9/11 Report: FAA radar equipment tracked Flight 77 for entire flight

From the 9/11 Commission report, page 25 (pdf 42):

The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8 minutes and 13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis Center.(142 )The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.

According to the radar reconstruction, American 77 reemerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radar scopes at 9:05, east of its last known position.The target remained in Indianapolis Center’s airspace for another six minutes, then crossed into the western portion of Washington Center’s airspace at 9:10. As Indianapolis Center continued searching for the aircraft, two managers and the controller responsible for American 77 looked to the west and southwest along the flight’s projected path, not east—where the aircraft was now heading. Managers did not instruct other controllers at Indianapolis Center to turn on their primary radar coverage to join in the search for American 77.(143)

In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west. Although the Command Center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington,D.C.(144)

In other words:

For 36 minutes on 9/11, Flight 77 was not observed by the controllers, leading to great speculation about landings and passenger herdings/offloadings/what-have-you.

But going back to the records, it's now shown that Flight 77's path was captured on primary radar recordings. There was that first eight minutes and thirteen seconds when the controllers weren't looking at the primary radar coverage. The remainder of the time was spent looking at the primary radar coverage in the wrong place.

So the hijackers turned off the transponder and then turned around. The ATCs then spent 36 minutes looking in the wrong place while the plane flew on towards Washington. But Flight 77 waas

Is there a question why the transponders were turned off anymore? It must have been for this very reason: to obscure the planes and contribute to the chaos that allowed the attacks to succeed.

Hey! Let's reprint the footnotes too!

142. Primary radar contact for Flight 77 was lost because the “preferred” radar in this geographic area had no primary radar system, the “supplemental” radar had poor primary coverage, and the FAA ATC software did not allow the display of primary radar data from the “tertiary” and “quadrary” radars.

143.David Boone interview (May 4,2004); Charles Thomas interview (May 4,2004); John Thomas interview (May 4,2004); Commission analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic.

144. John Thomas interview (May 4,2004); Charles Thomas interview (May 4,2004). We have reviewed all FAA documents, transcripts, and tape recordings related to American 77 and have found no evidence that FAA headquarters issued a directive to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. Review of the same materials also indicates that no one within FAA located American 77 until the aircraft was identified by Dulles controllers at 9:32. For much of that time, American 77 was traveling through Washington Center’s airspace. The Washington Center’s controllers were looking for the flight, but they were not told to look for primary radar returns.

Merc, chime on in! From what I'm understanding, "contact" means human being looking at the blip and knowing it's an airplane, which is what happened at 9:32 when Dulles identified Flight 77. Yet Flight 77 is identifiable the entire time upon review. Is that right?

It didn't land. It didn't go someplace else. We have radar reconstruction which show Flight 77 took off, turned around, and crashed at the Pentagon. FAA radar equipment tracked it the entire time.

Whether the controllers saw the primary returns on their scopes at the time or not, they were recorded and seen by investigators.

Nice succint explanation of this...thanks!

1) If not the primary radar, what radar was being observed by the FAA? Secondary?!? Ya mean to tell me they don't use the best radar - all the time?

2) Will any of this radar evidence be made available to REAL independent researchers? Or is it owned by the boosh administration?

3) You may notice that this info comes out on May 4, 04. Just weeks later, the report is written without enough time for examination by anyone not connected with the admistration. One must wonder why they waited so long to study this radar scenario, and why it has never been discussed by the officials until now.

4) Does anyone else find it funny that not only AA 77 was described as 'lost from radar', but a careful reader will remember that NORAD was quoted as saying another plane was also lost that same day. Flight 93, IIRC.

All in all, considering the massive cover-up before, during and after the establishment of the Kissinger (oops), Republican. Gov. Kean Commission, one simply must take everything that comes out of their mouths with a grain of salt. Anybody who now says the story is finished has an awful lot to learn.

Befree

1) The primary radar display can be deselected at the sector (to reduce clutter). Additionally, at Centers we use a radar mosaic system where the data from multiple radar sites is interpreted by a computer to create an image which means the computer is always filtering out some data. That data still exists on the original tapes, however.

2) Dunno...you'll have to ask the FAA.

3) It was one piece of evidence that they looked at. They haven't commented about a lot of things until the report was complete.

4) Not me. "Lost from radar" can mean a lot of things...the media abuses ATC terminology (actually ANY technical language) frequently.

Why do you continue to keep so many secrets? You act as if you know a lot, but what you share is limited. Oh well. You wrote:

1) The primary radar display can be deselected at the sector (to reduce clutter). Additionally, at Centers we use a radar mosaic system where the data from multiple radar sites is interpreted by a computer to create an image which means the computer is always filtering out some data. That data still exists on the original tapes, however.

When the computer locks on to a blip it never lets go until it leaves the sector. Turn off the transponder? No matter. The computer keeps the blip labeled until it leaves the sector.

What the report seems to say is that the computer, after the transponder was turned off, the computer just said: 'Aw screw it... the transponder is off so lets eliminate AA77 from the controller's screen.'

Wow. Those 'Cavemen' were LUCKY. Even the computer looked the other way that day. It filtered all traces of AA77, even with it's transponder turned OFF. Lucky again.

"When the computer locks on to a blip it never lets go until it leaves the sector. Turn off the transponder? No matter. The computer keeps the blip labeled until it leaves the sector."

That is patently false. If a transponder it turned off, the computer does not associate the data tag with the target. The data tag will show a "coast" message and will continue along the aircraft's filed flight plan regardless of where the actual target goes.

The computer didn't drop AAL77's tag, it just wasn't keeping the tag and the target associated. When AAL77 turned, the tag didn't go with it. Nothing unusual about that.

Nothing unusual, eh? Happens everyday, eh? Transponder gets turned off on a multi-million dollar plane full of passengers, and the computer drops it, takes it off the controllers screen, the controller thinks it crashed, and he/she rings the alarm.

All this time the computer is laughing to itself... "really screwing with the controllers today, hahaha". Happens everyday, eh? "Nothing unusual."

Good lord the lame excuses ya'll come up with. Now it's the computer's fault that AA77 snuck into DC. Happens everday. Gag.

I explain how things work and you call it a "lame excuse".

Not knowing is understandable. Most people just take it for granted and never think about it. Having it explained by a person who uses it every day (well, 5 days a week, anyway) and dismissing it as "lame", however, is "determined ignorance".

By the way, I explained that the computer does NOT "drop it" or take it "off the controllers screen." The data tag continues to follow the filed flight plan of the flight.

"The data tag continues to follow the filed flight plan of the flight".

So the flight plan is logged into the computer, eh? Interesting. But, if there is no radar blip, and the computer can't/won't read the primary radar, the computer just merrily continues to run with a tag? It coasts?

So let's see... AA77 transponder is turned off. The computer says: "Oh well, just coast." Meanwhile the human controller, the person who knows the plane is lost ("nothing unusual") can't bring up the primary radar, can't do shit because the.... well, something wouldn't let him do his job.

Actually merc, I do understand. You, and the commish, both blame the computer for allowing AA77 to sneak into DC. That's what is so lame.

You were the one that began this with a post claiming that:

"When the computer locks on to a blip it never lets go until it leaves the sector. Turn off the transponder? No matter. The computer keeps the blip labeled until it leaves the sector."

I simply explained that this is NOT the case and detailed what really does happen.

Of COURSE the flight plan is logged into the computer. If it wasn't, how would we know where all of these planes were going? The computer doesn't "say" anything...it's a computer. I've explained what it does when it loses a transponder squawk. The controller then executes one of a series of procedures designed for this very circumstance (having the pilot recycle the transponder, having the pilot push the "ident" button on the transponder, having the pilot switch transponders if he has more than one, having the pilot execute 30-degree left and right turns). Usually, one of these will work.

That aside, even with no radar identification of AAL77, it still didn't land at Reagan. Radar contact might not have been maintained, but you'd better believe that "eye contact" was made with every plane landing at Reagan by controllers, other pilots and ground personnel.

I thought you were buying into this thread's lame excuse:"The Computer Was At Fault For AA77 Sneaking Into DC"

Still, merc, you are about as clear as mud with your attempts telling us how the ATC system works. Why, "nothing unusual" seems to be your favorite cliche.

One thing you missed, merc, there was no blip on the screen for the data tag to follow. The computer lost it. Oh yeah, you say the primary radar had it all the time but the computer wouldn't show it to the controller. Got it. "It was the computers fault". Sorry, I'm not buying that explanation. Nobody in their right mind would. Do you?

The controller very well may have had the primary target display deselected. That doesn't change the fact that the computer records the primary radar data, whether it's displayed or not. A subsequent review of the radar tapes would show the primary target.

As far as being "as clear as mud", if you're confused by anything I say, feel free to ask me to clarify it. I've never declined to do so.

Ok, the controller may not have had the primary selected. But with the transponder off, the blip gone, the controller thinks AA77 has crashed somewhere in Ohio, he doesn't select the primary??!

Look, bolo started this thread using the lame excuse of the computer is at fault. Do you believe that or not?

He clearly said that the controllers were looking for AAL77 in the wrong place. That's not the computer's fault.

Even if the controller HAD selected the primary display, every primary target looks the same (a small "+"). If a plane makes a hard turn and the controller is doing something else at the time, that target could be very hard to differentiate from other primary targets in the area (especially when you're looking where the target SHOULD be, not where it IS).

The computer wasn't as "fault". The bottom line is that the system requires compliance. If somebody doesn't want to be tracked, it's difficult to track them in real-time, unless you happen to be watching them at the moment they turn the transponder off. Of course, that data IS still recorded and a review will show exaactly what happened.

Ya gotta love that, eh? The data is there, but the controller can't get to it. Yep, clear as mud.

But hey, the ATC's have a backup, right? NORAD. Plus, the Pentagon surely has their sights set on planes in the sector? Yep, protecting our nations capitol from all intruders.

"We didn't imagine they would use planes as missiles"

Yep, it's all clear as mud.

As I've explained numerous times in the past:

Center radar is a radar mosaic system. Data from multiple radar sites is processed by the HOST computer and a "picture" is displayed on the contriller's screen. When data conflicts, the computer has parameters it uses to decide which data to display (different radar sites may get a slightly different radar return on a target. Based on things like terrain and range from the radar site, the computer will choose what it believes to be the most accurate picture).

The controller also has the option to filter out some of the data. (traffic above or below a certain altitude, primary radar targets, etc.). The computer is still sending the data to the scope, the controller is just filtering it out.

In BOTH of these cases, ALL data is being recorded by the computer, whether displayed or not.

Is that clearer?

If the controller knows the transponder goes off and he thinks the plane has crashed, (as was stated about AA77) then why can't he get the computer to show him more info, ya know, like that data that is being recorded?

...it's just a push of a button.

It's not my impression that it would have made a difference in this case, though. It sounds as if the controller didn't see the first few moments when the transponder was turned off. If that's the case and AAL77 turned quickly (which it did), his first reaction would be to look further along AAL77's route of flight - NOT back where it had come from. Remember, at that time there was no indication that AAL77 had been hijacked. This allowed AAL77 to get further away from where it was supposed to be, making identification even more difficult. That's why it was thought that the plane had crashed...it wasn't anywhere it was supposed to be.

A UFO. Don't computers have something built into them to alert controllers to a UFO?

One thing, the official story is that it was a software glitch and/or a processing problem. I'd say not notifying the controller of a UFO was a problem, eh? Is that what the glitch was? Oh wait, you don't agree with the official report. Damn, it's getting Murky.....

Of course, if the plane lands, it goes off all the radars and there is no UFO. Now that scenario fits real well with the multiple plane theory and works rather well knowing what we now know about the possibility of a remote controlled plane taking the place of AA77.

Ya see, we have now shot down the official story, with your help. We've established that a UFO was in the sky, flying toward DC and nobody did squat during the few vital minutes that the controller thought AA77 had crashed.

Them's the facts.

No, computers don't " have something built into them to alert controllers to a UFO"...mostly because it's just another primary target. At any given time, there's thousands of unidentified primary targets out there (every plane that doesn't squawk a code is just a primary).

I don't read the official version as blaming a software glitch. It simply states the capabilities of the system as it's programmed.

I'm not sure what you mean by fitting really well with the multiple plane theory. Yes, if review of the radar tapes wasn't possible, I'd agree that it was possible for the planes to have been switched mid-air. The problem is that once you know where to look, you can follow the primary targets and there's been no evidence of other targets in the area that would have been necessary for the switch to have taken place.

"Nobody did squat" isn't an accurate characterization of events. Plenty of people looked for the plane. It simply wasn't where it was supposed to be and the system didn't have a way of telling them that. It's not a "glitch", it's a limitation.

You're the only one making things "murky". Once you stop assuming that I agree with the official version 100%, things will clear up for you.

Hmmm...

Ok, So there are thousands of UFO's flying around? Hmmmm. What about flight plans logged into the computers? What about UFO's around DC? Nothing unusual?

Evidence?
"The problem is that once you know where to look, you can follow the primary targets and there's been no evidence of other targets in the area...."
We'd like to see that 'no evidence' evidence of which you wrote. Of course, any conspiracy would have made sure there was some evidence of no evidence in the records, now wouldn't it?

Nobody did squat... A large plane -a UFO- headed for DC and no missiles were launched from the pentagon, no Bogey warnings were issued, and no FAA warning, alert, APB, or request to find or identify said UFO was issued? Like I said, nobody did squat. Kinda makes ya think there was nothing to do. The plane landed at RR airport per flight plan (just like the new theory says) and the small plane that did hit the pentagon was close enough to it to not be on anyone's radar.

Now, that's not murky at all. Makes perfect sense. Better than a UFO approcahed DC and nobody did sqaut.

I see I have my work cut out for me here. I'll deal with the issues as you present them.

1) Yes, there are thousands of "UFOs" flying around (if you mean that in the strictest sense, not the "flying saucer" sense). There's no requirement that you file a flight plan or squawk a code if you're a private pilot and the weather meets certain minima in enroute airspace). Plenty of pilots do just this. In addition, every primary target is not an airplane. Clumps of mylar balloons will return a radar signal. There are plenty of primary targets (completely unidentified) at any given time. Evidence? Read the regulations.

2) I'm afraid that I can't give you "evidence" of "no evidence". I've seen no reports of other targets in the area.

3) Again, plenty of people did plenty. They were just looking in the wrong place. I can't answer for NORAD or missile defenses at the Pentagon, but there's no reason to expect that, having lost track of the primary target, ATC would see a random target as suspect. Nothing landed at Reagan. Even IF a plane had turned off its transponder and approached Reagan unidentified, it would have been questioned as soon as it entered Reagan's airspace. There are different rules for enroute and terminal airspace. While anonymity is possible in enroute airspace, it's not in terminal airspace...certainly not on a runway.

My advice is to throw out all of your preconceptions about what ATC and its systems are "supposed" to do and listen to what they're actually capable of. Getting rid of your false ideas will help clear things up.

You have no evidence, just words.

A UFO approached DC and entered reagan's airspace unopposed. Unopposed.
Nothing unusual, is all you can seem to say. Do you see why I have a hard time believing anything you write?

My advice is to throw out all of your preconceptions about what the official 9/11 theory is "supposed" to claim and listen to what they're actually capable of. Getting rid of your false ideas will help clear things up.

I think AAL77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Yes, I CAN see why you have a hard time believing anything I write. You're basing your "truth" on how you believe things SHOULD work, not how they DO work. Don't believe me. Find another enroute ATC and ask THEM. My point is you don't know what you're talking about because you've never learned anything about the system you're discussing.

Give ol Murky enough time and space, and you never know what he'll come up with next.

You seem to epitomize the phraze "one-trick pony" lately. I've responded to this in appropriate threads. I'm not responding to it here.

"The system" would know. No, nothing unusual about that. Couldn't have happened without being noticed. Not ATC's responsibility. FL 77 did crash at the Pentagon. I don't necessarily believe every single word in the Official Story (I don't even believe half the contradictory things I say). No evidence of that, but why would you expect any. See, you don't have any right to write about this because you just don't understand how we operate (but, you're getting awfully close to figuring out what our strategy is, and that's making me nervous). If you would just discard your notion that a bunch of Cavemen couldn't have done it, and if you knew something about ATC systems, then you'd know what I'm talking about. I NEVER SAID I don't have questions, and I never said my answers make a bit of sense either, but that's not the subject. Besides, you haven't shown me any evidence that FL 77 couldn't have crashed at the Pentagon, and there's no evidence to the contrary that the big nine foot hole that I can't explain wasn't made by a UFO. Now, if you want to discuss this in an adult-lite fashion, then remember, I'm the expert here on our systems and just because it sounds like I'm a Disinfo-wannabe, there's no evidence to the contrary. Got it?"

Thanks for making my point.

I'd always assumed that when the transponder was turned off, that the data tag winked out too. So what actually happens is that a "coast" message is added to the data tag.

I'm guessing then that if the transponder comes back on, that the software reunites the data tag with the target?

Since the data tag continues along its expected path, I'm also guessing that normally an ATC would expect the target to be about where the tag is. That's another potential way of hiding the planes from the people tracking them...

At the risk of contributing to Abe's Wacky Caveman rhetoric, how could the hijackers have gotten this knowledge of how the ATCs do their job, Merc? Is this something that's taught in flight school? Where is this kind of information available?

in how the system works. I'm guilty of the same thing. I don't know all of the ins and outs of power generation and transmission...I just expect the light to come on when I flip the switch. Most people are that way about air traffic control.

If the transponder comes back on near where the data block is, usually the computer will reassociate them. If not, we usually have to manually move the data tag to the target.

It was just different from what I thought. Now I know better.

Like I said, most people just never think about it.

as landing at Reagan National then?

You'd think they'd notice something like that, wouldn't you?

It's a very plausible conclusion, consistent with the known facts.

How could anybody possibly be so terribly mistaken?

Apply immediately to take charge of the FBI.

That's the only plausible conclusion consistent with the known facts, including the one this thread is about.

Fact: Flight 77 was a large American Airlines jet.

Fact: Five members of an al-Qaeda hijacking cell boarded Flight 77 on September 11, 2001.

Fact: Flight 77 was tracked the entire time it was flying on September 11, 2001.

Fact: It never landed at any airport on September 11, 2001.

Fact: While air traffic controllers watched Flight 77's radar signal fly towards the Pentagon, eyewitnesses watched a large American Airlines jet fly toward the Pentagon.

Fact: The large American Airlines jet crashed into the Pentagon, according to hundreds of eyewitness accounts.

Fact: The mortal remains of Flight 77's passengers were discovered in the Pentagon crash site.

All of these facts (not speculations, Abe) are consistent with a single conclusion.

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

How could anybody possibly be so terribly mistaken?

Apply immediately to take charge of the FBI.

No, seriously.

I'd honestly like to know why you feel the need to slam me AND Abe.

I could understand one or the other, and have a suspicion on why you'd have fun mocking us both, but I'd like confirmation of that.

I, unlike you, will accept personal messages here at DU. My email is also boloboffin@hotmail.com . Feel free to explain your hangup with me there.

Your perpetually pompous picking on Linkman is too cheap a thrill.
Poor sport.
Like little kids who amuse themselves by trapping flies just to pick their wings off.
You know perfectly well that apart from your own shallow satisfaction there is nothing whatsoever to be gained from it by way of intellectual enlightenment, don't you?
Do you also kick cripples in the street just for the fun of it?

Linkman is not a trapped fly. He's no cripple in the street. He's here of his own volition, as am I. I possess no other power over Linkman but the truth of what I say and the falsehoods that he perpetuates. I cannot keep Abe here or force him out of this battle of words, a battle in which he's gotten in much more fouler shots than me, I assure you.

(added on edit) You seem to have a twinkly pair of tweezers yourself, objection. Did you really ask Abe if his mom knew how long he was spending on the computer, and something about dangling genitals? Your criticism of me borders on the hypocritical.(end addition)

And why do you cast me as the instigator? Abe posts here far more often than I. I don't respond to him all that much, and I rarely invoke his name unless I'm replying to a message of his. Look around this forum and see how often I'm used as a byword by both Dulce and Abe. Who's gunning for who in this battle? Who's trying to deal with the actual facts and who's turning the battle into one of personalities at every available chance?

I'm here for a single reason: to get John Kerry into office. I see the Democratic Underground forum as a big part of that goal. Anything that dilutes the power of this website is something I'm ready to counter, and one thing that will dilute this message board is tolerating the silly conspiracy theories that Abe, demodewd, and Dulce pump into this place daily.

These events happened: al-Qaeda attacked this country, many people died, huge buildings collapsed on top of the living and the dead. This struck a strong emotional chord in the hearts of Americans, just as it took away the breath of the world.

And it didn't have to happen. Bush's incompetent administration of the United States government was blindsided by this event. Then they scrambled all over themselves to misdirect the American public into a war with Iraq. The fool got us into this mess - can we expect the fool to lead us out?

No.

John Kerry learned something during his service in Vietnam: how to get his men out of a mess. He won three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star getting his men out of messes. When he got stateside, he dedicated his public life to getting the rest of the men out of Vietnam. I'm ready for John Kerry to put his hand to this mess - it'll stand a far clearer chance to getting straightened out.

And those who would come on this forum dedicated to seeing John Kerry win the 2004 Presidential election and try to convince people that planes did not take off, that people did not die and suffer horrible injury, that the facts are not the facts - these people will find me standing here calling them to task for it.

Was I given the gift of smartass? Yes, I was. I'm trying my best to use it in the service of good. How would you rather I debate those who refuse to be debated, who would only spread more falsehood and who openly revile those who stand in their way? A little humor goes a long way, and if what I say doesn't amuse you, then join me...

...because what I say doesn't amuse me much.

I'll laugh at what I say a bit, but I get distracted by the thought of Father Mychal Judge, the openly gay chaplain of the NYFD, who died when he stopped to administer the last rites to a dead body in the street. Another unfortunate fell and struck him dead.

And I think about the National Geographic field trip aboard Flight 77 who didn't get to watch brown pelicans on Santa Cruz Island because some fanatic millionaire with a chip on his shoulder decided to teach their fellow Americans a lesson in human cruelty.

And I think of Mark Bingham, who stood up with the rest of the passengers of Flight 93, and fought back in the equal opportunity fight of their lives.

And then I renew my dedication to seeing the truth told about their deaths and giving no quarter to falsehoods right or left about them. Humor helps me keep it light, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that humor's my only objective.

I mean to win.

Sure, there is no trapped fly. You do not possess the power to swat. You and others tried for ages to pin the insect but every time around it just flits off another direction.

And it's all for the sake of Kerry?

Can only say that it doesn't look like it. Was curious but I'll soon get over that.

Let it buzz. It can't sting; just likes to think it can because it knows how to irritate.

You're throwing just as many wisecracks as me at everyone involved, but you condemn me for doing the same.

Fine.

You roll in here for a couple of weeks and decide that you've got everybody's number.

Fine.

Yet unlike me and like the theorists, you refuse to fill out a profile, accept any personal messages, or tell us anything about why you feel qualified to contribute to the conversation or set yourself up as a judge of us.

Fine.

Keep buzzing, objection. As long as you're irritating Abe et al., I can put up with a few backhands every now and again. Have at it.

It's about picking on people your own size. With Eastman maybe you'll have half a chance to prove a point. At least he seems to feel the need to pretend to be rational.

I decided long before rolling in. Just thought that a few glaringly obvious points needed to be put to the issues. Thought the time had come. Stuff like the Lagasse "port" quote and the "pod" landing gear conflict. One or two more to come if you're lucky.

From a distance one gets a better perspective. Make of it what you will. Trapped in the mire the stink begins to cling, so don't be too surprised to see me buzz off before long to a better vantage point.

It was nice knowing you. Who I am is nothing to be concerned about. There is no prize for guessing.

If the "one or two" you've got in reserve are as clear and cogent as the landing gear-pod conflict and the "port" quote, I'm eager to hear them.

I will thank you for making me aware of how I'm percieved from afar. Perspective is what we all need here. I just hope you realize that I've never ever given as badly as I've gotten here. I haven't always caught what's been deleted on these forums, but I've seen a couple of them. Let's leave it at that. I should remember that those statements aren't part of the public record and keep my emotions out of my posting.

but I must have missed the job posting for a room monitor...

Justice never came like a feast on a plate. To achieve the semblance your liege must place his claim; prove a case; call the shot. The precarious virtue of patience is n'er enough, scarcely a pause to tease the demon.

In the mean of time there comes a pain to see a perfectly honest, helpful cause deleted only then to see alerts ignored in face of flagrantly clear breaches of the local rules.

The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft interred with their bones.

...not sure what it has to do with your attempts to play "policeman" here, though...

What exactly is your problem?

:shrug:

Your heckling begins to resemble Abe Linkman.

Is it contagious?

...Skinner usually posts openings every few months.

take it up with Skinner.

Naw, Skinner has enough to worry about...I'll just utilize my ability to ignore certain posts.

(The Taming of the Shrew: Act I, Scene I.)

You happily toss your own insults around while condemning me for doing so. Sounds like hypocrisy to me...

But hey. We all have our little hangups.

Please review the Shakespearian context from which the quote is extracted.

It was MercutioATC, not I who proposed to utilize an ability to ignore certain posts. I had responded to all of his.

One can but wonder how many he will thus be left with.

If at times the tone is curt put it down to the determined gritting of teeth.

I'm talking about the sideswipes that you've been handing out not to Merc, but to Abe, Dulce, and other proponents of alternative realities. I'm happy to put it down to the determined gritting of teeth - that's something I could understand.

But people trying to end flamewars shouldn't play with matches. That's all I'm saying.

Terrible mistake!

I'd thought that this was democraticunderground.com
not alternativereality.com

From what I'd seen before it seemed to be a standard tactic. First wind your oponent up sneakily to a state of risibly manic delirium. Then henceforth to feel superior stay perfectly calm rational and pompous while the demeanour of the frustrated, intellectually inferior opponent progressively deteriorates.

Is there another kind of game in town?

From what I'd seen before it seemed to be a standard tactic. First wind your oponent up sneakily to a state of risibly manic delirium. Then henceforth to feel superior stay perfectly calm rational and pompous while the demeanour of the frustrated, intellectually inferior opponent progressively deteriorates.

I'm operating from a different assumption about people's mental states here. I possess no power to wind anyone up, nor does anyone here possess a way to affect me...

...unless I allow them that power.

If my opponent winds up into a state of risibly manic delirium, that's something I don't have any power to control or cause. I simply don't. Personally, when I recognize in my day-to-day life that someone is pressing my buttons, I calm down and take my buttons back. My opponents could do the same, but they choose not to do so. That's not my concern.

Do I get a feeling of superiority because the demeanor of the frustrated opponent progressively deteriorates? I suppose it's there to take if I wanted it. But since I have no power to control or cause said deterioration, how is it to my credit if it happens?

In short, Abe is playing himself. Now that you've shown him how susceptible he is to this defensive strategy, you might have done him a service in that he might calm down and actually consider the materials and arguments that we have been patiently holding before him for two years now.

But I won't be holding my breath on the matter.

PS: You got me on "pompous", though. The other day I actually used the word "equidistant" in telling someone how to go to the restrooms. Rest assured that the universe daily corrects any inflated opinion I develop of myself.

Add to your "credentials" comedian.

What else you got on that tray?

The video images released prove that it wasn't a B757 that crashed into the Pentagon.

Did FL 77 land at Reagan National? Maybe.

"That IS the Official Story, but we now know & have proof it's a lie."

Still waiting.

Pentagon video image shows a small jet plane, not a big B757.

Case closed.

Pentagon video image shows a small jet plane, not a big B757.

No video image shows that.

You have every right to be an apologist for the bushco version of 9/11, and you have every right to come here to DU and pretend not to be doing that, and pretending not to be here only to distract and undermine those of us who don't believe your "Cavemen" story. Worst of all, the rules protect YOU and allow you to slander researchers who don't agree with your bushco version, but that's the deal we've all agreed to.

The bushco apologists have not convinced even one person over the past three years of spinning and putting out disinformation. Not even one person (who isn't on your "team") has said they think you are right about any material fact concerning the fairy tale your side is still trying to sell.

If you ever try and turn pro, make sure your compensation is based on effort, not results.

In 2001 I was convinced by the "No Arab" propaganda.

Then I took the trouble to examine all the facts, not just any conveniently small selection. Try it sometime. I was encouraged to do so not by any apologist but as a direct reaction to the sort of "small jet" absurdity that you continue to attempt.

Your (who isn't on your "team") tautology is laughable. The truth is not all black and white. That way of thinking is for small minds only.

Have you used up all the cliches and generalizations in your arsenal?

I know what persuaded me. You don't.

So for your benefit, not mine, I tell you.

The facts persuaded me.

:eyes:

:toast:

FACT: FBI won't talk to them.

FACT: N644AA remained on the FAA registry until January 14, 2001.

FACT: The NSTB was forced to surrender the investigation to the FBI.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/major.htm
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2001/010913.htm
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/hear.html

FACT: The FBI has been caught faking evidence and testimony NUMEROUS times.

FACT: FBI has no facts.

FACT: people with hijacker's names still alive

FACT: all four hijacked planes totally destroyed

FACT: the FBI has also convicted people of crimes based on the evidence

FACT: Dulce has no facts

It's a compliment to DU that bushco feels the need to have PR flacks just to help sell the Official "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory, and to daily work to undermine, distract, and otherwise make it more difficult for people who know the Official Conspiracy Theory is a lie.

It's almost funny that they apparently think no one here would think it odd that apologists for buscho & the Official Conspiracy Theory could come on & not be seen for what they are.

Which raises the question about whether or not MERC, "lared", and VV also claim to support John Kerry for President. (we already know that bolo says he does, and we have to take him at his word...at least on that point. only Dick Eastman et al. are subject to having their integrity questioned, without risking deletions and banishment)

It's good to see that we agree on something.

I take it that you don't deny that. (yes, the work goes on, no matter who is in the WH...the folks who dole out the contracts don't stop, just because a new man is at the top)

Professional cover-up artists are always in demand. After all, there's a lot to cover up, no matter who is in the WHouse.

I'm confused, Abe. I'm asking you if, as this website is designed to do, you are trying to get Kerry elected in November. You either support Kerry or you don't.

Maybe you hold your nose as you support him. That's okay, as long as you support him.

It's no secret. I post in other forums here at DU, too.


"It's almost funny that they apparently think no one here would think it odd that apologists for buscho & the Official Conspiracy Theory could come on & not be seen for what they are."

I think it's almost funny that people believe that the government would PAY people to visit some online forum with the intent of "spreading disinformation". Do you really think the government CARES what a few DU'ers think?

By the way, I've never questioned Eastman's integrity, just his logic, problem-solving skills, spelling, grammar, sense of humor and sanity.

BOLOboffin says:
FACT: people with hijacker's names still alive

WASHINGTON -- Among the human remains painstakingly sorted from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites of Sept. 11 are those of nine of the hijackers.
The FBI has held them for months, and no one seems to know what should be done with them. It's a politically and emotionally charged question for the government, which eventually must decide how to dispose of some of the most despised men in American history.
<snip>
Four sets of remains in Pennsylvania and five at the Pentagon were grouped together as the hijackers -- but not identified by name -- through a process of elimination.
Families of the airplanes' passengers and crews and those who died within the Pentagon provided DNA samples, typically on toothbrushes or hairbrushes, to aid with identification. The remains that didn't match any of those samples were ruled to be the terrorists, said Chris Kelly, spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which did the DNA work. The nine sets of remains matched the number of hijackers believed to be on the two planes.
http://www.detnews.com/2002/nation/0208/17/nation-564209.htm

As investigators pursued new leads on Saturday, some old ones seemed to be falling apart. And new ones with odd twists were emerging. An FBI spokeswoman said the agency is working on 1,000 leads in Florida alone.
Among those leads are The Washington Post story about a possible U.S. role in the training of the pilots. A man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, the Post reported. Men with the same names as two other suspected hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, appear as graduates of the U.S. International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., and the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, respectively.
“Some of the FBI suspects had names similar to those used by foreign alumni of U.S. military courses,” the Air Force said in a statement. “However, discrepancies in their biographical data, such as birth dates 20 years off, indicate we are probably not talking about the same people.”
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-culprits16.story

"Two of 19 suspects named by the FBI, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi, have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Pensacola. Two others, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/specials/attacked/A38270-2001Sep15.html
http://newsmine.org/archive/9-11/questions/us-military-trainees.txt

The Pentagon has turned over military records on five men to the FBI.
Sept. 15 — U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s.
THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,” according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.
Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official.
http://prisonplanet.com/alleged_hijackers_may_trained_us_bases.html

And now,
let us hear what acerbic objection BOLOboffin will utter.
Start by naming ONE
JUST ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL
who has been convicted by the FBI based on 911 evidence.
Mary Jo White and I are waiting.
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/kup310a.html

"We believe he is by far the biggest find we have had so far. He is of crucial importance to us," an FBI source told the Times of London.
Lotfi Raissi, 27, the first of dozens of suspects arrested across Europe to be officially linked to the U.S. hijackings, was ordered held without bail after a British prosecutor told the court that Raissi may have helped the hijackers acquire their piloting skills.
"What we say is that he was in fact a lead instructor for four of the pilots responsible for the hijackings," said the prosecutor, Arvinda Sambir. "He was in the background to facilitate training of these pilots. His job was to ensure the pilots were capable and trained."
Sambir said Raissi's mission related to American Airlines Flight 77, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. It was unclear whether he was suspected of training hijackers on other jets.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-29-Sat-2001/news/17113504.html

An Algerian pilot wrongly accused by the United States government of training some of the September 11 hijackers is to sue the FBI and the Department of Justice for $20m (about £13m), his British lawyers announced yesterday.
Lotfi Raissi, 29, who spent five months in Belmarsh high security prison following the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, had originally been told by the US that he was likely to be charged with conspiracy to murder and could face the death penalty.
However, a British judge refused to extradite him to America on the grounds that there was no evidence against him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1042915,00.html

Wednesday June 30, 2004
Mrs Raissi said yesterday: "There was not a shred of evidence that Lotfi had ever been connected to terrorism. He was not even charged with terrorism, just stupid minor charges that the judge threw out anyway. Our lives have been ruined by what we were put through.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1250511,00.html

Your lot can't even nail Lotfi Raissi for knee surgery
http://www.legalcasedocs.com/120/250/264.html

The documents turned over to Congress included an FBI affidavit against Lotfi Raissi, an Algerian pilot the United States is trying to extradite from Britain in proceedings that began Tuesday.
Authorities allege Raissi trained some of the hijackers who attacked the Pentagon. The affidavit said he made false statements in applying for a pilot's license.
The FBI said Raissi failed to notify the Federal Aviation Administration of knee surgery and told the FAA he had no history of non-traffic convictions although he had been convicted of theft in Britain.
http://foi.missouri.edu/secretcourts/603detained.html

Lotfi Raissi was originally held on suspicion of having trained one of the suicide pilots but those charges were dismissed at an earlier hearing when the U.S. failed to substantiate its case.
On Wednesday, the U.S. attempt to have Raissi extradited on lesser charges such as lying on a pilot's licence application form was also thrown out.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/24/inv.uk.hearing/

That's why Ashcoft and Co so desperately need to torture people.
It is the ONLY way they are going to get a guilty plea or verdict.

A long-term resident of the United States who President Bush believes may have aided a terrorist can now be tried in secret by a military commission and be sentenced to death on the basis of hearsay and rumor with no appeal to any civilian court, even the Supreme Court. This is the upshot of the "military order" issued by Bush on November 13, 2001. And that is not all. Noncitizens suspected of membership in Al Qaeda or of aiming "to cause injury to or adverse effects on the United States" can be rounded up and "detained at an appropriate location" for an indefinite time without access to the courts.

BOLOboffin says:
FACT: all four hijacked planes totally destroyed

BOLOboffin therefore impugnes the integrity of the FAA.
N591UA
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=591UA&cmndfind.x=22&cmndfind.y=22

N612UA
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=612UA

BOLOBOffin says:
FACT: Dulce has no facts.

O'Reilly?

Prepare for another flip flop from Coincidence Inc. :toast:

I've gotta hear this...

Everybody on that side of the Pentagon was distracted by the explosion that made them all look up to exactly where the plane would have been.

:nuke:

Now what about the flaps and the landing gear, the wind direction, the airspeed and the flight path?

:crazy:

Boy, they sure missed a spectacle!

But...but...........but.......

There must have been a substitution......

After all.....

How could Hani leave Dulles looking like this.........


And end up at the Pentagon looking like this.........

You made your point before.

The photo was not of course taken at the Pentagon.

Got anything to say about the radar?

That's what this thread was about.

Hanji was undercover and felt naked without the rag he wore on his head back in SA. Hanji was always sensitive about his thinning hair and certainly wasn't going to meet Allah showing too much forehead.

a weapon was concealed within the toupee.

Seriously.

with it being a shaped charge that exploded inside the Pentagon and caused that great big exit hole that merc has been unable to explain, but just wouldn't accept as being the result of a shaped charge explosion. Now, we know how it could have gotten into the aircraft.
Those were/ARE? some cleverly fiendish Evildoers/Haters of Our Freedoms.

You're already in charge of the FBI, right?

<shaking my head>

Integrity? VV? NOW HEAR THIS.

WTF do you know about integrity Abe? All you do is parrot other people's ideas of which you have little understanding of yourself.

"Engine parts too small to be from 757": A tiny bit of research was able to smash this claim. Use your head.

"Shaped charges made the hole": Do some research. Shape charges degrade in open air (we are talking a meter or two) after penetration, and certainly do not make 9' holes in walls, (unless the shaped charge was about 8' in diameter itself) after 100m.

Is this true?

Come on Abe.
Here's your big chance.
No kidding.
No catch.
No B.S.

Be your own judge.

Give us a link to your most original idea so far, something that nobody else had come up with before you.

That pic actually shows a revolving door Mossad processing station, apparently ever major US city has one.

Wow...they knew it was Flight-77? Even with no transponder squawk? Must have been Mohammad Atta, phoning down with his Nokia while eating a bag of pork rinds, sucking on a Bud-Lite, and yucking it up with his Mossad handlers in their rented Mercedes while on the way back to Newark. Wait...you mean to tell me...that you really believe that a 757 - a 65 ton plane, traveling hundreds of miles per hour, with the kinetic energy of an entire freight train, and 8600 gallons of jet fuel, with a BTU rating in the millions, hit the Pentagon and left a 16 foot hole, and the third floor windows above impact unbroken? Son...you need serious medicine...and here is just what the Doctor ordered...a red pill for Mr. Neo:

http://www.policestate21.com/

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

...explains the physics nicely.


As far as tracking AAL77, the primary target existed even if the data tag wasn't associated with it. Even if the controller lost track of AAL77 at the time, a subsequent review of the radar tapes would reveal the flight path.

(on edit)

I'm confused about where you really stand on the issue. If your post was sarcasm, please disregard.

purport to explain the phsyics of anything. It's nothing but a PR piece that hides its true intent behind a false claim of being an assessment of the damages done at the Pentagon.

It doesn't even mention the most obvious damage: the nine foot circular exit hole in the building. And, the "explanation" (incomplete and incomprehensible, and illogical as it sounds) given by merc-who-claims-to-be-an-ATC-employee...sounds like something out of the "Matrix". It could only be true in the movies.

It doesn't even mention the most obvious damage: the nine foot circular exit hole in the building.

Wrong. Figure 5.16 is a large picture of the hole in the AE Drive. That's on page 30.

On page 28: There was a hole in the east wall of Ring C, emerging into AE Drive, between column lines 5 and 7 in Wedge 2 (figure 5.16). The wall failure was approxiamately 310 ft from where the fuselage of the aircraft entered the west wall of the building.

In addition to this, there are a lot of pictures from a physics-based model of the airplane entering the building that have the hole in AE Drive clearly labeled.

Your assertion is so completely wrong that it demonstrates you have never read the report at all. Read the report, Abe. If we have to slog through every missile pod essay that gets posted here, the least you can do is read the reports we post.

Read the NIST study. Read the Pentagon report. Read the 9/11 commission report. You don't have to agree with anything they say, but it will help you talk about their contents rationally.

Tell us the bolo ("I'm just a ___ 'here' in Nashville") theory about what caused that big hole.

Take as much space as you need.

That's all the space I need.

I notice you can't admit you were wrong about the report. Others who read this forum notice it too.

food trays caused the big exit hole. I think the reason you took the Clintonian method of responding is because you know that you can't give a plausible explanation.

A large mass of jet fuel and debris moving at high speed is cited at the force that caused the damage to the reinforced interior columns by the ASCE. Why is it not possible, then, for that same force to have knocked a hole in an unreinforced exterior wall?

It's a ludicrous suggestion, sort of like saying OJ was practicing chip shots in the backyard whenever his wife and Ron Goldman were murdered.
Nobody in their right mind believed that, but OJ's lawyers were only concerned with cooking up a lie that would give at least one person on the jury who didn't OJ convicted, an excuse to rationalize voting Not Guilty.

Total baloney, and you know it. No way. A nine foot ROUND hole was created by debris and fuel "moving at high speed"! Right. Sure, merc.
I can almost see the smirk...merc.

Just wondering.

The fuselage of a 757 weighs a lot, Abe, because it has a large mass. When this mass is travelling 250+ miles an hour, it carries a lot of what physicists call momentum. When a large mass with that kind of momentum slams into walls, the momentum is transmitted to the wall, and if the sudden increase in load overwhelms the wall's capacity to bear that load, it destroys the wall.

Especially when the initial momentum is increased by a huge jet fuel explosion.

By the time the fuselage of Flight 77 had reached the wall of the AE Drive, it had expended a great deal of momentum. But it had enough left over to punch a nine foot hole into the wall.

That's HOW it happened, Abe, and WITH WHAT it happened.

Now it's your turn to answer a question. I've answered yours, now you answer mine.

How exactly did the bodies of Flight 77's passengers arrive at the Pentagon? Remember, most of them were discovered very close to the punchout hole in the AE Drive. Chart their path from Dulles that morning to their resting place inside the Pentagon.

Take all the space you need.

Have you seen the photograph of that hole, bolo? It's a round, almost perfectly ROUND hole, bolo. Not even the fuselage of an F16 would have survived intact by the time it got to the point where the big CIRCULAR hole was made.

Your explanation does not account for how a nine foot CIRCULAR hole was created. A shaped charge explosion would account for it.

You gotta no explanation, bolo. That CIRCULAR hole couldn't have been made according to your vague explanation of what happened.

Do over. If you can.

You have some evidence that fuselages always leave square holes or something?

On Edit: Looking at the picture in the Pentagon report, I see that the hole isn't perfectly round. It's flat along the top and bottom. Also a section of an interior wall is further out on the left side. The external brick facade is rounded on the left and right side of the hole, but with that interior wall and flattened top and bottom, there is no way to call this a perfectly round hole.

Again I ask, where's your evidence that fuselages always leave a different shaped hole than the one found at the Pentagon? Otherwise, your "fact" doesn't negate anything.

You have some evidence that a fuselage has EVER gone thru three building walls and then created a nine foot round exit hole as its final act?

Where's the evidence for that, bolo?

Where's the evidence that a fuselage has EVER even survived intact AFTER
crashing into a reinforced building, bolo?

Where's the evidence that ANYONE believes the unsupported claim you are
trying to sell here, bolo?

I never said that the fuselage arrived intact after crashing into a reinforced building. The mass was still there regardless of the shape of the fuselage.

My evidence that a fuselage has once gone through three building walls and then created a nine foot high hole?



As you can see, the hole is NOT round. It's rounded on the left and right sides, but flat on top and bottom, with a protuding section of interior wall on the left. Get your basic facts straight, Abe: the hole is not round.

And by the way, I'm not trying to sell anything here. My observations are at all times 100% free. I don't have a paypal button, I'm not hawking a video or a book, and I'm not trying to sell tickets to a revisionist conference. There are plenty of salesmen around here, but I'm not one of them. Get your facts straight.

You didn't give even one example of your ever-changing theories about how that big nearly-perfectly-round nine foot exit hole is not the first time that has ever happened. You implied it's common, but it isn't.

You cannot give a plausible, convincing explanation for the big exit hole, so you have to change the subject, or pick something minor out, and try and shift the focus of attention away from the big exit hole.

Why do you need to that? Obviously, because you know damn well you're pedaling a bunch of bull corn.

How do we know THAT? Because, first of all, there's ZERO evidence that a large airliner even crashed at the Pentagon, and you continue to claim one did...despite not being able to substantiate it. So, you start off with a claim of something that never happened, and of course you're going to have to do a lot of shucking, jiving, ducking and diving.

Good thing your livelihood isn't dependent on your ability to convince anyone that the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory is the truth.

The hole is not perfectly round. It's not nearly perfectly round. It's not round at all. I publish a picture of the hole to prove this, and Abe sticks to his talking points. (The bit about my trying to shift attention away from the exit hole in response to my posting the largest picture of the exit hole I've seen is a particularly gifted bit of reality denial.)

I explain how and why the fuselage was able to break through the wall, and Abe sticks to his talking points.

This thread began as a discussion of one complete chain of evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon: a full tracing of the trail of Flight 77 from takeoff to crash in the radar records. This, combined with the eyewitness testimony at the crash site and the recovery of airplane and passengers from the crash site, is incontrovertible proof that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

Abe, unable to deal with reality on its own terms, sticks to his talking points.

I'll leave it to the readers to decide, Abe. They know who's dealing with the evidence and who's got their head in the sand.

How is what you're doing any different than what a PR flack would do?

See message #82.

I've answered the question. Pretending that I haven't isn't getting you anywhere.

These facts remain: Flight 77 is traceable from takeoff to crash on the radar recordings, eyewitnesses report the crash of a large AA jet, and both airplane and passengers of Flight 77 were discovered at the site.

Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. Any theory that denies this basic fact of history rightly suffers an immense loss of credibility. You might as well deny that humanity has walked on the moon, or that the earth is not the center of the solar system.

YOu might as well deny that over 6 million Jews lost their lives in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany.

Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

You don't have a shred of evidence that FL 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

You don't have a shred of proof for how a disintegrated fuselage could go thru three or four walls and then make a nine foot round exit hole in the last one.

You might as well deny that Disinfo agents do the kinds of things you do.

The evidence I and others here explains how the hole got there.

Get your basic facts straight.

to make the issue one of whether or not the big nine foot exit hole is perfectly "round". No one said the hole is perfectly round, bolo. You are trying to use a JUNIOR high school debate tactic with this one. I'm surprised. I thought you are a professional.

The fact remains that you cannot explain how a disintegrated fuselage could have made that hole. In the first place, the only "disintegrate" fuselage at the Pentagon is NOT a 757. It's a small single engine jet. Most likely, an F-15 or F-16.

You and Murky have trotted out so many different and contradictory explanations for how the hole got there, I bet you don't even remember them all.

LEARN some basic facts. At least, have the good manners to try and spin
FACTS, not just bushco propaganda.

"In the first place, the only "disintegrate" fuselage at the Pentagon is NOT a 757. It's a small single engine jet. Most likely, an F-15 or F-16."

I'll show you a wheel and a landing gear that couldn't possibly have come from a fighter (not to mention the oxygen bottle that wasn't photographed). How did these come from a "small single engine jet"?

Abe, you can't cite a theory with no evidence, ignore contrary physical evidence (or claim it was "planted"), ignore eyewitness reports and be taken seriously.

Before you spring your next "theory", how about dealing with some of the issues you've been ignoring, like why so many eyewitnesses saw a commercial airliner or where the gear and wheel (and oxygen bottle) came from?

You consistently misstate the nature of the hole. You consistently ignore the radar evidence, the hundreds of eyewitnesses, and the forensic evidence found at the scene of the crash.

I tell you what: since Merc and I have "trotted out so many different and contradictory explanaions" about the hole, why don't you enumerate them for us all? Actual quotes, please, with links to the actual posts. If you can't even produce three quotes, though, your statement will be regarded as the utter bullcorn it is.

Since you say the fuselage is that of an F-15 or F-16, you must have seen a picture of the fuselage, correct? Why don't you post it here for the enlightenment of us all? Otherwise, another Abe Linkman claim of fact will be exposed as bullcorn.

I eagerly anticipate your actual contribution to the discussion at hand (which is supposed to be about the radar trail, remember? How do you dispute that?)

I know, I know. I've asked you three questions. At least do me the courtesy of answering one of them.

You can avoid dealing with the real issue by appearing to quibble over the dictionary definition of round.

The issue isn't HOW round the hole is, the issue, as you well know, is HOW DID IT GET THERE?

"Good cop" says some kind of fuel mixture and debris flying thru the air
in a formation that resulted in a round hole.

"Bad cop" says no, that isn't how it was made. The hole was made by the round, but not perfectly round, square, but not so square fuselage of a disintegrated 757.

"Bad cop" (and sometimes "good cop" Murky, too) wants us to believe the fuselage was disintegrated. That way, we shouldn't expect for there to be any evidence of it. We're just supposed to take the word of a spinner.

Why do you both rely on notoriously unreliable, selective eyewitnesses?
Especially, if you are claiming to be something other than what some people might reasonably conclude is the case?

Further discussion with you is pointless.

And, that is why you must resort to evading, dancing, distracting, distorting, and every other cheap trick in the PR/Disinformation book.

Nearly everyone here knows exactly what is going on, and you know that they know. There's only one reason I can think of for why you don't just cease and desist from the BS. And, you know that I'm right about what that reason is.

Coincidence, Inc. (pretty good one)
Flip Floppers, LLP
Murky Waters & Associates
The Fantasticks ("the whimsy is as thick as that")
Diversion Magic Company
Advocates For Hire
Actors Studio
Chefs On Demand ("Recipies For Anything...Have A Bite, TODAY")
Spinning Wheel Riders

Why do YOU rely on the rantings of people who know nothing about aviation (Eastman) and a single frame of a blurry video that could depict almost anything?

NOTHING you say about the Pentagon attacks is credible if it is premised on a lie. And, it IS a lie to say that a 757 crashed there. The video proves that whatever the attack jet was, it was way too small to be a 757.

There's more crash evidence of a 757 than an F-16 (or anything else).

They definitely weren't from the B757 aka FL 77. They couldn't be, since the video image proves that the attack jet was way too small to have been a 757.

Not only is there NOT "more crash evidence of a 757", there is NO evidence of a 757 having been anywhere close to the Pentagon except to the roof, which it flew over. The parking lot video is the best eyewitness to what crashed at the Pentagon, and it shows a small jet and the trail of a missile it fired jus prior to crashing into the building.

If the plane doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Fact: Hundreds of eyewitnesses saw the large American Airlines jet that crashed at the Pentagon. This is not one or two accounts, Abe, this is literally hundreds of eyewitnesses from every walk of life who agree on the identity of the plane. The only resort of 9/11 revisionists to dispute this is to label all eyewitness testimony untrustworthy. This is so patently weak that it doesn't require discussion to dispute.

Fact: The existing radar tapes from 9/11/01 show Flight 77 taking off, turning around, flying back to Washington, and disappearing off radar in the vicinity of the Pentagon. This is a clear and unadulerated chain of evidence concerning the "murder weapon". At Dulles, this plane was known as Flight 77. It had 64 people aboard. It took off and was tracked continuously by radar during its entire journey. No attempt to deal with this clear chain of evidence has ever been attempted by the 9/11 revisionists here at DU.

Fact: the bodies of Flight 77's passengers were recovered at the crash site. No reasonable explanation of this fact has ever been given by the 9/11 revisionists. Tales of transporting bodies or a faked forensic investigation collapses under the necessary requirements for such an elaborate hoax.

Fact: the parts of an airplane recovered at the crash site were consistent with a 757. Only a few actual pictures of plane parts at the Pentagon have been released, and most pictures of building damage occured after the removal of debris. But those pictures we have are consistent with the parts of a 757. The proof of this has been posted at this board over and over.

All of this evidence points to a single conclusion, to the exclusion of all others: Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon. Any theory that denies these basic facts and their inescapable conclusion is a theory that can be safely discounted by rational people.

And that's a fact, Jack.

Eyewitnesses claimed they heard a missile, saw a small commuter jet, and one or two even said they saw Mr. Murky in the vicinity. The only eyewitness whose account cannot be disproven is the video image showing a small jet (waaaaaaay too small to be a 757) crashing into the Pentagon.

Whatever happened to FL 77 (and I doubt that any PR person or even any Disinformation agents know for sure), it didn't crash into the Pentagon.

The ONLY physical evidence of a plane crash at the Pentagon is inconsistent with it being from a 757...except for the obviously-planted
piece out on the immaculate Pentalawn.

You know all of this. Better than 95% of the people here. How you know it BETTER is anyone's guess, but nearly everyone has a good idea.

The inescapable conclusion is that what you are promoting is not supported by credible information, or even common sense. The proof is the fact that after three years, you have not convinced even one person. As I told "lared" - if you ever decide to do what you're doing for a living - make sure that your compensation is based on efforts, not results. < I'm assuming you still have amateur status. No, really. >

People here are smarter than you must think they are. Unless that doesn't have anything to do with why you're here.

...so your answer is that they were PLANTED???

:eyes:

The only piece large enough to have come from an airliner was a piece that couldn't possibly be from AA FL 77 & was planted on the quite Amazing, Pristine Pentalawn.

Aren't you embarassed to think you could get away with that kind of trickery? Amateur or Pro? Would BOTH do that?

This has been dealt with before here, Abe. Find me a picture of a small jet with a wheel of that size and style.

(By the way, the wheel does match a 757 wheel both in size and shape)

Do your co-workers know anything about that?

It's a simple question. Do you have an answer?

The only jet that crashed at the Pentagon is the one seen in the fuzzy parking lot video. That's the one the wheel came from -- assuming that the wheel wasn't planted there as false evidence.

doesn't it?

Who planted the DNA? Who planted the child's hand that was found by rescue workers inside the Pentagon?

By your logic, your precious single frame of video could have been planted...

You really should just stick with the pointless ATC lectures and leave the PR stuff to someone who knows what they're doing: bolo.

Wanna talk about baseless PR?

YOU & your fellow spinners have yet to be able to rebut Eastman's conclusions about 9/11.

In fact, you & your fellow spinners have yet to prove even ONE part of the Official Conspiracy Theory. You claim (actually, YOU claim all kinds of things, depending on what you're trying to spin) that a bunch of cave dwellers were able to outwit the entire U.S. Intelligence community, Pentagon defenses, and even those grossly overpaid ATC people. Where is even ONE shred of evidence that OBL had anything to do with 9/11, other than being framed as a Patsy? If your president couldn't come up with the evidence he promised that would prove OBL was behind it, why should we take YOUR word for what happened?

That's physically impossible.

That's one rebuttal. You've read (and responded to) my original rebuttal of Eastman's ramblings. Have you forgotten?

Why the nose of that plane went thru tons and tons of concrete and steel all the way thru several walls, columns and beams, punched a hole thru one last wall, then, and only then, after smashing thru all that ...evaporated!

That's one magic jet. Thanks for helping us to see that, bolo.

"Wait...you mean to tell me...that you really believe that a 757 - a 65 ton plane, traveling hundreds of miles per hour, with the kinetic energy of an entire freight train, and 8600 gallons of jet fuel, with a BTU rating in the millions, hit the Pentagon and left a 16 foot hole, and the third floor windows above impact unbroken?"

This was a question regarding the entry hole and broken windows at the Pentagon in relation to the claim that a 757 caused that damage. The ASCE report addresses these issues.

Y'know? If you're so certain that I'm not what I claim to be, tell me what would convince you. What proof could I provide that would allow you to believe I'm an ATC at Cleveland Center? I'm betting there IS none. Regardless of any proof provided, you're committed to making this into its own little conspiracy.

...how far does that tendency go?

http://www.policestate21.com -- all of the physics you will ever need...plus a really good high pressure enema for those who have the official fairy tale crammed obtusely so far up their back doors that they have it squirting out of their noses. Do not even try to tell me a 757 hit the Pentagon...I will not debate it..consider it..been there...done that for a rather long time. The evidence is clear..it is complete..crystal..pure...757? Let me know when Elvis gets here.

...not that far apart, either. You wouldn't happen to BE VonKleist, would you?

I'll let you know when Elvis gets here if you'll show me anything that disproves any of the ASCE report.

Ok. :crazy: