The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

[skyeagle409]

Yes I am serious. If you can't prove the continuity, you can't prove that something unusual (for example a swap) occurred either.

I continue to hear that United 175 was swapped so did the passengers who boarded at Boston airport swap with the aircraft as well? Passenger remains from United 175 were recovered and have been identied.

Near-Collision with Delta Air Lines Flight 2315

At around this time, the flight had a near midair collision with Delta Air Lines Flight 2315, reportedly missing the plane by only 300 feet, as air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia frantically tried to tell the Delta pilot to take evasive action. Bottiglia was the first person in the control center to realize that Flight 175 was hijacked when he gave directions for a turn. Flight 175 did not respond, instead accelerating and heading toward Delta Air Lines Flight 2315. The controller commanded the Delta pilot, "Take any evasive action necessary. We have an airplane that we don't know what he's doing. Any action at all."Moments before Flight 175 crashed, it avoided a near collision with Midwest Express Flight 7.

At 08:55, a supervisor at the New York Air Traffic Control center notified the center's operations manager of the Flight 175 hijacking, and David Bottiglia, who was tracking Flight 175, noted, "we might have a hijack over here, two of them." By 08:58, the plane was heading toward New York and descended from an altitude of 28,500 feet over New Jersey. From the time, at approximately 08:58, when Shehhi completed the final turn toward New York City to the moment of impact, the plane went into a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 5 minutes 4 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute. New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues "were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet."

Crash

At 09:01, two minutes before impact as United Airlines Flight 175 continued its descent into Lower Manhattan, the New York Center alerted another nearby Air Traffic Facility responsible for low-flying aircraft, which was able to monitor the aircraft's path over New Jersey, and then over Staten Island and New York Harbor in its final moments. (Flight 175 came in from the southwest, apparently heading for the Empire State Building, but turned right, then left into the South Tower.

My link

Edited October 16, 2011 by skyeagle409

[bubs49]

The radar continuity proves itself. Flight 175 had its transponder on for the entire duration. Radar data was tracked the whole time. There was no break.

I never claimed the contrary. I never said there is no radar continuity. I said that the radar continuity is not confirmed by communications and ground monitoring. Therefore, radar continuity itself does not prove anything.

Just because the air traffic controller wasn't observing the data in real time for a few minutes while he was distracted by Flight 11 does not mean that the data wasn't recorded. How do you think we know the precise flight path of the plane? Regardless of whether the squawk code was changed, it was still the same transponder in Flight 175.

It does not mean that the plane squawking code 1470 until 8:46 was the same plane squawking code 3020 and, shortly later, code 3321 either.

There was no break in the radar data. There was no room for "some kind of swap." Or are you suggesting that the transponder was taken off the plane mid-flight, and installed onto your hypothetical "shadow plane?"

Yes there was room for a swap. Unless you prove beyond any reasonable doubt that no swap was possible, I will keep suspecting that the only reason why United 175 changed its transponder code twice within the short timeframe of a couple of minutes, remarkably when the alleged first plane hit the North Tower, was to cover up some kind of swap or overlapping. All this, again, while controllers were focused on American 11 hitting the North Tower.

As I said above: either the hijackers were incredibly lucky with the timing or a kind of external direction made this perfect synchronization possible.

[Czero 101]

Yes there was room for a swap. Unless you prove beyond any reasonable doubt that no swap was possible, I will keep suspecting that the only reason why United 175 changed its transponder code twice within the short timeframe of a couple of minutes, remarkably when the alleged first plane hit the North Tower, was to cover up some kind of swap or overlapping. All this, again, while controllers were focused on American 11 hitting the North Tower.

The problem I see is that you are assuming that the swap happened, then interpreting the available data (badly, some might say) to fit to your conclusion.

The swap is not the most likely answer to the question. It is AN answer, yes, but not conclusively supported by the evidence, nor by your argument.

You believe the swap occurred (and that's fine, by the way), and you support that theory (also fine), so it is YOUR responsibility to prove that theory is correct, not someone else's responsibility to prove you wrong.

The Burden of Proof requires you to prove that you are right.

So far, you haven't.

Cz

[booNyzarC]

The radar data was recorded. Even if the air traffic controller had slept through the shift and nobody had watched the screen for the whole event, we would still have this recorded data about Flight 175 because the transponder was never turned off.

WTC Aircraft Two (UA 175).

The Riverhead NY ARSR-4 provided

full radar coverage

for the UA Boeing 757 aircraft that impacted with the WTC at 09:02 ET.

Radar data begins shortly after takeoff at 08:16 ET. Radar data shows UA 175 climbing to flight altitude west of Boston Logan International Airport. During this flight, the aircraft transponder mode 3A code changed twice. The initial mode 3A code of UA 175 was 1470. At 08:46 ET, the mode 3A code changed to 3020 and at 08:47 ET to 3321.

(Source)

The only possibility for deviation of this radar data for Flight 175 presented in this report is that:

the radar sites require approximately 12 seconds to complete each 360-degree azimuth scan. This relatively slow scan rate precludes moment-by-moment, contiguous aircraft positional information (i.e., precludes precise track statistics such as heading and speed), particularly when aircraft are making rapid maneuvers. Because of these intrinsic radar limitations, all radar plots illustrated in this report on a scan-to-scan basis should be considered close approximations.

[bubs49]

The problem I see is that you are assuming that the swap happened, then interpreting the available data (badly, some might say) to fit to your conclusion.

The swap is not the most likely answer to the question. It is AN answer, yes, but not conclusively supported by the evidence, nor by your argument.

You believe the swap occurred (and that's fine, by the way), and you support that theory (also fine), so it is YOUR responsibility to prove that theory is correct, not someone else's responsibility to prove you wrong.

The Burden of Proof requires you to prove that you are right.

So far, you haven't.

Cz

Thank you for your reply Czero.

Of course, I am speculating. I am not afraid to say that.

I never claimed I have conclusive evidence that a swap or some kind of overlapping with another plane happened.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that there was room for that. The alleged continuity is broken by the double squawk change and by the radio silence. It does not mean necessarily that something unusual happened. It may have happened.

Again: the perfect synchronization with the time of the first impact against the North Tower is highly suspicious. Logic suggests some kind of external control.

[Czero 101]

Thank you for your reply Czero.

Of course, I am speculating. I am not afraid to say that.

I never claimed I have conclusive evidence that a swap or some kind of overlapping with another plane happened.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that there was room for that. The alleged continuity is broken by the double squawk change and by the radio silence. It does not mean necessarily that something unusual happened. It may have happened.

Fair enough... and to a certain point I do agree with you inasmuch as the "swap" scenario could have happened...

Again: the perfect synchronization with the time of the first impact against the North Tower is highly suspicious. Logic suggests some kind of external control.

I agree its suspicious, however trying to apply logic to an event (the events of 9/11 as a whole) that is almost completely devoid of logic in and of itself is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility....

Cz

Edited October 16, 2011 by Czero 101

[bubs49]

I agree its suspicious, however trying to apply logic to an event (the events of 9/11 as a whole) that is almost completely devoid of logic in and of itself is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility....

Sorry Czero, but I strongly disagree here. Applying logic to 9/11 as a whole is the only way to apply logic. Every single event itself may have dozens of possible explanations. Only when you look at the whole context, only when you consider 9/11 as a whole, its single events can be observed under a global perspective and may show some kind of unusual "pattern".

There are lots of suspicious coincidences in 9/11. The one we're discussing here (a possible swap for United 175 at 8:46) is only one of them. How do you explain, for example, that American 77 enters a radar gap just after 8:56? There was room for another swap there. How many possibilities are there, in your opinion, that so many strange coincidences occur within the same day? What does logic suggest you when not one, but several strange coincidences happen within a relatively short timeframe and within the same event? What does logic suggest you when several coincidences appear to create a pattern? That's what I call logic.

And finally. Sorry, but the burden of proof is not only on my shoulders. It is also on the shoulders of those who support the official theory. Don't take it personally, but I don't play this game anymore. Unless I see unquestionable evidence that the official theory is proven, I may answer to prove it too.

While I concede I am speculating and have no conclusive evidence, I see no evidence that a swap was technically impossible either.

Regards

Edited October 16, 2011 by bubs49

[Q24]

In reviewing page 4 of this PDF documenting the Flight Path Study United Airlines Flight 175, it appears as though the plane was tracked the whole way with no loss of radar. Just because the air traffic controller may have been distracted with Flight 11 for a few minutes doesn't mean that Flight 175 wasn't being constantly tracked by radar.

You mean an aircraft was tracked.

Once the transponders were tampered with, along with loss of communication and simultaneous intersection of other aircraft flightpaths… no one can be certain what they are tracking anymore.

I agree with bubs - looking literally at the evidence, without making assumptions, the aircraft which impacted were unidentified.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Q24

[Czero 101]

Sorry Czero, but I strongly disagree here.

No problem...

Applying logic to 9/11 as a whole is the only way to apply logic. Every single event itself may have dozens of possible explanations. Only when you look at the whole context, only when you consider 9/11 as a whole, its single events can be observed under a global perspective and may show some kind of unusual "pattern".

Yes, patterns may appear. How one interprets those patterns, however, may lead one to different conclusions than the next person.

There are lots of suspicious coincidences in 9/11. The one we're discussing here (a possible swap for United 175 at 8:46) is only one of them. How do you explain, for example, that American 77 enters a radar gap just after 8:56?

Where is the evidence for this "radar gap"? I don't see it on in the radar track in the document we've been referencing so far. Do you have a source for that?

There was room for another swap there. How many possibilities are there, in your opinion, that so many strange coincidences occur within the same day? What does logic suggest you when not one, but several strange coincidences happen within a relatively short timeframe and within the same event? What does logic suggest you when several coincidences appear to create a pattern? That's what I call logic.

Some might call that "creative interpretation" while others may use terms such as "confirmation bias" to explain what you consider to be "logical" explanations.

And finally. Sorry, but the burden of proof is not only on my shoulders. It is also on the shoulders of those who support the official theory.

Unfortunately, that is not how Burden of Proof works.

The "official theory" is the "accepted explanation" or the "accepted truth" (for lack of a better term) of the matter. Perhaps it is not accepted by everyone, but regardless, it is considered "accepted". In this scenario, the "accepted explanation" is that the planes that took off that morning were the same planes that later slammed into the WTC, the Pentagon, and the field in Shanksville.

The "planes were somehow swapped mid-air" theory is a counter-claim that calls the accepted explanation into question.

The person putting forward the counter claim is required to prove that they are correct, and the counter-claim must have sufficiently conclusive evidence - they have the burden to prove their theory.

Don't take it personally,

I don't...

but I don't play this game anymore. Unless I see unquestionable evidence that the official theory is proven, I may answer to prove it too.

Well, that's your choice, but reversing the burden of proof is a typical tactic of your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist. I'm not saying that's what I consider you to be, so please don't take that personally...

While I concede I am speculating and have no conclusive evidence, I see no evidence that a swap was technically impossible either.

And I agree... I don't believe that it would be technically impossible to so what you claim. I don't think anyone except Skyeagle is of that opinion, but I can only speak for myself, of course.

However, accepting the possibility is not the same as agreeing that it is the only explanation for the evidence.

Cz

[bubs49]

Where is the evidence for this "radar gap"? I don't see it on in the radar track in the document we've been referencing so far. Do you have a source for that?

I was talking about AA-77 as another example of strange coincidence. There is an officially proven radar gap in AA-77's track, the Commission Report itself states this. I was not talking about United 175. There is no radar gap in the course of that flight, I know.

Unfortunately, that is not how Burden of Proof works.

The "official theory" is the "accepted explanation" or the "accepted truth" (for lack of a better term) of the matter. Perhaps it is not accepted by everyone, but regardless, it is considered "accepted". In this scenario, the "accepted explanation" is that the planes that took off that morning were the same planes that later slammed into the WTC, the Pentagon, and the field in Shanksville.

The "planes were somehow swapped mid-air" theory is a counter-claim that calls the accepted explanation into question.

The person putting forward the counter claim is required to prove that they are correct, and the counter-claim must have sufficiently conclusive evidence - they have the burden to prove their theory.

[...]

Well, that's your choice, but reversing the burden of proof is a typical tactic of your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist. I'm not saying that's what I consider you to be, so please don't take that personally...

Of course I don't take it personally, but I reiterate that both the official and any counter-theory have the burden of proof. I can't accept that the burden is exclusively placed on those who ask questions, especially when the official version has so many obscure points, contradictions and strange coincidences and you admit yourself that there are suspicious oddities. If you can prove that I am wrong, then I will stop asking questions. If have not enough evidence to prove that I am wrong, then you have the same burden of proof as I have.

Sorry, but the fact that a theory is backed by the government does not make that theory necessarily true. Also, an "accepted theory" is simply a theory supported by a majorty of people, but majorities change. If we apply your line of argument, then we should conclude that the US government has the burden of proof regarding the Kennedy assassination, as the overwhelming majority of people, no matter if inside or outside US, support the conspiracy from long time.

You can call this a "typical tactic of your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist", you don't have necessarily to agree with me, but that's what I think.

I fully respect your point of view, however.

Edited October 16, 2011 by bubs49

[booNyzarC]

You mean an aircraft was tracked.

Once the transponders were tampered with, along with loss of communication and simultaneous intersection of other aircraft flightpaths… no one can be certain what they are tracking anymore.

I agree with bubs - looking literally at the evidence, without making assumptions, the aircraft which impacted were unidentified.

Despite the fact that the collection of radar data pertaining to Flight 175 remained active throughout the entire event? The transponder was never turned off. It continued to return Mode C pressure altitude radar data for the entire flight, didn't it?

WTC Aircraft Two (UA 175).

The Riverhead NY ARSR-4 provided full radar coverage for the UA Boeing 757 aircraft that impacted with the WTC at 09:02 ET.

Radar data begins shortly after takeoff at 08:16 ET. Radar data shows UA 175 climbing to flight altitude west of Boston Logan International Airport. During this flight, the aircraft transponder mode 3A code changed twice. The initial mode 3A code of UA 175 was 1470. At 08:46 ET, the mode 3A code changed to 3020 and at 08:47 ET to 3321. (

Source

)

Perhaps a pilot could step in and clarify whether or not that is the case. According to my understanding of this information, the radar data collection was never interrupted beyond the normal 12 second interval to complete each 360 degree scan.

[Q24]

Where is the evidence for this "radar gap"? I don't see it on in the radar track in the document we've been referencing so far. Do you have a source for that?

This is what bubs is referring to…

9/11 Commission Report: -

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.

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.

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.

Norman Mineta interview with MSNBC: -

And a little later on, someone said, “Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50-miles out.” So I was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, “Monte, what do you have 50-miles out?”

He said, “Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so

we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is

. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position.”

Daniellie O’Brien, Dulles ATC, interview with ABC News: -

“Then I noticed the aircraft. It was

an unidentified plane

to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … I had literally a blip and nothing more.”

It is only radar reconstructions and assumptions after the event which suppose the aircraft was Flight 77.

[Q24]

Despite the fact that the collection of radar data pertaining to Flight 175 remained active throughout the entire event? The transponder was never turned off. It continued to return Mode C pressure altitude radar data for the entire flight, didn't it?

What happens when two planes cross paths and switch transponder codes?

[booNyzarC]

I was talking about AA-77 as another example of strange coincidence. There is an officially proven radar gap in AA-77's track, the Commission Report itself states this. I was not talking about United 175. There is no radar gap in the course of that flight, I know.

--

Wait, are you now suggesting that the actual Flight 175, and not a hypothetical "shadow plane," is what struck the South Tower, and that it was actually Flight 77 that was swapped mid flight with a hypothetical "shadow plane?"

[booNyzarC]

What happens when two planes cross paths and switch transponder codes?

At exactly the same altitude? They probably run into each other and crash.

Do you have radar data for the plane that it supposedly switched transponder codes with?

[bubs49]

Thank you Q24.

About the radar gap for Flight 77, another important statement from the 9/11 Commission Report:

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.

Note 142, p. 477.

[bubs49]

Wait, are you now suggesting that the actual Flight 175, and not a hypothetical "shadow plane," is what struck the South Tower, and that it was actually Flight 77 that was swapped mid flight with a hypothetical "shadow plane?"

Definitely no.

I see no relation between both planes. Again: I simply mentioned the radar gap for Flight 77 as one of the many suspicious coincidences of that day.

[booNyzarC]

Definitely no.

I see no relation between both planes. Again: I simply mentioned the radar gap for Flight 77 as one of the many suspicious coincidences of that day.

Is the contention of your speculated hypothesis then that all of the planes were swapped?

[Q24]

At exactly the same altitude? They probably run into each other and crash.

I think if anyone wanted to do it, perhaps they would fly to the side of each other?

The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff thought a mid-air switch was achievable without the aircraft running into one another.

Operation Northwoods: -

“Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan.”

Did you look at the flightpaths in my post #606?

Why does Flight 175 turn slightly West away from the WTC after the hijacking and Flight 93 turn slightly North? These appear to be pointless manoeuvres though resulted in a rendezvous of the aircraft. Isn't that peculiar they were flying the exact same flightpath for a couple of minutes?

Do you have radar data for the plane that it supposedly switched transponder codes with?

If Flight 175 and Flight 93 switched during the above rendezvous, then yes.

Otherwise, no, do you?

Flight 175 must have crossed paths with quite a few aircraft - for sure with Flight 11, Flight 93 and a Delta flight too.

[booNyzarC]

So Flight 93 (a plane lost during the attacks) and Flight 175 (another plane lost during the attacks) or Flight 11 (yet another lost) possibly swapped places with each other according to you?

Not that I actually entertain this possibility, but what exactly would be the point?

[Czero 101]

I was talking about AA-77 as another example of strange coincidence. There is an officially proven radar gap in AA-77's track, the Commission Report itself states this. I was not talking about United 175. There is no radar gap in the course of that flight, I know.

Fair enough... I completely missed the "AA-77" reference... my apologies.

Of course I don't take it personally, but I reiterate that both the official and any counter-theory have the burden of proof. I can't accept that the burden is exclusively placed on those who ask questions, especially when the official version has so many obscure points, contradictions and strange coincidences and you admit yourself that there are suspicious oddities. If you can prove that I am wrong, then I will stop asking questions. If have not enough evidence to prove that I am wrong, then you have the same burden of proof as I have.

Sorry, but the fact that a theory is backed by the government does not make that theory necessarily true. Also, an "accepted theory" is simply a theory supported by a majorty of people, but majorities change. If we apply your line of argument, then we should conclude that the US government has the burden of proof regarding the Kennedy assassination, as the overwhelming majority of people, no matter if inside or outside US, support the conspiracy from long time.

I can accept that you would have a different standard, if you will, for the burden of proof, and perhaps my experiences in other discussions are partially the cause of that difference of opinion.

In the "Moon landing was a hoax" debate, for example, conspiracy theorists bring up a host of reasons why they doubt the reality of the Moon landings. Usually, these reasons are the result of a lack of understanding, lack of technical expertise, misinterpretation of evidence (deliberate or not) and quite frequently a willingness to remain ignorant of the technologies, systems and sciences involved.

Hoax believers will generally shift the burden of proof over to NASA to prove that they "really" went to the Moon, rather than fulfilling their burden to prove that whatever evidence of fakery they think they have is the actual fact. NASA does not need to defend themselves at all, since they have fulfilled their burden of proof in spades with the mountains of evidence they possess that proves their claim.

However, someone who claims that the "Moon rocks were fake", that the "pictures from the Moon's surface should have visible stars" or that the "Apollo Guidance Computer was not powerful enough (by today's standards) to navigate to the Moon" has the burden to prove that their assertions are correct. Since it is virtually impossible to prove that their claims are indeed proof of a hoax, CT's tend to take the standpoint that they are just simply asking questions that NASA has to answer, or that they are just pointing out the "obvious flaws in NASA's story" and the lack of such answers or presence of such "obvious holes" are proof, in their eyes, that the landings were hoaxed. They will also tend to gloss over or completely ignore the fact that NASA's claim has been vetted by an overwhelming majority of the global scientific community, by other professionals with experience in the relevant sciences, systems and / or technologies, and by other countries, specifically the former Soviet Union, who, at the time, was the perceived "mortal enemy" of the United States.

So, with that all said, I guess it would be fair to say that, in general, neither one of us is really incorrect in our expectations for proof, just that we have different expectations.

You can call this a "typical tactic of your run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorist", you don't have necessarily to agree with me, but that's what I think.

You are completely entitled to have your own opinions on this or any other matter, and I would never say otherwise.

I fully respect your point of view, however.

Thanks... and I yours

Cz

[ValkyrieWings]

Hi All,

Good to see so many spent their weekends productively.

I skimmed through the posts... for those who think a controller can see an "airplane swap" in which aircraft can be seen in real time at the same exact altitude... I will leave you with this for an example...

Prior to departure, I have been assigned 10,000 feet as my first altitude. (specifically out of CHS for this example)

I was then cleared for take-off.

A little over a minute later, I was level at 10,000 feet.

ATC came on the radio and asked my altitude.

I told him "Level at 10,000".

He replied, "Good, because i show you climbing through Flight Level 210" (that's 21,000 feet for the non-pilots)

Figure that one out...

frenat can... i doubt "skyeagle" can...

Bottom line. "skyeagle" hasn't a clue of what he speaks. As I have said before, he has a little bit of knowledge to make it look like he knows what he is talking about to fool the layman, but he will never debate any real expert... This is why he will never put his name to his claims.

And now I see "skyeagle" believes in Aliens?

First it's Santa, now Aliens. Hilarious...

Hey "skyeagle", have you seen Elvis as well?

(and they call us "Conspiracy Theorists").... rolleyes

edit: typo

Edited October 17, 2011 by ValkyrieWings

[Wandering]

Skyeagle do the passenger lists in regards to jobs and occupations of passengers seem completely in line and reasonable as a standard, completely average joe-american group? Not too many VIP's/CEO's of Military Industrial Companies, not too many Actors, Not too many CEO's/Creators of famous sitcoms, not too many people who had relatives in severe legal troubles? None I bet, how weird would it be if they were packed onto the flights?! =/

I notice he's completely disappeared since:

"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"

"we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is"

has come to light, the polar opposite of what he has claimed.

BoonY, you ask questions and people have answered them here, why not acknowledge you were incorrect, or had at least assumed incorrectly instead of just ignoring it? I'll be honest, I completely expect it from skyeagle but I would hope some people on here are above acting the way he does.

[Holmesian]

Skyeagle do the passenger lists in regards to jobs and occupations of passengers seem completely in line and reasonable as a standard, completely average joe-american group? Not too many VIP's/CEO's of Military Industrial Companies, not too many Actors, Not too many CEO's/Creators of famous sitcoms, not too many people who had relatives in severe legal troubles? None I bet, how weird would it be if they were packed onto the flights?! =/

I notice he's completely disappeared since:

"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"

"we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is"

has come to light, the polar opposite of what he has claimed.

BoonY, you ask questions and people have answered them here, why not acknowledge you were incorrect, or had at least assumed incorrectly instead of just ignoring it? I'll be honest, I completely expect it from skyeagle but I would hope some people on here are above acting the way he does.

Hello Wandering,

Is it your position that the passenger list is faked? Do you say that no passengers died on any of the flights?

[Holmesian]

Hello Wandering,

Is it your position that the passenger list is faked? Do you say that no passengers died on any of the flights?

I asked the above as I was trying to work out the first paragraph of your post, but it could be you're suggesting the list is non representative as others were in the know or something. Actually reading it again I seem to be missing completely what point you are making there.