9/11 was an inside job

[paddoboy]

The last two posts are excellent and reflect in no uncertain terms why these troofers, are no more than paranoid trolls.
It's quite obvious that the case put over the last few years to refute the troofers nonsense is more than overwhelming.
But all that has done is drive the nutters into a fanatical defensive mode, with them changing aspects of their fairy tale as each is invalidated.
That defensive mode will continue of that we can be sure, despite the two well presented excellent posts prior to this one.

 

[Grumpy]

roscoe

You're just not any good at this, you need a new hobby. Your amateurish argument and bratty attitude lead me to the conclusion that you really need to get out of your mom's basement, you just might learn something that isn't a Mountain Dew fueled delusion. When you get beyond these really simple to debunk idiocies, actually read the NIST reports and understand what the evidence actually is, then you might get beyond the "Hey, look at me!" phase of your adolescence and start understanding something enough to be able to talk about it without revealing your inner fool(as we all must eventually do). Get the stench of your computer chair off of your butt and girls might not run from you quite so fast(well, there's hope). Get a life, all the other Troothers moved on, only the dead enders are left. You guys lost by default, you were never really in the game at all.

Grumpy

 

[MacGyver1968]

If y'all remember...I used to like engaging in discussions about 9/11. I even was supposed to have a formal debate with Scott3x. He was about the last troof I remember that was semi-reasonable. After a while, I just came to the conclusion most were just suffering from some sort of paranoid disorder, and you can't beat crazy with logic. So I decided not to waste my time anymore. I'm much more productive with my time now....posting pictures of dancing cats:

 

[David C]

Can you see what you're saying here.

THERE'S NO PLANE. THE VIDEO EVIDENCE RELEASED BY THE FBI SAYS SO.

No, he says patiently, like talking to a small child, the video never had the plane on in the first place for any number of reasons.

Now, I've asked you twice and you run away from your responsibility as a trufer, explain better what occurred, and include even a remotely feasible scenario for the plane and passengers that you say didn't crash. In your own time.

SO WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE THAT A PLANE STRUCK THE PENTAGON? I'M USING STRAIGHT LOGIC HERE.

This is the 'what-have-the-romans-done-for-us' syndrome.

HA HA!!!! The old eyewitness gambit gets wheeled out. So all eyewitnesses are reliable are they? Including those eyewitnesses that reported bombs in the WTC complex.

Ear witness? Sounds like a bomb therefore is a bomb when all sorts of absolutely massive noises are created by various heat related things.

or is it the old selective eyewitness syndrome we have here. Yes Fire fighters who reported bombs going off in the twin towers are mistaken but eyewitnesses filing out of a Government building all under the Official secrets act are reliable are they?

Ear witnesses are not eye witnesses.

Wait until you hear the testimony by the Taxi driver. keeping that one up my sleeve.

Up your sleeve? You mean you think it's new or something?

 

[GeoffP]

The last two posts are excellent and reflect in no uncertain terms why these troofers, are no more than paranoid trolls.
It's quite obvious that the case put over the last few years to refute the troofers nonsense is more than overwhelming.
But all that has done is drive the nutters into a fanatical defensive mode, with them changing aspects of their fairy tale as each is invalidated.
That defensive mode will continue of that we can be sure, despite the two well presented excellent posts prior to this one.

I thank you for your kind comments; the problem as I see it is this, and it is inexorable.

As alternative media flourishes, it invariably invites a broad array of perspectives. Some of these will be conducive to the public good, and others will definitively not be so. An array of presented opinion is not a bad thing; there are a host of ways in which the MSM fails on unutterably critical social issues. But, as I allude to, off-track media does invite the crackpots.

9/11 Troof is a prime example of this: beyond any reasonable interpretation of the data, the Troof movement has engaged the actual events of 9/11 with a religious gusto that would make the operating officers of the Spanish Inquisition start to second-guess themselves. The Troofer in question - like Birther political critics - is committed to an alternative interpretation of events - to any alternative interpretation of events that excoriates the main line. Unlike some such sentiments, this is not a victimless appropriation of reality. There is a genuine harm to such blindness; it turns an attack from without into a racy Hollywood plotline. I suspect that they have tapped into a juvenile root of angst and excitement here, and that's the real danger. This excitement - a kind of adolescent zeitgeist idolatry enjoined by a plurality of fools - has enormous potential to derail the operation of democracy. Now, I am no democrat, nor Democrat, nor Republican, and my stake in the various shades of functional capitalism/feudalism exists to the extent to which it directly or indirectly impacts me. (Short version: someone is always trying to sink my boat.) But since that's the system in which we find ourselves...

Do you see the danger of it? Such delusionals do, or shortly will, exercise the vote franchise. Imagine a 9/11 Troofer candidate not 'vetted' or scandalised out of the democratic horse-race by the unfortunate and perfectly-timed discovery of their addiction to diet pills, or naked Twittering, or blocking bridges, or making highly questionable political connections. Imagine a block of voters in lockstep behind such a candidate. 'Manchurian' would be an apt comparison. And there seems to be no countering such fools. "Give me a child for the first 5 years of his life and he will be mine forever" wrote Lenin (allegedly); our educational system no longer provides an education in logical checkpoints that would arm a child with the perspective and reflection necessary to successfully and unemotionally abandon stupidity at need (religion is generally untrendy and is frequently abandoned with great gusto, and so is an exception to my rule above). Instead, it seems to be that society and the 'new media' empower the young to entrench illogical nonsense more firmly in emotion than ever before. It is a situation that cannot be allowed to persist, and yet what light can stop the train of this new economy, this new morality, this new sociality? We are socially stronger and weaker now than ever before. How will we break this black mare to bridle?

 

[roscoe]

Proof, please.



Erm! Meaning what? Where did FBI representatives say this? Did these cameras have the right angle to see the airplane crash into the Pentagon? What was their shutter speed relative to the terminal velocity of the aircraft? Would they even be able to catch it? You realise that these cameras were probably simple traffic monitoring jobs with a very slow shutter speed. This video demonstrates the exceptionally poor performance of these cameras; you will note the ridiculously bad coverage of a police vehicle moving through at 1:05, so unbelievably laggy that the major conspiracy in this tale has now become why in God's name these people are so cheap with their electronics.



I listened to your clip. Nothing on there about controlability. Next.



So your paranoia appears to extend so far that you object with evidence collection. Let me ask you this: are we allowed to photograph the site? Or would that interfere with the synthesis of the conspiracy?

This is elaborated below:



So the direction that his (presumably) fellow officer is going is now also suspect. Let's be clear here: you object to the fact that they are picking up pieces of the aircraft - and, I should mention here, you have no idea who these people are; my expectation is that they're officials helping to collect pieces of the aircraft. That would make sense. As such, why would they not touch pieces of the aircraft? Your specific concern however is the direction that the two individuals are traveling while doing so. Because, as everyone knows, after a suicide attack on a federal building, one always picks up evidence while walking in the same direction. Jesus, we've all seen the X-Files, haven't we? Can't fool us, man.



Thankyou - that image was extremely helpful. This is a flat-aspect shot of the Pentagon wall. There are no light poles here. Should there be? This is not the aspect of the plane strike, and so cannot support your hypothesis. Why have you included this photo?



Is there a reason for this image? Please indicate in full.



You're getting closer to the angle of attack, but are now too far to the right. This is also not on the aspect of the angle of the plane strike leading up to the building. Why was this picture selected to represent your position? Did you really think this was the right angle, or were you simply repeating what you'd been told?



Your defense is now resting on his use of language? Wheel stubs, being quite solid compared to the hull (which is obviously what he was referring to), wouldn't be expected to disintegrate. Can you now please address the existence of the wheel stub - and other aircraft parts - in the wreckage, please.



Please address your correspondence to the nearest FBI Field Office. Thanks.

The point is

THERE'S NO F____IN PLANE.


It doesn't get any more complicated than that.

We have the Pentagon explosion but no wreckage on the lawn

Then a mass evacuation of the Pentagon area.

Then hey presto

Wreckage on the lawn.

 

[Russ_Watters]

The point is

THERE'S NO F____IN PLANE.


It doesn't get any more complicated than that.

We have the Pentagon explosion but no wreckage on the lawn

Then a mass evacuation of the Pentagon area.

Then hey presto

Wreckage on the lawn.

Comparatively, there was very little wreckage on the lawn; the vast majority was inside the building. But all of the pictures you showed of the crash site show at least some debris on the lawn, even the ones you say don't. In particular, in the picture of the fire engines, the one on the left is clearly discharging its spray into a fire on the lawn.

 

[roscoe]

Comparatively, there was very little wreckage on the lawn; the vast majority was inside the building. But all of the pictures you showed of the crash site show at least some debris on the lawn, even the ones you say don't. In particular, in the picture of the fire engines, the one on the left is clearly discharging its spray into a fire on the lawn.

No wreckage on the lawn?

Ever heard of Newtons third law of motion.

 

[Russ_Watters]

No wreckage on the lawn?

Ever heard of Newtons third law of motion.

Yes, but why don't you explain to me what it is telling you in this context.

 

[roscoe]

Yes, but why don't you explain to me what it is telling you in this context.

"Every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

The plane hits with a force. An EQUAL force is projected back in the opposite direction.

Where is it?

 

[roscoe]

roscoe



Kiss my rosie red. I've been here a long time, I was here when it was the old site. So far I've managed to walk that fine line between putting up with trolls and giving them their just deserts. I think I can handle your pathetic drivel.



And we all recognize projection.



Wrong. Altimeters are pressure based, the radar altimeter is part of the landing system and were new in the 757. The FDR did not have a channel to record it's output as radar altimeters were not in use when their Federally mandated design and construction was finalized(after changing from metal foil to electrical means of storage in the 70s). In addition, in the FDR's next redesign they were changed to record GPS data for altitude in the following years, they skipped right over radar altimeters.



Yes, my point exactly. Without an image of the plane they were of no value to the investigation and reverted to the possession of the original owners with privacy protection and all that. Three of the videos were of use to the investigation and were subject to the FOIA so they were released. But even if there had been no video or still pictures of the aircraft the remains of the aircraft were still inside and in front of the Pentagon, it isn't like the FBI was saying there was no plane, just no photo of the plane. It's like you are claiming that the car wrapped around a telephone pole can't be proven to be the car that hit the pole because no one caught the event before it happened in a photo. It's pure idiocy, not logic.



And yet they managed to do just that in Washington and in NY. Three times. Your objection does not survive the evidence. I don't care if they were buzzing like a chain saw and flapping like a bussard, the fact remains that the debris and bodies(or parts thereof)were found inside the Pentagon, all the serial numbers and DNA matched, so it is a FACT that a plane that took off from the ground ended up inside the Pentagon even if no photos were available. Fortunately, we have much better documentation of even the very first impact...

[video=youtube;Ys41jnL2Elk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ys41jnL2Elk[/video]

And the second one...

[video=youtube;NpUKM0MFNaM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpUKM0MFNaM#t=215[/video]

Grumpy

Where's the Arabs? CLICK HERE

Oh was I using actual evidence? Oh how inconsiderate of me.

 

[Russ_Watters]

"Every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

The plane hits with a force. An EQUAL force is projected back in the opposite direction.

Where is it?

Oy. So clearly you don't know what that means. Apparently, you think it means the plane should bounce off? No, that isn't what it means. The plane applied a force (or forces) to the Pentagon, bashing a hole in it. The Pentagon applied equal and opposite forces to the plane, decelerating it to a stop and destroying it.

Yikes.

 

[roscoe]

Oy. So clearly you don't know what that means. Apparently, you think it means the plane should bounce off? No, that isn't what it means. The plane applied a force (or forces) to the Pentagon, bashing a hole in it. The Pentagon applied equal and opposite forces to the plane, decelerating it to a stop and destroying it.

Yikes.

And what was originally at where you say the hole is will be blown 'out' in the direction of travel of the aircraft.

And makes a hole larger than the object hitting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3veYeFF28yo

But not in this case it seems.

Windows above the hole unbroken.

 

[Russ_Watters]

And what was originally at where you say the hole is will be blown 'out' in the direction of travel of the aircraft.

Um....the direction of travel was in.

And makes a hole larger than the object hitting.

No.

In that video, the holes are exactly the size of the bullet or shell! And only a small amount of additional debris is deflected outward. Both very similar to what happened to the Pentagon.

 

[roscoe]

Um....the direction of travel was in.

No.

In that video, the holes are exactly the size of the bullet or shell! And only a small amount of additional debris is deflected outward. Both very similar to what happened to the Pentagon.

And after all this there's still NO PLANE.

It didn't even knock the reels of cable down.

 

[roscoe]

A one hundred ton aircraft (complete with two engines made partially of Titanium) went through here.

My my what big light bulbs they have.

 

[paddoboy]

The point is

THERE'S NO F____IN PLANE.


It doesn't get any more complicated than that.

We have the Pentagon explosion but no wreckage on the lawn

Then a mass evacuation of the Pentagon area.

Then hey presto

Wreckage on the lawn.

There was a plane...Evidence points overwhelmingly to that fact.
And that is what the official version has decided, and which most normal logical free thinking person would agree with.

But again, if you think you have evidence to the contrary, why come to a forum and constantly whinge and whine about what you think happened?
It wont change things...the verdict and judgement will stand, along with the verdict and judgement on your own intelligence and character based on your continued trolling.....

 

[roscoe]

This is quite long.

A plane that lands at an airport half a mile from the Pentagon less than two minutes AFTER the the Pentagon is supposedly struck.

Not only that but a string of incredible coincidences that accompany this plane.

Firstly

A search for all American Airlines scheduled flights departing from Washington Dulles International Airport on September 11th, 2001 showed no reference to Flight number 0077, the plane reportedly hijacked during flight to Los Angeles.
Flight number 0077 is a daily flight, however, it wasn't scheduled for flight on September 11th, 2001. I found that odd. No schedule for a flight which was reported to have taken place.
Maybe an administration error or oversight, or maybe I wasn't using the database properly..

Here is the full list of American Airlines scheduled flights departing from Washington Dulles International Airport on September 11th, 2001;

Airport: Washington, DC - Washington Dulles International (IAD)
Carrier Code Date

(MM/DD/YYYY) Flight Number Tail Number Destination Airport Actual Departure Time
AA 09/11/2001 0075 UNKNOWN
AA 09/11/2001 0135 UNKNOWN
AA 09/11/2001 0143 UNKNOWN
AA 09/11/2001 0371 UNKNOWN
AA 09/11/2001 0397 UNKNOWN
AA 09/11/2001 0510 UNKNOWN
AA 09/11/2001 0573 N871AA DFW 7:49
AA 09/11/2001 0599 N3BFAA SUN 6:57
AA 09/11/2001 0771 N3CAAA MIA 7:34
AA 09/11/2001 0975 N2ANAA ORD 6:26
AA 09/11/2001 1217 UNKNOWN ORD 0:00
AA 09/11/2001 1229 UNKNOWN ORD 0:00
AA 09/11/2001 1247 UNKNOWN ORD 0:00
AA 09/11/2001 1309 UNKNOWN DFW 0:00
AA 09/11/2001 1319 UNKNOWN DFW 0:00
AA 09/11/2001 1361 N493AA DFW 6:17
AA 09/11/2001 1787 UNKNOWN ORD 0:00

Yes the very people whose job it is to report every flight landing and take off failed to log the departure of Flight 77 from Dulles on September 11th 2001. Here's their listings for September 10th 2001.

Airport: Washington, DC - Washington Dulles International (IAD)
Carrier Code Date

(MM/DD/YYYY) Flight Number Tail Number Destination Airport Actual Departure Time
AA 09/10/2001 0075 N302AA LAX 8:00
AA 09/10/2001 0077 N632AA LAX 8:10AA 09/10/2001 0135 N5ESAA LAX 11:15
AA 09/10/2001 0143 N304AA LAX 15:00
AA 09/10/2001 0371 N866AA DFW 16:10
AA 09/10/2001 0397 N219AA DFW 12:55
AA 09/10/2001 0510 UNKNOWN DFW 17:51
AA 09/10/2001 0573 N719AA DFW 9:23
AA 09/10/2001 0599 N849AA DFW 7:56
AA 09/10/2001 0771 N3BWAA SJU 7:00
AA 09/10/2001 0975 N3BGAA MIA 7:34
AA 09/10/2001 1217 N2BGAA ORD 6:25
AA 09/10/2001 1223 N2CGAA ORD 9:45
AA 09/10/2001 1229 N2DFAA ORD 13:25
AA 09/10/2001 1247 N2AGAA ORD 20:21
AA 09/10/2001 1309 N871AA DFW 14:20
AA 09/10/2001 1319 N497AA DFW 19:32
AA 09/10/2001 1361 N226AA DFW 6:15
AA 09/10/2001 1787 N2BLAA ORD 16:55

If the quick knee jerk excuse is that everything was confused on that day well look at this.

Airport: Boston, MA - Logan International (BOS)
Carrier Code Date (MM/DD/YYYY) Flight Number Tail Number Destination Airport Actual Departure Time
UA 09/11/2001 0051 UNKNOW LAX 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0159 UNKNOW SFO 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0161 UNKNOW SFO 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0163 N526UA SFO 6:57
UA 09/11/2001 0167 UNKNOW SFO 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0169 UNKNOW LAX 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0171 UNKNOW SFO 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0173 UNKNOW SFO 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0175 N612UA LAX 7:58 UA 09/11/2001 0177 UNKNOW LAX 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0199 UNKNOW IAD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0211 N463UA IAD 7:39
UA 09/11/2001 0223 UNKNOW IAD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0317 UNKNOW IAD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0420 UNKNOW ORD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0503 N314UA ORD 5:52
UA 09/11/2001 0505 N431UA DEN 7:52
UA 09/11/2001 0507 N564UA ORD 7:28
UA 09/11/2001 0509 UNKNOW ORD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0515 UNKNOW ORD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0519 UNKNOW ORD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0523 UNKNOW ORD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0531 UNKNOW ORD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0575 UNKNOW ORD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0583 N433UA DEN 5:57
UA 09/11/2001 0595 UNKNOW ORD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0701 UNKNOW DEN 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0883 UNKNOW ORD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0895 N461UA ORD 8:24
UA 09/11/2001 0987 UNKNOW JFK 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 0999 UNKNOW SFO 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 1015 UNKNOW DEN 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 1051 UNKNOW IAD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 1119 UNKNOW DEN 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 1153 UNKNOW IAD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 1411 UNKNOW IAD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 1439 N356UA ORD 6:26
UA 09/11/2001 1607 UNKNOW DEN 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 1685 UNKNOW IAD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 1690 UNKNOW ORD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 1789 UNKNOW ORD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 1877 N556UA IAD 6:39
UA 09/11/2001 1879 UNKNOW IAD 0:00
UA 09/11/2001 1947 N435UA IAD 0:00

No problem with Flight 175. the plane that allegedly hit the south tower.

But there's more. There's this:

A chat between air traffic controller on the land line...recorded.

Quote:
9:11:23 — Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: know just where he left from or uh.

9:11:25 — Indianapolis Control, Dacos Radar Associate: there's no flight plan in the machine right now and - .

9:11:28 — Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: yeah I just looked at that, too.


An hour into the supposed flight Indianapolis still had no flight plan for American Airlines Flight 77. A chat with an airline pilot recalls how he regularly gets stuck at the gate because operations hasn't filed the flight plan to all the Control centres enroute. The fact that Indianapolis hadn't got AA77 flight plan is significant because he wouldn't have taken off and as we have already seen, he didn't.

We're not finished yet.

Supplementary to this here's the statistics for Ronald Reagan Airport.

All planes into Ronald Reagan Airport, half mile from the Pentagon, diverted except the last one. Now isn't that strange boys and girls?

The plane that reportedly struck the Pentagon was N644AA The mystery plane Tail number N644AW Only the last letter of the tail number is different.

And look at the landing time.

At the very least this plane was landing whilst events were taking place. Whilst Hani Hanjour was making this weird maneuver over Washington a legitimate flight (with a very similar tail number) was landing at the same time half a mile away. How did they know that this plane wasn't heading for the White House?


Quote
The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT
- wikipedia. (Actually it was probably nearer to 09:38 )

See Hanjour's supposed path and position of Ronald Reagan airport. Continue the arrow forward in the turn and you can land at Ronald Reagan Airport, precisely as N644AW did two minutes after Hanjour's plane supposedly struck.

Quote:
"One more note, as we had many odd occurrences with lights flickering, movie screens up and down, Annette (Air traffic controller on duty) mentioned that (N)644AW is known to most f/as as the "ghost ship" in America West system."

Air traffic controller at Washington sept 11th 2001.

So the ATC witness confirms it was there.

So was it this plane that the eyewitnesses saw? Did this plane overfly the Pentagon and land at Ronald Reagan Airport?

It gets better, read on.

American Airlines Flight 77:

Tail#: N644AA
Owner: Wilmington Trust Co.
Disappearing transponder signal location: Ohio, 8:56 amImpact time: *9:38 am*, Pentagon


America West Flight 0098:

Tail#: N644AW
Owner: Wilmington Trust Co.
Departure: Ohio, 8:40 (Wheels off time) Arrival: *9:39 am*

America West filed for bankruptcy in 1991, but was "rescued".

Yes the America West flight 98 that landed at Ronald Reagan Airport less than two minutes after all mayhem was breaking out at the Pentagon took off from Columbia Ohio Airport which is just north of where American Airlines Flight 77's transponder was last recorded.


Quote
Timeline:

CMH = Columbus Airport. It's located (precisely) at the north of the point where the transponder of AA77 is switched off and it disappears":

"At roughly 8:56 the plane appears to stop in south Ohio:"

"At 9:07 it suddenly reappears further along its flight path then then stops again, apparently moving west":

"At 9:25 the plane reappears again this time on the border between Indiana and Illinois":

"At *9:43* (after the official crash into the Pentagon) Flight 77 is flying over south Illinois and is nowhere near the Pentagon.) The last few blips after that seem to be fairly random, but ultimately the plane seems to get as far as Kansas.

This plane is showing Flight 77 transponder ID

It seems America West Flight 98 is posing (on Secondary RADAR) as American Airlines Flight 77 over Washington. This plane overflies the Pentagon and lands at Ronald Reagan Airport.

In 5 years of investigation of flight 98 (passengers etc) no information has been found. It's a government plane.

The Evacuation of Reagan Airport at *9:30 am*

It seems that people were thrown out of Reagan Airport a few minutes before the Pentagon crash, at about 9:30, but it doesn't look like a controlled evacuation. Take a look at these statements from people on Reagan airport:


Lindsey Kriete, 24, of Wellesley was scheduled to leave Reagan National on a 10 a.m. flight to Boston. About 9:30 a.m., all hell broke loose, Kriete said, as airport personnel began running through the terminal, telling passengers to leave quickly. By the time Kriete had rounded up her belongings and tried to calm people who were crying, all the taxis were gone and the subway had shut down.

Another...

The phone rang. It was my sister, on her cell phone from Reagan National Airport in D.C. She was within minutes of boarding a plane to Atlanta when U.S. airspace was shut downand she was talking very fast:
"They're telling us to forget our bags and get out of the terminal!" she said. And then, as she got outside, she began to lose her composure. "I hear something that sounds like explosions . . . I'm afraid!"

It later became clear that the sounds she was hearing were actually coming from the Pentagon, which is near Reagan National.




So can anyone here tell me why Ronald Reagan Airport was evacuated before the Pentagon attack but neither the White House, The Senate nor the Pentagon was evacuated? AT ALL!!!!!

Might they have seen something they shouldn't have?

Oh and by the way.

There is no record of American Airlines ever previously using N644AA for the IAD Dulles - LAX Los Angeles route.

Please Note that the statement on this photograph is from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and NOT from a Conspiracy Theorist

Yes it's official American Airlines Flight 77 never took off that day.

It seems we just had aircraft posing as it as part of the exercises being conducted that day.

Northern Vigilance

Vigilant Warrior

Vigilant Guardian

Global Guardian

PS

In truth there was only one exercise that day but many different stations involved in the exercise had different names for this one exercise. The object was to foster confusion.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm not even going to try and dicredit that load, sorry ol son....I'll let someone more expert on this tragedy refute your rubbish for what it is....

But again, your Impressive list should be presented to the authorities with all your other stuff, then if it is as you say [nudge, nudge, wink, wink] they will change the verdict......
Why do you haunt a science forum, when you have already disclosed what you think of us here........
Because these forums are the only outlets nutbags have with this type of nonsense?

 

[roscoe]

I'm not even going to try and dicredit that load, sorry ol son....I'll let someone more expert on this tragedy refute your rubbish for what it is....

But again, your Impressive list should be presented to the authorities with all your other stuff, then if it is as you say [nudge, nudge, wink, wink] they will change the verdict......
Why do you haunt a science forum, when you have already disclosed what you think of us here........
Because these forums are the only outlets nutbags have with this type of nonsense?

Because there are than just a few who think that they can argue by insulting me reading this.