1810 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

You do it - it is you so desperate to believe the aircraft was Flight 77.

Are you implying to everyone on this board that American Airlines lied when it reported that American 77 crashed into the Pentagon?

[booNyzarC]

Wandering, on 19 April 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

Well this is what I mean BoonY. How many people did you just blanket as '100% liars'? How do you know this? Because RB himself is in question, it means that a pilot with a perfectly honest and truthful statement posted on PfT is going to be called a 'liar' by yourself?... Shame.

I'm well aware of Q24's stance and It makes alot of sense. Q24 has never done what you just did though. Call every single person on their forum a 'bunch of liars and frauds' is....well It's apparent how highly you rate yourself, let's say that.

Who are you to make this decision?

I didn't say that every single person on their forum is a bunch of liars and frauds.  If I did, please quote me instead of inventing your own italicized version of my statements.  Don't put words in my mouth.  If you have a question, ask...  but don't put words in my mouth.

I was intending to infer that the idiotic claims supported by PffffT are lies, and that those who put them forward as some kind of evidence or fact are liars and frauds.  This is primarily isolated to Rob Balsamo, but there is a core active membership which likewise fit the bill.  I've personally exposed their most recent fraud for what it is, along with substantial contributions from Cz and Warren Stutt.  There is no question about this except among the weak minded and easily cajoled.

Wandering, on 19 April 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

You can understand my confusion then as it appears to imply the broken link takes you to the quote by AMTMAN.

So after reading all 2 pages of the thread, we are still in the same situation as before. Someone online assures you that the part came from Flight 77, with no details? & people think conspiracy theorists want to believe badly...

I thought there was serial numbers involved in the thread? Have I missed a post? Is there serial numbers from that picture somewhere I missed that we can make a phone call regarding? Yes? No?

I do understand your confusion, and I had hoped to clear that up with the clarifications.

As for the question of accepting the information provided by AMTMAN, I really don't care.  I don't need AMTMAN's statement to be convinced that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.  There is plenty of other evidence to reach that conclusion as far as I'm concerned.  The DNA evidence alone confirms it.  The eye witness testimony corroborates it.  The video evidence corroborates it.  The RADAR evidence corroborates it.  Common sense corroborates it.

If you doubt the information provided by AMTMAN, by all means object to it or make an effort to actually try to refute it.  Don't blame me for the information, I only shared it.

For the record, I never presented this as a smoking gun proof of any kind.  Q24 posted a picture and posed a question.  I provided a quote and a link to the source of that quote.  If you don't accept the information provided, I really don't care.  I do accept the information.  I can be convinced otherwise if anyone makes the effort to successfully refute it.  I've given my reasons for why I accept it.  Fault me for it if you want, but unless the information is adequately refuted I see no reason to not accept it.

Edit to add...

Here is the truth movement's opportunity to actually prove something.  You have a serial number.  Prove that it belonged to a plane other than Flight 77.  That would be your smoking gun.

Edited by booNyzarC, 19 April 2012 - 04:34 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 19 April 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

The government story cannot be proved.

It is very simply to prove. Where are the airframes of American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175?

[booNyzarC]

Just in case anyone involved with the truth movement missed it...  here is your chance...

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

Here is the truth movement's opportunity to actually prove something.  You have a serial number.  Prove that it belonged to a plane other than Flight 77.  That would be your smoking gun.

The image with the serial number:



All you need to do is prove that this part belonged to another plane.  How easy is that?

Go for it!

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

AMTMAN did nothing whatsoever to confirm the part came from Flight 77.

For one thing, it has the American Airlines ID label so prove that it didn't come from American 77. Judging by the way the part is deformed, the material is probably 5052, or 2024-0, which simply means that it is not a structural component of the aircraft.

[skyeagle409]

Wandering, on 19 April 2012 - 02:27 AM, said:

How do they know they are listening to the correct black box Sky? They would check the serial number.

First of all, there have been cases where data from a FDR was examined without a known serial number.

Anyway, Boeing and the airline  supplies the conversion formula ONLY for a particular aircraft and they have records for each FDR, which sensible because there may be circumstances where the serial number is not readable after an accident and it makes no sense throwing away a black box because the serial number cannot be read. The FDR can record data for up to 25 hours and such information can be very useful especially when tied to radar data. Boeing and the airline also supplied the investigators with other useful information pertaining ONLY to that aircraft so it was no problem to determine which aircraft a FDR particular was installed.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 April 2012 - 07:21 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

You do it - it is you so desperate to believe the aircraft was Flight 77.

Considering that you have failed to refute the facts with evidence, what more can we say? Use the following links and take the hint.

My link

My link

My link

My link

My link

American Airlines Flight 77 departed Washington's Dulles International Airport at approximately 9:20am local time on a flight to Los Angeles. Shortly thereafter, Washington TRACON lost contact with the aircraft's crew, and the plane's transponder was switched off. A primary target representing the aircraft was seen proceeding directly toward the White House. The plane was seen to veer away from the White House, enter a high speed dive, and impact the side of the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C. This event was the third in a series of orchestrated terrorist acts that affected the United States on September 11.

http://www.washingto...xGCK_video.html


O'Brien's Flight Tracks AA Flight 77

On September 11, 2001, O'Brien was flying a Minnesota Air National Guard C-130H (Hercules) cargo airplane. He and his crew were on a return journey to Minnesota after having delivered supplies in the Caribbean. He took off from Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of Washington DC, at about 9:30 am (EDT), and headed "north and west". "[We] had a beautiful view of the Mall", he remarked.

O'Brien noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles or so away. The plane came nearer until it pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn, so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away.

Washington Reagan National Airport air traffic control asked O'Brien to identify the aircraft. He reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 Boeing airliner, and that its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. Controllers asked ("vectored") O'Brien to follow the plane (later identified as the errant AA Flight 77) as it approached Washington DC from the west. He attempted to, having difficulty picking it out in the East Coast haze. O'Brien saw a fireball, and initially believed the aircraft had hit the ground, but then saw the west side of the Pentagon. He reported to the control tower, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir".


O'Brien's flight sees smoke from the crash of UAL Flight 93
The Hercules resumed its scheduled flight path. When crossing western Pennsylvania at about 10:00 am, local air traffic control asked them to try to spot another errant aircraft, Flight 93. Black smoke was seen barreling from an open field on the left hand side of the Hercules.

O'Brien's flight was 17 miles from the crash site. His flight observed the smoke within 1 minute 37 seconds of the crash of Flight 93.


Crew members

• O'Brien, Steven, Lt. Col., aircraft commander
• Rosenthal, Jeffrey, Master Sgt., flight engineer

My Link

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 April 2012 - 07:58 AM.

[Q24]

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 04:17 AM, said:

Are you implying to everyone on this board that American Airlines lied when it reported that American 77 crashed into the Pentagon?

No, I am implying you are a waste of space who cannot remember what was said all of three pages ago…

Q24, on 16 April 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

You fail to discern the AA statement from newspeak - the former reported loss of the aircraft, the latter inserted the locations in the report.  Further apparent, you forever fail to realise this is irrelevant – everyone agrees AA lost two aircraft.

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4267083

In the most part, AA were likely deceived by the operation along with everyone else.

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

All you need to do is prove that this part belonged to another plane.  How easy is that?

Yet again people who accept the default propaganda pass the buck to regular citizens to do the work of an investigation.

Further, you don’t understand burden of proof booNy.  You claim that was a specific aircraft, Flight 77 – it is up to you to prove the claim.  I do not claim it was or was not a specific aircraft – it does not affect my stance overall - I am open to the possibility it could be any aircraft, including Flight 77, and am only asking you to prove your claim.  That such a foundational aspect of the OCT as identity of the aircraft cannot be proven serves only to cast doubt on the story.  It does not make a difference to my stance other than how the false flag operation was carried out.

If tying that part to a plane is so easy as you seem to think then I suggest you do it in support of your theory.  Just a heads up though – immediately after the attack, the FBI gagged AA staff (along with other agencies) from addressing 9/11 related questions - you are not likely to get an answer to this in an official capacity.

You have failed to connect the component to Flight 77 through the serial number and you even admitted your belief is not actually based on that but other areas.  With that in mind, can we move on to what you think the DNA evidence and phone calls prove, starting with the two simple questions I asked in my last post over the page?

[Babe Ruth]

Wandering, on 19 April 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

So Sky, hypothetically I'm an extremely rich man. I buy an old 757 from some PMCs for cash under the table.

I then go down to the local paint store and buy some paint with cash.

I then proceed to paint the plane.


What long paper trail have I left?



Your reliance on everyone to play by the rules whilst carrying out a 'terrorist attack' is stupendous. Some of the ideas you suggest as counters to our argument beggar belief.

You are absolutely correct!

Sky's professed faith in humans obeying rules and laws, whether in the employ of United, American, or any government agency (Secret Service comes to mind   ) is naive in the extreme, and absurd.

[Babe Ruth]

Boo believes folks like Mark Roberts and George Bush, no questions asked.  A substantial part of his view is based upon cell phone calls that were impossible physically, obviously staged, and contradicted by a number of records, even provided by the government.  He believes nonsense, and with the arrogance typical of the younger generations raised on the internet, rejects any other sort of reason and experience.  Skepticism of government claims is not in his mindset.

The double standard he displays, as pointed out by WANDERING, is a sign of insecurity in one's position in a discussion.

Boo--do you blame the Colombian hookers for the behavior of the US agents?  Yeah, it's all THEIR fault.  

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

Yet again people who accept the default propaganda pass the buck to regular citizens to do the work of an investigation.

You are the one wanting another investigation, not me.  I'm already convinced that 911 was a terrorist attack.  I'm not opposed to another investigation provided my tax dollars aren't used to fund it.  Feel free to investigate to your heart's content.  Maybe you can get the rich Hollywood truther crowd to fund something like that.

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

Further, you don’t understand burden of proof booNy.  You claim that was a specific aircraft, Flight 77 – it is up to you to prove the claim.  I do not claim it was or was not a specific aircraft – it does not affect my stance overall - I am open to the possibility it could be any aircraft, including Flight 77, and am only asking you to prove your claim.  That such a foundational aspect of the OCT as identity of the aircraft cannot be proven serves only to cast doubt on the story.  It does not make a difference to my stance other than how the false flag operation was carried out.

Don't go shifting the burden of proof on me here Q24.  I haven't made a claim.  I've expressed that I am already convinced about what happened that day and who was responsible.  I shared a quote and a link to the source of that quote in regards to the picture you posted.  Nothing more.

You are the one claiming that there was a conspiracy involving a false flag operation.  That is your burden of proof.

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

If tying that part to a plane is so easy as you seem to think then I suggest you do it in support of your theory.  Just a heads up though – immediately after the attack, the FBI gagged AA staff (along with other agencies) from addressing 9/11 related questions - you are not likely to get an answer to this in an official capacity.

And yet this could be your smoking gun evidence.  If you can prove that the part was from a different plane, you'd be taking a huge leap toward fulfilling your burden of proof on the conspiracy theory.

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

You have failed to connect the component to Flight 77 through the serial number and you even admitted your belief is not actually based on that but other areas.  With that in mind, can we move on to what you think the DNA evidence and phone calls prove, starting with the two simple questions I asked in my last post over the page?

What do I think the DNA evidence and phone calls prove?  Hmmm...  let me think about it...  I think they prove that Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon in a terrorist attack on September 11th.

Your questions:

How do you know the passenger DNA came from the Pentagon?

Well, the DNA didn't come from the WTC and that was the only other place where an American Airlines plane was lost that day...

How do you know the phone calls came from the flight which impacted the Pentagon?

Because the people making the calls were on Flight 77 and oddly enough no more phone calls from the plane after it crashed.  Who'd-a thunk?

[booNyzarC]

Babe Ruth, on 19 April 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Boo believes folks like Mark Roberts and George Bush, no questions asked.  A substantial part of his view is based upon cell phone calls that were impossible physically, obviously staged, and contradicted by a number of records, even provided by the government.  He believes nonsense, and with the arrogance typical of the younger generations raised on the internet, rejects any other sort of reason and experience.  Skepticism of government claims is not in his mindset.

The double standard he displays, as pointed out by WANDERING, is a sign of insecurity in one's position in a discussion.

Boo--do you blame the Colombian hookers for the behavior of the US agents?  Yeah, it's all THEIR fault.  

I've got an idea.  Maybe you should avoid projecting your idiocy onto me?

You don't speak for me.  You don't represent my opinions or position on anything.

[Wandering]

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

You forgot the decals so how much is that going to cost to manufacture?

Nothing to an extremely rich man. Perhaps some AA decals 'fell off the back of the truck'. Perhaps an extremely rich and wealthy person owns a signing plant and just printed his own out. I'm surprised you choose to focus on the cost, rather than the actual obtaining of them. Then again, I'm surprised that anything you say surprises me.

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

How much paint do you think is required to paint an aircraft the size of a B-757?

Fair bit.

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

Now, you have to add special spray guns, compressors, and special stands, not to mention the paint crew needed to prepare and paint the aircraft and don't forget the facility rental.

With my wide reach and bottomless wallet? Ask for something harder.

You believe they would RENT A FACILITY to paint a plane that is going to take part in the biggest false flag of our time?! aaaaaah Sky. Just what I needed after a long day.

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

Who is going to transport and place the support stands needed to paint the aircraft fuselage, wings and tail?

A human being driving a motor operated vehicle. Perhaps petrol, perhaps diesel.

Maybe they just used scaffolding...Nah, couldn't have done that.  

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

After the aircraft is painted, who is going to balance the controls surfaces and where are you going to get such balancing equipment?

A pilot on my payroll.

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

How money is it going to cost you to have the equipment shipped to you?

Where am I shipping equipment Sky? Why am I shipping equipment? I OWN shipping companies. Ain't no hassle.

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

  Who are you going to call to balance the control surfaces?  You don't fly an aircraft that has been painted without balancing the control surfaces otherwise you may get serious fluttering which could result is control failure.

Probably the same pilot I called to balance the control surfaces when you asked a few lines ago.... Ever had your memory tested?

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

From that, you have already acquired tons of receipts that are also in the hands of vendors and not to mention taxes that you have been charged for the paint and everything else, which will create a paper trail to the tax folks.

I don't even...


THATS IT SKY! We will prove the Official Version wrong by checking the tax mans records! Surely Walt Schmit, #1 evil Neo-Con has claimed his 757 and assorted repainting equipment, man hours and facility rental under 'misc work expenses'! All we have to do is look it up!

What genius!

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

When you file your flight plan, what aircraft identification are you going to use if you've painted your aircraft in the colors of United Airlines? If you attempt to use the callsign of United Airlines, then you can expect a special knock on your door and if you attempt to use another callsign, that will set off the alarm bells because your aircraft has been painted in the colors of United Airlines.

I disregard any rules I may break and do not file a flight plan.


What alarm bells will ring when no one knows I have a plane painted in AA colours and do not take off until I am ready for the hypothetical switch?

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

You may think that you won't leave a paper trail,  but when you complete your paint job, you will have left a paper trail that extends across the country because it takes a lot more than just a few cans of spray paint to paint a B-757.

Yes, I do because I am based in Reality.

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

There's a lot more than just playing against the rules because the laws of physics comes into play in regards to center of gravity, control surface balancing, and aircraft safety. Painting an airplane is a lot more complicated than painting a car.Paint over the wrong places such as static ports and your aircraft could very well become part of terra firma.

Luckily I am wealthy and have a qualified pilot (who has twice balanced my control surfaces) to make sure the operation is run smoothly. After all, an operation is only as good as It's project manager.

[Wandering]

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

I didn't say that every single person on their forum is a bunch of liars and frauds.  If I did, please quote me instead of inventing your own italicized version of my statements.  Don't put words in my mouth.  If you have a question, ask...  but don't put words in my mouth.

Sure.

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

That is because it is well known that PffffT are a bunch of liars and frauds.  

I can see how you could be referring to the 'core component' of PfT, but It's a bit of an ambiguous comment. You do not specify anyone or any area, leaving it open to easily be interpreted as all of PfffT.

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

I was intending to infer that the idiotic claims supported by PffffT are lies, and that those who put them forward as some kind of evidence or fact are liars and frauds.  This is primarily isolated to Rob Balsamo, but there is a core active membership which likewise fit the bill.  I've personally exposed their most recent fraud for what it is, along with substantial contributions from Cz and Warren Stutt.  There is no question about this except among the weak minded and easily cajoled.

No argument there. I hope that last line wasn't a dig at BR. Each to their own.

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

I do understand your confusion, and I had hoped to clear that up with the clarifications.

As for the question of accepting the information provided by AMTMAN, I really don't care.  I don't need AMTMAN's statement to be convinced that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.  There is plenty of other evidence to reach that conclusion as far as I'm concerned.  The DNA evidence alone confirms it.  The eye witness testimony corroborates it.  The video evidence corroborates it.  The RADAR evidence corroborates it.  Common sense corroborates it.

If you doubt the information provided by AMTMAN, by all means object to it or make an effort to actually try to refute it.  Don't blame me for the information, I only shared it.

Fair enough. That's yourself. As far as I'm aware regarding the DNA evidence proper protocol/chain of command was not followed (chime in here if you can Q). Court cases are lost over this. Why should it be any different here to a true sceptic?(I'm a sceptic:w00t:) RADAR evidence is falsifiable and open to messing with via NORAD. Eye witnesses unfortunately can say whatever they want. Common sense seemed to be missing during the investigation, doesn't that alert your common sense that something is wrong? Video evidence is slightly lacking in this case? You can hardly say 'Yes that's Flight 77' based on that .gif that's floating around. All you can say honestly is "yes that plane is painted the same colours as Flight 77 was".

What information does he provide? He just 'assures' us that it was from flight 77... For all you know, I could be AMTMAN.

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

For the record, I never presented this as a smoking gun proof of any kind.  Q24 posted a picture and posed a question.  I provided a quote and a link to the source of that quote.  If you don't accept the information provided, I really don't care.  I do accept the information.  I can be convinced otherwise if anyone makes the effort to successfully refute it.  I've given my reasons for why I accept it.  Fault me for it if you want, but unless the information is adequately refuted I see no reason to not accept it.

Edit to add...

Here is the truth movement's opportunity to actually prove something.  You have a serial number.  Prove that it belonged to a plane other than Flight 77.  That would be your smoking gun.

Again, I must have missed something. Where is the serial number posted? All I see is a photo we discuss where we cannot clearly see the numbers. Don't mean to be a hassle but is there a particular post I missed where someone provides the serial number?


Cheers

Edited by Wandering, 19 April 2012 - 02:13 PM.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

What do I think the DNA evidence and phone calls prove?  Hmmm...  let me think about it...  I think they prove that Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon in a terrorist attack on September 11th.

Sorry, I thought it obvious I was asking how you think that evidence proves it.

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Your questions:

How do you know the passenger DNA came from the Pentagon?

Well, the DNA didn't come from the WTC and that was the only other place where an American Airlines plane was lost that day...

You are using circular logic:  Flight 77 was lost at the Pentagon, so the DNA came from the Pentagon, so Flight 77 was lost at the Pentagon, so the DNA came from the Pentagon, so…

booNy, snap out of it.

You said you know Flight 77 was lost at the Pentagon because of the DNA.

How do you know the DNA came from the Pentagon (without using circular logic)?

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

How do you know the phone calls came from the flight which impacted the Pentagon?

Because the people making the calls were on Flight 77 and oddly enough no more phone calls from the plane after it crashed.  Who'd-a thunk?

Assuming the people making the calls were on Flight 77 (and bearing in mind all we have discussed before about the potential for a plane switch in flight)… how do you know that was the flight which impacted the Pentagon again?

The logic to your answers/conclusions is just not there.