77 hit the WTC"
and
"UA175 crashes in Pennsylvania"
and
"Car bomb explodes at State Dept"
and
"Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine claims responsibility"
and the early commentators simply weren't aware they were reading from the wrong set of scripted lies.

How does something totally false like the State Dept. car bomb story get reported as fact by multiple networks? Who ever heard of the alleged DFLP? How would AA themselves come to think "AA77" hit the WTC?


Ray Ubinger

[Old and In the Way]

28. Whoa....now that's really important!

I've been wondering whether 77, 93, 175, and 11 were part of the terrorist hyjacking simulations that day. If these are recorded comments, you have to wonder about the whole scenario of 9/11. Now maybe the hijackers got lucky and used the wargames as cover for the attack....but for them to choose 4 flights that were in the Pentagon's actual exercise???

Either, we've got a mole working for Al Qaeda in our government or the whole official story of what happened on 9/11 is a complete fabrication.

I suspect those "terrorists" could well have been recruited to play their role for the Game....which means they may well have been victims along with all of the other passengers. Atta's personna never seemed to match with a wild-eyed Islamic fundementalist who'd suicide himself for the sake of 72 virgins....he was having too much fun on Earth.

[MercutioATC]

32. Or it COULD be the media's desire not to get scooped.

In almost every major event, there are differing early reports. The media tends to broadcast ALL of them rather than take the chance that another network broadcasts the true story first.

(American had no more information on where AAL77 was than anybody else. Why would you think that they would have some special insight as to what really happened to their plane?)

[Old and In the Way]

29. Is there a documented link to these statements?

A very simple question unanswered: were those 4 planes part of the exercise on 9/11?

I also agree that those "missing hours" were spent monitoring the reporting and getting their stories straight. They had to stay behind closed doors, least someone say something stupid like "I saw the 1st plane hit the WTC on TV...". Any other President would have been totally in the public, reassuring the country when leadership was needed the most.