9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

[skyeagle409]

If thirteen witnesses saw that the AA77 flew over the Navy Annex.

Then it didn't fly over the Washington Blvd. bridge

Now, for a reality check.

AA 77; independent investigation, validation and verification

Feb 20, 2011

Frank Legge and Warren Stutt

Warren Stutt, a knowledgeable and dedicated researcher, spent months obtaining and analyzing the most critical and accurate primary source information available, the data from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) for AA 77. The result of that work, "Flight AA77 on 9-11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon," resolves multiple issues that arose because the National Traffic Safety Board's own work did not account for the final seconds of the flight of AA 77.

My link

My link

Your video does not show the correct flightpath of the AA77.

You might want to read this.

The pilot, Lt. Col. Steve O’Brien, will claim that he took off around 9:30 a.m., planning to return to Minnesota after dropping supplies off in the Caribbean. He will describe his close encounter: “When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had 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. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.”

O’Brien reports that the plane is either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage means it is probably an American Airlines plane. “They told us to turn and follow that aircraft—in 20 plus years of flying, I’ve never been asked to do something like that.” [Star-Tribune (Minneapolis), 9/11/2002] O’Brien and his crew, Maj. Robert Schumacher and flight engineer Master Sgt. Jeffrey Rosenthal, are unaware of the attacks in New York. Schumacher will say that, after being directed to follow Flight 77, he first thought that the plane was having technical difficulties, “that the pilots were really just trying to fly the airplane, and get it on the ground safely.”

My link

Edited April 23, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I am not in this case.

[Babe Ruth]

I cannot understand how some people dont see the facts of this event in a dark part of our world.

THe Planes hit people died ! No boogie men other than the Terrier-est !

THose pesky little Dogs !

Well, the planes hit at WTC, but not @ Pentagon or Shanksville.

*Snip*

Edited April 23, 2012 by Karlis
deleted ad hominem remark

[Czero 101]

AA77 flew directly over the Navy Annex building. It did not hit the lamppost of the Washington Blvd. stone bridge

Surely you're not purporting that to be a real, genuine, authentic photo of American Airlines Flight 77 on Sept. 11, 2001, are you...?

Cz

Edited April 23, 2012 by Czero 101

[Karlis]

Come on folks -- no ad hominem posts, please.

Thanks,

Karlis -- mod team member

[skyeagle409]

Well, the planes hit at WTC, but not @ Pentagon or Shanksville.

*Snip*

Apparently, the evidence proved beyond any doubt that United 93 crashed at Shanksvile, and American 77 at the Pentagon.I might add that many 9/11 Truthers do not agree with you either.

Edited April 23, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Surely you're not purporting that to be a real, genuine, authentic photo of American Airlines Flight 77 on Sept. 11, 2001, are you...?

Cz

When they faked that photo, they forgot to take dimensions into an account between the aircraft and the buildings.

[MID]

Surely you're not purporting that to be a real, genuine, authentic photo of American Airlines Flight 77 on Sept. 11, 2001, are you...?

Cz

Cz, impossible, he's gotta be joking.

That's my apartment that "jet" is flying over.

I wasrthere that day, and I'd have noticed a 757 flying over it--

[Q24]

Cz, impossible, he's gotta be joking.

That's my apartment that "jet" is flying over.

I wasrthere that day, and I'd have noticed a 757 flying over it--

Impossible...

You have mentioned on numerous occassions that you were in a conference room some 75 miles South-West of the WTC that day watching events... you remember, calculating how the WTC was going to collapse and informing all of your staff. But now you were in your Navy Annex apartment in Arlington? Oh.

Anyhow, the alleged Flight 77 flew within 150 metres of the Navy Annex according to the official flight path... careful what you say about not noticing it... you'll be marked down as a 'no plane' witness next.

[skyeagle409]

Impossible...

You have mentioned on numerous occassions that you were in a conference room some 75 miles South-West of the WTC that day watching events... you remember, calculating how the WTC was going to collapse and informing all of your staff. But now you were in your Navy Annex apartment in Arlington? Oh.

Anyhow, the alleged Flight 77 flew within 150 metres of the Navy Annex according to the official flight path... careful what you say about not noticing it... you'll be marked down as a 'no plane' witness next.

AA 77; independent investigation, validation and verification

My link

My link

[Q24]

AA 77; independent investigation, validation and verification

Yes, 'no plane' theories have been thoroughly refuted.

Here is another paper: -

The Pentagon Attack : Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact

http://www.journalof...10/Wyndham1.pdf

Edited May 11, 2012 by Q24

[Babe Ruth]

Read the first 5 ior 6 pages of your link Q, and do not find it persuasive. It offers many good points regarding construction and criticism of theories and evidence, but it does not claim to prove the 'large plane' theory, nor does it prove that theory.

It also fails to persuade relative to the 'Big Picture' you mentioned in criticism of Boo on another thread.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Babe Ruth

[skyeagle409]

Read the first 5 ior 6 pages of your link Q, and do not find it persuasive. It offers many good points regarding construction and criticism of theories and evidence, but it does not claim to prove the 'large plane' theory, nor does it prove that theory.

It also fails to persuade relative to the 'Big Picture' you mentioned in criticism of Boo on another thread.

Thre report was right on the money and the report from American Airlines that it loss American 77 at the Pentagon underlines what I have been saying.

Edited May 11, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Yes, 'no plane' theories have been thoroughly refuted.

I knew that all along.

You can also check the FAA registry for the airframe of American 11 and Amerrican 77, and the aircraft fleet history for American Airlines. You will also notice that not only did American Airlines report the loss of American 11 and American 77 on 9/11/2001, but a check of the fleet history of American Airlines will confirm that they lost one B-767 and one B-757 on that date. Addtionally, the airframes of American 11 and American 77, were not written off as salvage, they were written off period by American Airlines and their registration numbers were eventually deregistered by the FAA. In other words, confirmation that both aircraft were destroyed on 9/11/2001.

On page 5, you will find this:

For example, like the Pentagon, the WTC planes were never identified using time-change parts.

A few simple phone calls to Rolls-Royce, the maker of the engines used on American 77, will confirm that American 77 did in fact, crash at the Pentagon. After all, they keep engine records as well.

Edited May 11, 2012 by skyeagle409

[MID]

Impossible...

You have mentioned on numerous occassions that you were in a conference room some 75 miles South-West of the WTC that day watching events... you remember, calculating how the WTC was going to collapse and informing all of your staff. But now you were in your Navy Annex apartment in Arlington? Oh.

Seriously, Q???

I guess a little tongue-in-cheek is enough to get some folks rolling, huh?

But your memory is good. I was where you remember me saying I was. However, it took no calculating to determine that the building was going to fall.

Well, I didn't notice it!

After all, an old Air Force geek doesn't have an apartment in a Navy Annex.

Deep breath. This all means I was just having some fun...

[Babe Ruth]

Aren't we all?

[MID]

Aren't we all?

I certainly hope so!

[Q24]

I knew that all along.

You can also check the FAA registry for the airframe of American 11 and Amerrican 77, and the aircraft fleet history for American Airlines. You will also notice that not only did American Airlines report the loss of American 11 and American 77 on 9/11/2001, but a check of the fleet history of American Airlines will confirm that they lost one B-767 and one B-757 on that date. Addtionally, the airframes of American 11 and American 77, were not written off as salvage, they were written off period by American Airlines and their registration numbers were eventually deregistered by the FAA. In other words, confirmation that both aircraft were destroyed on 9/11/2001.

I knew that all along - no one said AA, UAL or the FAA still have the aircraft.

A few simple phone calls to Rolls-Royce, the maker of the engines used on American 77, will confirm that American 77 did in fact, crash at the Pentagon. After all, they keep engine records as well.

Rolls-Royce cannot confirm identity of the Pentagon aircraft because there are no physical engine part serial numbers available to match with their records. Rolls-Royce could confirm that photographs show one of their engine models, but no more than that. The problem being that Flight 77 was not the only 757 equipped with Rolls-Royce engines.

[skyeagle409]

I knew that all along - no one said AA, UAL or the FAA still have the aircraft.

Since the airframes of those aircraft were written off by American Airlines and United Airlines, it was clear what happened to them on 9/11/2001, especially since they also confirmed their aircraft were hijacked. It was known that terrorist made plans to crash aircraft into buildings and that fact was forwarded to the United States by international intelligence services from around the world prior to the 9/11 attacks.

Rolls-Royce cannot confirm identity of the Pentagon aircraft because there are no physical engine part serial numbers available to match with their records.

Rolls Royce can confirm the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon using its engine tracking data and other records. It is really just a simple matter, but since you are not knowledgeable on the way we do things in the real world of aviation is why you posted your wrong assumption. Additionally, only a certain number of those engines were produced so it is just a matter of calling upon the process of elimination.

You have serial numbers of four engines along with the serial numbers of the aircraft they were assigned.

1. Engine serial number: 123, attached to aircraft serial number: 111

2. Engine serial number: 456, attached to aircraft serial number: 222

3. Engine serial number: 789, attached to aircraft serial number: 333

4. Engine serial number: 987, attached to aircraft serial number: 444

One engine powered an aircraft that was involved in an accident. We don't have the serial number of the engine because the engine was unrecoverable at the bottom of the ocean. So all we have to do is to track all remaining engines and the engines that have been accounted for are:

1. Engine serial number: 123

2. Engine serial number: 456

4. Engine serial number: 987

Question: Using the information above, which aircraft was involved in the accident?

Edited May 14, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Since the airframes of those aircraft were written off by American Airlines and United Airlines, it was clear what happened to them on 9/11/2001, especially since they also confirmed their aircraft were hijacked. It was known that terrorist made plans to crash aircraft into buildings and that fact was forwarded to the United States by international intelligence services from around the world prior to the 9/11 attacks.

AA and UAL do not know for certain what happened to their aircraft from 9/11 to this day, since they were never again positively identified after going off radar and/or altering transponder codes. The airlines can confirm that their properties were lost (which they did) and even the appearance of hijackings, but can only assume the aircrafts' final destinations. Only the aircrafts' physical identification, which was never carried out, could have proven it beyond reasonable doubt.

Rolls Royce can confirm the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon using its engine tracking data and other records. It is really just a simple matter, but since you are not knowledgeable on the way we do things in the real world of aviation is why you posted your wrong assumption. Additionally, only a certain number of those engines were produced so it is just a matter of calling upon the process of elimination.

There has never been a full physical reconciliation of Rolls-Royce engine serial numbers (do Rolls-Royce employees personally go out and perform a complete, regular, physical stock take of their engines as your example suggests? - of course not, it would be a huge task) and neither would agents involved in the switch, who now have possession of the aircraft, provide that true information - we cannot assume they are so bloody stupid to incriminate themselves.

Again, anything short of the aircrafts' physical identification, which was never carried out, is insufficient to prove the identity beyond reasonable doubt - the evidence which has been put forward (radar data with its great big coverage black spot, etc) only works through a leap of faith that no one actually wanted to switch the aircraft and conceal the fact.

It has been documented that both civilian and military aircraft can be switched/tampered to deceive the American public and present a pretext for war despite the presence of radar, distress messages and plane parts - the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff had planned it before in their Operation Northwoods, which would have led thousands of souls to their deaths in an unecessary conflict. The difference back then is that President Kennedy put a stop to the madness at the final stage of approval... unlike 2001, where Bush and the warmonger Neocon cabal had assumed control.

The aircraft deception could be performed, there is no evidence this was not the case and only the most naive would take the leap of faith that it was not.

[Babe Ruth]

One of the most compelling reasons to understand the fraud of the OCT is the failure to identify the aircraft wreckages in accordance with acceptable and standard procedures.

If the government were to be honest, it would provide the wreckage for positive identification.

Because it HAS NOT done that, the skeptic must assume that the government is hiding something.

[skyeagle409]

AA and UAL do not know for certain what happened to their aircraft from 9/11 to this day, since they were never again positively identified after going off radar and/or altering transponder codes. The airlines can confirm that their properties were lost (which they did) and even the appearance of hijackings, but can only assume the aircrafts' final destinations. Only the aircrafts' physical identification, which was never carried out, could have proven it beyond reasonable doubt.

There has never been a full physical reconciliation of Rolls-Royce engine serial numbers (do Rolls-Royce employees personally go out and perform a complete, regular, physical stock take of their engines as your example suggests? - of course not, it would be a huge task) and neither would agents involved in the switch, who now have possession of the aircraft, provide that true information - we cannot assume they are so bloody stupid to incriminate themselves.

Again, anything short of the aircrafts' physical identification, which was never carried out, is insufficient to prove the identity beyond reasonable doubt - the evidence which has been put forward (radar data with its great big coverage black spot, etc) only works through a leap of faith that no one actually wanted to switch the aircraft and conceal the fact.

It has been documented that both civilian and military aircraft can be switched/tampered to deceive the American public and present a pretext for war despite the presence of radar, distress messages and plane parts - the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff had planned it before in their Operation Northwoods, which would have led thousands of souls to their deaths in an unecessary conflict. The difference back then is that President Kennedy put a stop to the madness at the final stage of approval... unlike 2001, where Bush and the warmonger Neocon cabal had assumed control.

The followning links prove that you have been throwing around bad and misleading information.

http://www.planespot...erican-Airlines

http://www.planespot...an-Airlines.php

And, there was no way the aircraft were switched. I think the 9/11 CT folks made up that false story.

Edited May 14, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

One of the most compelling reasons to understand the fraud of the OCT is the failure to identify the aircraft wreckages in accordance with acceptable and standard procedures.

You don't seem to understand how things work in the real world of aviation. If an airliner was lost at sea and never found, how do you think they would have been able to identify the aircraft that was lost?

[Babe Ruth]

Please spare me the hogwash lecture Sky. While you've been collecting government checks for 40 years, I've been earning a living in aviation.

We're not talking about an airplane underwater sir, and we're not talking about computer generated fake pictures of F-18s crashing into buildings.

We're talking about the wreckage of 2 privately owned airplanes that the government refuses to put up for inspection.

[skyeagle409]

Please spare me the hogwash lecture Sky

Just laying out the facts.

. While you've been collecting government checks for 40 years, I've been earning a living in aviation.

How come you failed to mention that I have spent more than 40 years in aviation?

We're not talking about an airplane underwater sir,...

If you were knowledgeable in aviation affairs you would have understood the message that was presented, but you failing to understand that message simply told me that you are not familiar with the way we do things in the aviation world at all.

...and we're not talking about computer generated fake pictures of F-18s crashing into buildings.

And, you've failed to understand that message as well.

We're talking about the wreckage of 2 privately owned airplanes that the government refuses to put up for inspection.

You simply made up that story because American Airlines reported the loss of American 11 and American 77, and United Airlines reported the loss of United 93, and Unted 175. and none of those aircraft had anything to do with government aircraft, so it was easy for me to determined that you made up that story about government aircraft.

Edited May 14, 2012 by skyeagle409