9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

[itsnotoutthere]

Wow, 40+ years and an expert in so many fields. I'm 51 years of age & for 35 years of that in the architectural profession & in regard to the architectural & engineering aspect of this subject i can tell you that you are entirely & utterly wrong.

Edited March 14, 2012 by itsnotoutthere

[Czero 101]

And in the case of 11 September and the events of the day, 40+ years in aviation including a fair amount of flying with 300 hour pilots, after an analysis of the events of the day, 10 years after the fact, Common Sense tells you it's a damn lie. It could not have happened the way they say it did, from aviation end to engineering and architectual end. Noting personal against anyone.

The problem with "common sense" is that it is not very common, especially amongst those who claim to use it in explaining their positions.

You are more than welcome to have the opinions you have, Babe, but until you actually back up those opinions with any kind of factual, verifiable evidence, they are only opinions, not facts, and definitely not conclusive.

However, we've been down this road several times before, haven't we...? We already know that you have no intention of providing any kind of evidence to back up your opinions.

Cz

[Wandering]

So, you do admit that an aircraft struck the Pentagon! At least, I can now etch your admission in stone and we can work from there.

See guys, Skyeagle plays by his own rules. I've said about 50times that I believe an aircraft hit the pentagon, but Sky gets so happy each individual time, claiming an admission! Maybe you just forget each time Sky?

Take a look at the internal impact damage to the Pentagon, so what does that tell you? If you don't want to take the reports from the Pentagon as to what happened, why not call American Airlines and ask them what happened to American 77. After all, American Airlines was the operator of that aircraft.

Informs me that a plane hit the Pentagon when I never said anything differently. Thanks sky

The data has not been corrected by you nor any of the 9/11 CT tolks. Remember, Babe Ruth has claimed that American 77 peformed a 4-g maneuver at a rate of decent of 4000 fpm, and he has been corrected and here you are defending his brand of misinformation.

Completely lies about my 'defense' of Babe Ruth, implying I have defended any of the information he brings to the table. Also, everyone that has been around has seen Sky been corrected many a time. By Boon, by Cz, by Q. He just doesn't like to admit it.

Then look guys, wait for it......At the bottom a newspaper article. :D

I wish I could reply to the rest of his post but I know what comes next.

After 10 years....

Alarm bells would have rung....

Which would have set alarm bells ringing....

While the alarm bells rang....

Edited March 14, 2012 by Wandering

[ChrLzs]

...I am referring to previous posts of his.

So in other words, you would rather not supply an example of these 'deceptive' photoshop-produced images..

OK...

I don't know who created them, I do know who didn't create them.

So you don't think they are worthy of research.

OK...

Why are we arguing about this?

Because I was hoping to see some actual examples of the 'deception', or some counter examples to prove the 'cover up', rather than the old 'go-back-and-look-at-his-previous-posts' routine.

Unsuprisingly, neither you nor Babe have come up with anything.. which is why I only pop over to these wastes of bandwidth occasionally to see if anything decent whatsoever gets dredged up to counter the official story.

Don't get me wrong, I don't for a minute think the official story is perfect. I'm sure it will have been embellished a little, adjusted a little, and that some information has yet to come out or perhaps never will. But the basic substance remains unchallenged by anything posted here, which I must conclude is the reason why neither you or Babe or any other 911 conspiracy supporter wants to give their BEST, undisputable evidence. It simply doesn't exist, and for as long as that remains, the argument will get nowhere.

[booNyzarC]

Eventually he posted a video of an F-18 striking a 4 or 5 story civilian-looking building. Shame on me, I fell for it hook, line and sinker.

By sheer accident, days later I discovered it was fake. When challenged, Sky eventually owned up, saying it was a 'simulation'.

Once bitten, twice shy.

I guess you didn't read my post which immediately followed his original posting of that video, and sky's response to that?

Your portrayal of events is decidedly lacking in the "factual" department. When you claim that "Sky eventually owned up" when "challenged" (presumably by you?), you are quite simply wrong. You defame sky's character over this, but it merely serves as another example of your own deficiencies.

Could this tendency also explain your general position on other 9/11 related subjects? You just don't pay attention? You just don't learn from information provided by others? You ignore the blatantly obvious in favor of your own biases?

I don't know either way, just consider it food for thought.

Cheers.

[MID]

And in the case of 11 September and the events of the day, 40+ years in aviation including a fair amount of flying with 300 hour pilots,

b.s.

This means what?

40 + years instructing 300 hour pilots?

Tell me, oh esteemed CFI, what is it about this magical 300 hour pilot-hours number that you find to be so relevant to ultimate qualifications?

Just curious, as I have seen 300 hour pilots who flew circles around 1000 hour guys, and I've also sen 300 hour pilots who I knew weren't even close toqualifying for anything!.

I guess maybe they demonstrated folying into the Pentagon for you...or failed?

after an analysis of the events of the day, 10 years after the fact, Common Sense tells you it's a damn lie. It could not have happened the way they say it did, from aviation end to engineering and architectual end.

I wish you actually knew what that was. An avition, and engineering, and archetectural end????

Couldn't have happened?

It did.

You're never going to be able to prove that...so why bother keeping it up?

Common sense, as you say, has nothing whatsoever to do with conclusions such as you draw.

it's a complete lack of it, frankly.

And that--from an aviation, and engineering, and archetectural point-of-view.

[Q24]

American Airlines confirmed that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

I’m not entering into a pretense of ‘discussion’ with sky, just a general point of consideration…

What American Airlines actually confirmed on 9/11 is that, “it lost two aircraft in tragic incidents”.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/american_text091101.htm

This is not in dispute by anyone – certainly two AA aircraft went missing and the incidents in which this occurred were tragic. Further, we are all well aware of this. Thus sky’s boresome repetition, “American Airlines confirmed… ” is entirely irrelevant.

The question is, what happened to those aircraft? There is no doubt American Airlines believe N644AA ended it’s flight at the Pentagon. But why? It is for the same reason that the FBI, NTSB and FAA hold the belief. The answer: assumption. The FBI confirmed this in their response to FOIA request for serial numbers of the aircraft debris: “the identity of the three hijacked aircraft has never been in question by the FBI, NTSB or FAA”.

Put simply – an aircraft disappeared, an aircraft impacted the Pentagon – which the trusting mind is justified in believing were one and the same. However, such assumption is not the way of the true skeptic, especially one keen to defend against the precedent of false flag deception and political agendas detrimental to the people.

Such assumption is a step closer to “faith” than “proof” – indefensible in a modern, self-aware world.

[skyeagle409]

See guys, Skyeagle plays by his own rules. I've said about 50times that I believe an aircraft hit the pentagon, but Sky gets so happy each individual time, claiming an admission! Maybe you just forget each time Sky?

It is not about my rules, but what the evidence depicts, but I am glad that you have reaffirmed that an aircraft did crash at the Pentagon.

Completely lies about my 'defense' of Babe Ruth, implying I have defended any of the information he brings to the table.

Well, if you don't agree with Babe Ruth, what is your position on American 77?

[Babe Ruth]

MID

Nobody is saying "it didn't happen" sir.

For those who have spent time studying what details are available are saying is that "it didn't happen THE WAY THEY SAY IT HAPPENED."

I hope you can appreciate the difference, but am not certain that you can.

Are you stuck in California too, or would you like to demonstrate some of those awesome Wright Brothers flying skills and take me up on my $1000 challenge?

Oh, the sounds of silence....

[skyeagle409]

For those who have spent time studying what details are available are saying is that "it didn't happen THE WAY THEY SAY IT HAPPENED."

You have yet to prove otherwise.

Are you stuck in California too, or would you like to demonstrate some of those awesome Wright Brothers flying skills and take me up on my $1000 challenge?

I have already accepted your challenge, so when are you ready to do it? I am expecting you to come out here to the Nut Tree airport in Northern California, and if you are willing to follow through, then I will notify local pilots, military, commercial, and private, to watch the action, and many of them who are members of my chapter.

I've accepted your challenge days ago, so why bring it up again?

Edited March 15, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Sky hasn't proved a thing here. He has bombarded us with government pictures and propaganda, and deceived in many of his posts.

You continue to overlook non-government sources who have confirmed the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon, including the operator of American 77. And, you have failed to answer to the fate of passengers and crew of American 77. That is the kind of comment that I would expect from ValkyrieWings, a.k.a. Rob Balsamo, whose initials, RB, are your initials, BR, backwards.

Statement of United Airlines about its two plane crashes:

United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.

— UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

— UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants.

United has confirmed it will dispatch a team to Johnstown, Pa., as soon as possible to assist, in every way possible, with the investigation and to provide assistance to the family members.

My link

11:17 AM:United Airlines confirms the loss of Flight 93 and states that it is "deeply concerned" about Flight 175.

11:53 AM: United Airlines confirms the loss of its two airplanes.

My link

Edited March 15, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

So in other words, you would rather not supply an example of these 'deceptive' photoshop-produced images..

OK...

So you don't think they are worthy of research.

OK...

Because I was hoping to see some actual examples of the 'deception', or some counter examples to prove the 'cover up', rather than the old 'go-back-and-look-at-his-previous-posts' routine.

Unsuprisingly, neither you nor Babe have come up with anything.. which is why I only pop over to these wastes of bandwidth occasionally to see if anything decent whatsoever gets dredged up to counter the official story.

Don't get me wrong, I don't for a minute think the official story is perfect. I'm sure it will have been embellished a little, adjusted a little, and that some information has yet to come out or perhaps never will. But the basic substance remains unchallenged by anything posted here, which I must conclude is the reason why neither you or Babe or any other 911 conspiracy supporter wants to give their BEST, undisputable evidence. It simply doesn't exist, and for as long as that remains, the argument will get nowhere.

Good job putting words in my mouth, you must have a real hard time understanding what people say if you just make it up for them.

I simply don't have the time. If you can't be bothered, why should I? I've seen it firsthand, you haven't so go check it out. I don't feel the need to go digging through thousands of Skys posts to prove a point I know anyone who matters is already aware of. Why do you think you don't see Sky getting support from the regulars in here? Only people like you who as you admit 'pop in from time to time' back him up, because you are not seeing the full story.

I'll leave you with this thought:

9/11? Yeah what a crock. Can you imagine fraud in the big wide World? What a simple idea. Whoever thinks that foul play exists in these big money making corporations is really naive and has no street smarts.

The world is an honest place where honesty and integrity always out trump dishonesty and scams especially when millions of dollars are at stake.

[skyeagle409]

I simply don't have the time. If you can't be bothered, why should I? I've seen it firsthand, you haven't so go check it out. I don't feel the need to go digging through thousands of Skys posts to prove a point I know anyone who matters is already aware of. Why do you think you don't see Sky getting support from the regulars in here?

Hmmm, I don't see you getting any support other than from Babe Ruth, for whom you disagree.

[Wandering]

Statement of United Airlines about its two plane crashes:

United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.

— UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

— UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants.

United has confirmed it will dispatch a team to Johnstown, Pa., as soon as possible to assist, in every way possible, with the investigation and to provide assistance to the family members.

My link

11:17 AM:United Airlines confirms the loss of Flight 93 and states that it is "deeply concerned" about Flight 175.

11:53 AM: United Airlines confirms the loss of its two airplanes.

Skys Patriotic Newspaper Link

Oh man, right after Q's post too. It doesn't get any better than this.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Wandering

[skyeagle409]

I'm not entering into a pretense of 'discussion' with sky, just a general point of consideration…

What American Airlines actually confirmed on 9/11 is that, "it lost two aircraft in tragic incidents".

http://www.washingto..._text091101.htm

This is not in dispute by anyone – certainly two AA aircraft went missing and the incidents in which this occurred were tragic. Further, we are all well aware of this.

Not in dispute by anyone? You migth want to ask Babe Ruth what he thinks.

Thus sky's boresome repetition, "American Airlines confirmed… " is entirely irrelevant.

Acutally, the report from American Airlnes confirmed that the aircraft, which crashed at the Pentagon, was American 77.

The question is, what happened to those aircraft? There is no doubt American Airlines believe N644AA ended it's flight at the Pentagon. But why?

It was hijacked by foreign terrorist.

... It is for the same reason that the FBI, NTSB and FAA hold the belief. The answer: assumption. The FBI confirmed this in their response to FOIA request for serial numbers of the aircraft debris: "the identity of the three hijacked aircraft has never been in question by the FBI, NTSB or FAA".

Ask Babe Ruth what he thinks.

Put simply – an aircraft disappeared, an aircraft impacted the Pentagon – which the trusting mind is justified in believing were one and the same. However, such assumption is not the way of the true skeptic, especially one keen to defend against the precedent of false flag deception and political agendas detrimental to the people.

Such assumption is a step closer to "faith" than "proof" – indefensible in a modern, self-aware world.

Looking at the flight data, there was no way that aircraft was under remote control, which is obvious, and the aircraft that disappeared at the Pentagon was American 77.

[skyeagle409]

Oh man, right after Q's post too. It doesn't get any better than this.

Question is, Did you get the point?

[Wandering]

Hmmm, I don't see you getting any support other than from Babe Ruth, for whom you disagree.

What?

I'm not presenting evidence at this point, I'm taking information from all the parties involved and looking at it. I don't need support to do that.

Now, If I was presenting speculative claims or posting a ****-ton of 'evidence' then I'd love some support. Until then Sky, I'm still waiting to see the heavyweights around here back you up.

Question is, Did you get the point?

Looking at your post, there is absolutely nothing to get. You talk to Babe Ruth, not me, then post a Newspaper Article which perhaps 2? 3? people here have disputed over your entire 22,000 posts and 6 years here. Yet 20,000 of your posts are those articles.

Ah ****, I got sucked into a direct reply. Oops. This thread doesn't need more newspaper articles Sky, if you feel that addictive need to CTRL+V just send it straight on to my inbox so I can delete it like your other rambling PMs that ignored every single question I asked.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Wandering

[skyeagle409]

What? I'm not presenting evidence at this point, I'm taking information from all the parties involved and looking at it. I don't need support to do that.

Don't you think that I already have the deception manual on your 'bag of tricks' and your use of certain keywords?

Edited March 15, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

Don't you think that I already have the deception manual on your 'bag of tricks' and your use of certain keywords?

I wish I knew what you were talking about, honestly. This is the 2nd or 3rd time you have mentioned it. I'm genuinely concerned for your mental state when you start posting things like this....

Does anyone know? Boony? Cz? Q? Swan? BR? Chrz?

Keywords?

Does the FBI talk to you through the TV sky? Do you get 'messages' during the news?

In fact, why don't you explain to everyone here what I'm doing, get it all out there so no one can be deceived again! I'm curious to know what I'm doing myself.

I'm out now, but I really can't wait for the morning browse.

[booNyzarC]

Does anyone know? Boony? Cz? Q? Swan? BR? Chrz?

Nope. Not sure what he's referring to here.

[Babe Ruth]

Nor do I.

I stopped assigning relevance to Sky's musings some time ago.

The image of the broken record is appropriate.

[skyeagle409]

Nor do I.I stopped assigning relevance to Sky's musings some time ago.

The image of the broken record is appropriate.

A broken record and yet, I am responding to the same old comments of the 9/11 folks who have played their broken record comments as well.

[skyeagle409]

What? I'm not presenting evidence at this point, I'm taking information from all the parties involved and looking at it. I don't need support to do that.

It is evident that you are here to mock, and offer nothing of substance. Another question for you, why did you bring up ET in reference of me?

Now, If I was presenting speculative claims or posting a ****-ton of 'evidence' then I'd love some support. Until then Sky, I'm still waiting to see the heavyweights around here back you up.

You cannot argue against the evidence, and two simple reports were enough to disprove a government conspiracy.

Looking at your post, there is absolutely nothing to get.

It is all very simple and simply living in a world of denial just ain't gonna get it. I've posted references and you have yet to post anything to the contrary. You either accept what I have posted, or you don't. If you don't, then the ball is in your court to disprove the evidence.

You talk to Babe Ruth, not me, then post a Newspaper Article which perhaps 2? 3? people here have disputed over your entire 22,000 posts and 6 years here. Yet 20,000 of your posts are those articles.

Perhaps it is because I know the rest of the story. The news articles contained very important messages in regards to the fate of American 77, American 11, United 175, and United 93 and those news reports from United and American Airlines were more than enough to disprove claims of the 9/11 CT folks.

Simple information from those news articles allows a person to embark upon an investigative trail and uncover evidence, which will determine that all four aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks were the same aircraft reported lost by their owners. Nothing difficult by any means because once you have their serial and registration numbers, you can then determine the serial numbers of each engine and determine their fate as well and track the engines right to the crash points because only a certain number of B-757s and B-767s were produced and it is just a simple matter to follow-up on an engine maintenance history and flight histories of each aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks. I guess the 9/11 CT folks don't think of little things like that.

Using an aircraft registration and serial numbers and flight and maintenance records along with ATC and radar data, a person can determine the time and location of each aircraft during the 9/11 attacks, which is another reason why I have said that at no time were those aircraft switched in flight, and as I have said before, it would take me less than 30 minutes to determine if an aircraft was switched or not.

When Babe Ruth suggested that the airframe of American 77 was sold before the 9/11 attacks, it took me only a few minutes to determine that the airframe was not that of American 77.

Serial and registration numbers leave long paper trails that can be tracked right back to the airport from where the flights originated and along with the names of the passengers and crew who were aboard each aircraft. I can look up ATC transmissions for each aircraft and tie radar data to each aircraft transmission and add that information along with gate and landing fees, maintenance, flight, fuel and oil records, which will reveal the time, dates, and locations of each aircraft on 9/11. Having those numbers also allows a person to follow-up on an aircraft depot-level and numbered maintenance check histories, in other words, prove that none of the airliners involved in the 911 attacks were switched and tying passenger and crew list to each of those aircraft will underline those facts.

So yes, newspaper articles can be a very important source of information when one knows what to look for.

....rambling PMs that ignored every single question I asked.

The real question is, why resort to mockery when you have failed to answer my questions?

Edited March 15, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Keywords?

I have noticed the way you use certain words to mock.

[Q24]

I'm genuinely concerned for your mental state when you start posting things like this....

I have noted the same concern to the moderators also, though apparently UM rules do not prevent intellectually disabled members from spamming the forums. I suggest coherent discussion with skyeagle is not possible and should not be attempted if you wish to avoid frustration.

We can still correct his posts, just don’t expect any sort of rational response…

Nothing difficult by any means because once you have their serial and registration numbers, you can then determine the serial numbers of each engine and determine their fate as well and track the engines right to the crash points because only a certain number of B-757s and B-767s were produced and it is just a simple matter to follow-up on an engine maintenance history and flight histories of each aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks.

The engine(s) at the Pentagon were not examined to match serial number to the aircraft records.

Far from proving identity of the aircraft, this fact allows suggestion the plane was not N644AA.