1810 replies to this topic

[Q24]

RaptorBites, on 19 April 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

I don't see how you can just sit there and state the it has never been identified as being part of Flight 77.  I am sure the AA mechanic was able to find a way to match the serial number as belonging to the airframe of AA77.

Unless of course you are disregarding the fact that Sky has been spouting off for the past couple months that each part placed on an airframe is cataloged in detail.   "EACH PART"

That would assume that each part has a individual serial number to track which piece belongs to which airframe, not to be mistaken with part numbers.

I’m glad that you are “sure” but I don’t do assumption – that is the type of double-standard/pseudo-skepticism I mentioned in my last post.

I don’t even read most of skyeagle’s posts that miss the point 99.99% of the time.  

Where is the log/record that connects that part serial number (144B/8) to Flight 77?

[Wandering]

skyeagle409, on 15 April 2012 - 04:19 PM, said:

Painting an airliner leaves a long paper trail that can be easily tracked *snipped broken record*

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.

Edited by Wandering, 19 April 2012 - 02:23 AM.

[Wandering]

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

Since American Airlines confirmed the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon, why are you trying to point to another airframe other than American Airlines Flt 77?

When there is a car accident in our country, we do not wait for Toyota/Ford/Holden/Nissan/etc to release a press statement stating they have lost a car.

The investigators take down the details ie: serial numbers of the car during the course of their investigation into what went wrong. Even if it was caused by a person. That way they have the details of that car on record and it can never ever be confused with another aircraft.


I believe you still have not answered my earlier questions Sky.

How do they know they are listening to the correct black box Sky? They would check the serial number.
How would they store the black box & confirm they have stored the correct one in the correct box? By serial number.

They are not just going to look at it and go...."Well, I think that's the one from Flight 77 but I can't be ****ed checking It's serial number. Just chuck it up on the table here and we'll have a listen."

They just decided not to do it eh?

[Wandering]

RaptorBites, on 19 April 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

I don't see how you can just sit there and state the it has never been identified as being part of Flight 77.  I am sure the AA mechanic was able to find a way to match the serial number as belonging to the airframe of AA77.

Unless of course you are disregarding the fact that Sky has been spouting off for the past couple months that each part placed on an airframe is cataloged in detail.   "EACH PART"

That would assume that each part has a individual serial number to track which piece belongs to which airframe, not to be mistaken with part numbers.

Wow, a little Skyeagle. (this is not a good thing RB)

Please RaptorBites do not focus on Skys argument. It is full of so many holes, lies and naivety even the 'Official Story Adherents' will back away from his statements regularly.


Yes, each part is cataloged in detail. I don't believe anyone has ever denied that.

The problem is, no serial numbers or identifying marks were ever taken and compared with the 'individual parts serial numbers' from flight 77.


Can you see the Dilemma?


It doesn't matter how many parts had identifying marks on them, if they were never identified as belonging to Flight 77 after the crash.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 01:52 AM, said:

Well it’s been identified as a emergency light power supply… don’t all 757s have those?     

It’s nothing personal against that JREFer – the whole site is a stinking cesspit of pseudo-skepticism.

Ok I take it the part has never been identified as coming from Flight 77.

Thank you for the confirmation.

Actually it has been identified as coming from Flight 77.  You just don't accept the source of that identification.

I can understand why you are skeptical of the source, but that doesn't make the source wrong.  All it means is that the source hasn't provided adequate references which substantiate the identification to your satisfaction.

I don't know anything about AMTMAN myself.  He appears to have represented himself as an airline mechanic.  Mark Roberts appears to accept him at his word, and in my opinion Mark Roberts is not only an excellent judge of character but he is also one of (if not THE) most knowledgeable people on the planet when it comes to 911 facts.  I wouldn't be surprised if you have a different opinion of the man though.

At any rate, the offer still stands.  Feel free to contact Boeing and/or American Airlines for direct confirmation.  Something tells me that you probably won't do that though.

[Wandering]

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

Actually it has been identified as coming from Flight 77.  You just don't accept the source of that identification.

I can understand why you are skeptical of the source, but that doesn't make the source wrong.  All it means is that the source hasn't provided adequate references which substantiate the identification to your satisfaction.

I don't know anything about AMTMAN myself.  He appears to have represented himself as an airline mechanic.  Mark Roberts appears to accept him at his word, and in my opinion Mark Roberts is not only an excellent judge of character but he is also one of (if not THE) most knowledgeable people on the planet when it comes to 911 facts.  I wouldn't be surprised if you have a different opinion of the man though.

At any rate, the offer still stands.  Feel free to contact Boeing and/or American Airlines for direct confirmation.  Something tells me that you probably won't do that though.

How come you guys are allowed to use anonymous faceless internet posts to back up your version of events, yet if any Theorist does the same, It's immediately invalid?


Let's have a level playing ground yeah?

[booNyzarC]

Wandering, on 19 April 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

How come you guys are allowed to use anonymous faceless internet posts to back up your version of events, yet if any Theorist does the same, It's immediately invalid?


Let's have a level playing ground yeah?

Excuse me?

I have no idea who the guy is, that doesn't mean someone else might not know.  If Mark Roberts backs the guy it is good enough for me.  I trust Mark Roberts and I've never seen any reason not to.  I haven't taken the time to look into this guy's background myself because I just found the link this afternoon courtesy of Q24 posting the picture.

Feel free to ignore his statements if you want to, it certainly is your prerogative.  Or maybe you could do something more productive and contact Boeing or American Airlines to fact-check this guy's claim if you are so unconvinced.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

Actually it has been identified as coming from Flight 77.  You just don't accept the source of that identification.

I can understand why you are skeptical of the source, but that doesn't make the source wrong.  All it means is that the source hasn't provided adequate references which substantiate the identification to your satisfaction.

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

What do you mean "hasn’t provided adequate references"?  He provided no reference at all  

Yes you are very right that is not to my satisfaction.  And if it is to your satisfaction then it only shows what low standards you have when it comes to the OCT.  As I said, pseudo-skepticism at its finest.

What a joke.

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

At any rate, the offer still stands.  Feel free to contact Boeing and/or American Airlines for direct confirmation.  Something tells me that you probably won't do that though.

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

It doesn’t make any ends to me either way.

[Wandering]

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 03:10 AM, said:

Excuse me?

I have no idea who the guy is, that doesn't mean someone else might not know.  If Mark Roberts backs the guy it is good enough for me.  I trust Mark Roberts and I've never seen any reason not to.  I haven't taken the time to look into this guy's background myself because I just found the link this afternoon courtesy of Q24 posting the picture.

Feel free to ignore his statements if you want to, it certainly is your prerogative.  Or maybe you could do something more productive and contact Boeing or American Airlines to fact-check this guy's claim if you are so unconvinced.

Example: Quotes from people on PfT. Now we know that RB is less than honest, but that doesn't mean that honest people looking for the truth who are pilots haven't ended up on their forum. Anytime anyone mentions a quote from PfT it gets disregarded immediately.

If we have one set of rules for the Conspiracy Theorists to provide evidence, then another set regarding the Official Versions allowable evidence It's not a level playing field. That is all.



Your link does not work: http://911files.info...tagon_911_book/ In fact, 911files.info appears not to exist.... Did you click on that link before you posted it or did you just rely on your other link to be true?...

All that you have is a statement on your other link (https://sites.google...agonattackpage2) stating that someone "assures us it is from Flight 77".


Please check your 911files link as I would like to see the serial number he gets from that piece and then we can progress to the next stage.

[booNyzarC]

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

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

What do you mean "hasn’t provided adequate references"?  He provided no reference at all  

Yes you are very right that is not to my satisfaction.  And if it is to your satisfaction then it only shows what low standards you have when it comes to the OCT.  As I said, pseudo-skepticism at its finest.

What a joke.

And as I said, I understand why you are skeptical of his identification.  I don't fault you for that.  I see no reason to doubt his identification, feel free to fault me for that if you'd like.  It certainly is your prerogative.

It does nothing to further your conspiracy position, but oh well; it's your game.

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

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

It doesn’t make any ends to me either way.

I'm not desperate to believe it by any means.  The DNA results, phone calls, and eye witness testimony from people there on the day have sufficiently resolved this question for me long ago.  If you aren't satisfied it isn't my problem.

Once again, all I did was provide a quote and a source for the quote.  Do with it what you will.  Scoff at it if that makes you feel more comfortable about your conspiracy theory.

Cheers.

[booNyzarC]

Wandering, on 19 April 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

Example: Quotes from people on PfT. Now we know that RB is less than honest, but that doesn't mean that honest people looking for the truth who are pilots haven't ended up on their forum. Anytime anyone mentions a quote from PfT it gets disregarded immediately.

If we have one set of rules for the Conspiracy Theorists to provide evidence, then another set regarding the Official Versions allowable evidence It's not a level playing field. That is all.

That is because it is well known that PffffT are a bunch of liars and frauds.  Even the majority of the legitimate 911 truther community is aware of this.  Just ask Q24 if you doubt me.

I didn't compel them to be this way, they chose this route of their own accord.

Wandering, on 19 April 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

Your link does not work: http://911files.info...tagon_911_book/ In fact, 911files.info appears not to exist.... Did you click on that link before you posted it or did you just rely on your other link to be true?...

All that you have is a statement on your other link (https://sites.google...agonattackpage2) stating that someone "assures us it is from Flight 77".


Please check your 911files link as I would like to see the serial number he gets from that piece and then we can progress to the next stage.

That isn't my link.  That link was in the quote that I provided.  The link I gave was labeled Source.  That link works.  And it further links to a JREF post, which further links to a JREF thread.

Feel free to read that.  By the way, in case you didn't know, the member there at JREF named Gravy is Mark Roberts.



And the image that Q24 linked to was from Mark Roberts' website.

Hope that cleared this up a bit.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

And as I said, I understand why you are skeptical of his identification.  I don't fault you for that.  I see no reason to doubt his identification, feel free to fault me for that if you'd like.  It certainly is your prerogative.

It does nothing to further your conspiracy position, but oh well; it's your game.

Ok, you cannot link the part to an aircraft in support of your theory.

Moving on…

booNyzarC, on 19 April 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

The DNA results, phone calls…

You always come out with this whilst failing to explain how it supports your case.

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

You see, if there was some way to confirm this then I’d be onboard, but so far as I can see there is not.

You make one big assumption after another and I cannot follow that faith based approach.

[Wandering]

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.  Even the majority of the legitimate 911 truther community is aware of this.  Just ask Q24 if you doubt me.

I didn't compel them to be this way, they chose this route of their own accord.

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?

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

That isn't my link.  That link was in the quote that I provided.  The link I gave was labeled Source.  That link works.  And it further links to a JREF post, which further links to a JREF thread.

Feel free to read that.  By the way, in case you didn't know, the member there at JREF named Gravy is Mark Roberts.



And the image that Q24 linked to was from Mark Roberts' website.

Hope that cleared this up a bit.

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?

[skyeagle409]

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.

You forgot the decals so how much is that going to cost to manufacture?  How much paint do you think is required to paint an aircraft the size of a B-757?  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. Who is going to transport and place the support stands needed to paint the aircraft fuselage, wings and tail?

After the aircraft is painted, who is going to balance the controls surfaces and where are you going to get such balancing equipment? How money is it going to cost you to have the equipment shipped to you?  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. 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.

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.

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.

Quote

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.

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.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 April 2012 - 05:07 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:

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

Match the DNA of those who boarded American 77.