9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

[skyeagle409]

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

Go right ahead and correct what you think needs to be corrected, and then, I will provide a dose of reality for you. Problem is, you do not have the expertise to do so.

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

You can look at the engine and tell that it is a Rolls-Royce, used on the B-757. Additionally, all you have to do is to tie ATC communications, transponder information, and radar data together to place American 77 at the Pentagon.

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

On the contrarry, it is far easier than you think since only a certain number of that model were built. Just a matter of calling upon the 'process of elimination' if you decide not to call the owner of N644AA, which of course was American Airlines in order to determine which aircraft crashed at the Pentagon.

Edited March 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

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

>

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

>

You can look at the engine and tell that it is a Rolls-Royce, used on the B-757. Additionally, all you have to do is to tie ATC communications, transponder information, and radar data together to place American 77 at the Pentagon.

You can look at the engine? What happened to the serial numbers sky?

[skyeagle409]

You can look at the engine? What happened to the serial numbers sky?

It will be right there on the engine, and I must say that each engine part has its own stock and part numbers including bolts, nuts, washers and even the wiring. Each jet engine has its own serial number and here is an example why..

ENGINE MAKE & MODEL: ROLLS ROYCE MODEL RB211-535-C

ENGINE SERIAL NUMBER: 31443

ENGINE TIME SINCE NEW: 24,566.57 HOURS

ENGINE CYCLE SINCE NEW: 11,454 CYCLES

[skyeagle409]

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.

To make it simple, neither the Airline Pilots Association, International, nor the Allied Pilots Association agree with the 9/11 CT folks and I am in agreement with them as well. Your frustraton comes at a price because you listen to the wrong people who have no clue as to what they are talking about.

Click on the following links.

We Will Never Forget

9/11 Observances, Affirms Commitment to "Never Forget"

What it is, the 9/11 CT folks are not in the habit of learning anything and I have provided many reasons why those aircraft were not flown under remote control nor switched in flight nor could they have been modified for the purpose of adding remote control devices without setting off the alarm bells.

I have also stated why there were no duplicate flights in regards to United 175 and I have cited safety concerns of two aircraft occupying the same airspace with the same registration and flight numbers under ATC control and I have corrected those who have claimed that a modified pod was attached to United 175 and I told them why it was impossible to attach a pod in the location they had claimed.

The 9/11 CT folks do not understand what is involved in modifying large aircraft and the tons of paperwork involved when aircraft are modified nor do they understand flight operations within controlled airspace. In addition, remote controlled aircraft create their own problems within controlled airspace and why many pilots are against remote controlled aircraft flying within controlled airspace.

I can call upon more than 40 years experience within the world of aviation as a pilot, and DCC crew member aboard the Air Force's C-5 Galaxy, and as an airframe technician. I have been involved in maintaining, rebuilding, and modifying many types of aircraft such as bombers, fighters, transports, helicopters, and tanker aircraft and have been called upon by the Air Force and a defense contractor to developed a repair manual for the USAF in regards to the TF-39C jet engine inlet, which is used on the Air Force's C-5 Galaxy.

I have served as supervisor and inspector at Travis AFB, CA. for the USAF and defense contractors and to further add, I have developed components and equipment used by the USAF and defense contractors at Travis AFB and for another defense contractor and the U.S. Army at CCAD, Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, TX. On top of that, I am the past president of a chapter at Travis AFB, CA., where I led a group that included Air Force military officers, enlisted personnel, Air Force retirees and civilians, and some members of my chapter are original Tuskegee Airmen whose story is told in the current George Lucas movie; "Red Tails.".

There is no substitute for experience and don't always depend upon the Internet either because I have had to correct the Federation of American Scientist on the Internet in regards to their incorrect performance figures regarding the Air Force's F-15 Eagle. and if I say that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon and was NOT under remote control when it did, then you had better listen to what I have to say and not listen to those flawed 9/11 CT web sites, which are notorious for their brand of misinformation and disinformation.

Edited March 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

9/11 Audio: American 77 hits Pentagon

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/911-audio-american-77-hits-pentagon/2011/09/08/gIQAw9xGCK_video.html

Edited March 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

It will be right there on the engine, and I must say that each engine part has its own stock and part numbers including bolts, nuts, washers and even the wiring. Each jet engine has its own serial number and here is an example why..

ENGINE MAKE & MODEL: ROLLS ROYCE MODEL RB211-535-C

ENGINE SERIAL NUMBER: 31443

ENGINE TIME SINCE NEW: 24,566.57 HOURS

ENGINE CYCLE SINCE NEW: 11,454 CYCLES

Oh, so you just have to look on the engine to see the serial number, then you can match it? Sounds easy enough.

I assume NIST did that then?

Edited March 16, 2012 by Wandering

[Q24]

It will be right there on the engine, and I must say that each engine part has its own stock and part numbers including bolts, nuts, washers and even the wiring. Each jet engine has its own serial number and here is an example why..

ENGINE MAKE & MODEL: ROLLS ROYCE MODEL RB211-535-C

ENGINE SERIAL NUMBER: 31443

ENGINE TIME SINCE NEW: 24,566.57 HOURS

ENGINE CYCLE SINCE NEW: 11,454 CYCLES

You see Wandering? The poor fellow’s cognitive process does not function. Of course you know that already.

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

It was such a basic area to confirm, in which authorities failed.

The lack of competent investigation in regard to every aspect of 9/11 has always been a sticking point for objective thinkers. The event occurred, politicians and the media machine rapidly put the official story in place, government investigative bodies have since consistently made effort to avoid areas that might challenge the narrative.

It is an exercise in propaganda at its core - politically driven; the story shaping the study.

Edit: -

Oh, so you just have to look on the engine to see the serial number, then you can match it? Sounds easy enough.

I assume NIST did that then?

Can I just point out that NIST had nothing to do with the Pentagon or aircraft investigation? The crime scene was handled by the FBI, the building performance study by the ASCE and further assistance sought from the NTSB.

It would be responsibility of the FBI and/or NTSB to confirm debris serial numbers. In FOIA responses, the NTSB passed the buck to the FBI, and the FBI stated identity of the aircraft was never in question, thus in their opinion no confirmation necessary.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Q24

[Wandering]

You see Wandering? The poor fellow’s cognitive process does not function. Of course you know that already.

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

It was such a basic area to confirm, in which authorities failed.

The lack of competent investigation in regard to every aspect of 9/11 has always been a sticking point for objective thinkers. The event occurred, politicians and the media machine rapidly put the official story in place, government investigative bodies have since consistently made effort to avoid areas that might challenge the narrative.

It is an exercise in propaganda at its core – politically driven; the story shaping the study.

I know right? He speaks:

It will be right there on the engine

as if I have it in front of me! If It's so damn simple skyeagle, why wasn't it done?

You're shooting yourself in the foot here, stating how simple and basic a task is, yet It wasn't performed.

[Babe Ruth]

None of the "accidents" that day were investigated in accordance with normal NTSB standards and procedures.

That's why such things as serial numbers are not available--they were all obscured and classified by DoD.

More circumstantial evidence as to the FF nature of the events of the day.

[booNyzarC]

I know right? He speaks: as if I have it in front of me! If It's so damn simple skyeagle, why wasn't it done?

I can understand your point of view on this Wandering. It doesn't really address the question adequately to just list out the serial number, model, and maintenance history of the aircraft.

You're shooting yourself in the foot here, stating how simple and basic a task is, yet It wasn't performed.

But as to this, which seems to suggest a question, I have one possible answer. Why wasn't it performed?

There was no need to identify the serial numbers of parts. AA had confirmed they lost the aircraft. And here is the clincher in my opinion... the remains of the passengers where identified with DNA analysis, were they not?

What more proof does anyone need than that?

It is baffling to me how people suggest this is not definitive. The "they could have faked it!" mantra always ensues. Well you know what, if they had released a statement indicating that the serial numbers on the parts match as additional confirmation, we'd get the same "they could have faked it!" mantra. Crystal clear video? "they could have faked it!" Phone calls from the planes? (oh, yeah, we have those... what is the response?) "they could have faked it!"

No matter what evidence is presented, it will never be good enough.

[Q24]

There was no need to identify the serial numbers of parts. AA had confirmed they lost the aircraft. And here is the clincher in my opinion... the remains of the passengers where identified with DNA analysis, were they not?

What more proof does anyone need than that?

It is baffling to me how people suggest this is not definitive.

There is no audit trail of the collection process and transit. Many human remains were recovered from the Pentagon, as would be expected in a building where 125 office workers perished, but were not identified on-site. The passenger DNA samples could have been inserted at any point in the process, from any location.

In the same way that just listing the aircraft serial number, etc, does not address the issue, neither does listing the victims.

It is worth remembering that Polish saboteurs were recovered at the Gleiwitz incident.

[booNyzarC]

There is no audit trail of the collection process and transit. Many human remains were recovered from the Pentagon, as would be expected in a building where 125 office workers perished, but were not identified on-site. The passenger DNA samples could have been inserted at any point in the process, from any location.

In the same way that just listing the aircraft serial number, etc, does not address the issue, neither does listing the victims.

It is worth remembering that Polish saboteurs were recovered at the Gleiwitz incident.

"They could have faked it!"

Oh yes, I'm familiar with the mantra.

[Czero 101]

There is no audit trail of the collection process and transit. Many human remains were recovered from the Pentagon, as would be expected in a building where 125 office workers perished, but were not identified on-site. The passenger DNA samples could have been inserted at any point in the process, from any location.

And what of the reports that bodies were found still strapped into the airliner's seats immediately after the crash...?

On Tuesday, Army Staff Sgt. Mark Williams witnessed a combat zone for the first time in his 11 years of service. He never imagined it would be inside the Pentagon. One of the first recovery personnel to enter the crippled headquarters building after a hijacked Boeing 757 smashed into it, the urban search-and-rescue specialist found a gruesome sight.

...

When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him.

[SOURCE]

Cz

[Q24]

"They could have faked it!"

Oh yes, I'm familiar with the mantra.

Indeed – the precedent of false flag deception and political lies are well documented.

[Q24]

And what of the reports that bodies were found still strapped into the airliner's seats immediately after the crash...?

[SOURCE]

Possibly journalistic licence – it is not quoted, and if it were it would be unbelievable. There was barely a recognisable piece of debris, much less possibility of whole seats with passengers still strapped in. More likely Mark Williams may have mistaken office workers still sitting in their chairs where the fires exploded through the offices.

Show us pictures of the passengers still strapped in the seats, not one piece of notoriously weak eyewitness evidence. The photographs of office victims were released, so why not the passengers?

Thanks, but this is entirely insufficient.

[Czero 101]

Possibly journalistic licence

So in other words, they were lying...?

it is not quoted, and if it were it would be unbelievable.

So your initial problem is that it wasn't quoted, but even if it were quoted, you wouldn't believe it? More "journalistic license", I suppose...?

There was barely a recognisable piece of debris,

Aside from everything that has been shown that can be identified as, at the very least, coming from an airplane...

much less possibility of whole seats with passengers still strapped in.

Does a low probability mean it was impossible?

More likely Mark Williams may have mistaken office workers still sitting in their chairs where the fires exploded through the offices.

I'm guessing then that you didn't actually read the article where they describe bodies of actual office workers found in / near chairs...?

How many times have you been to an office and seen people strapped into their chairs, btw...?

Just curious because apparently you feel that that is something that can happen and can be mistaken for airline passengers strapped into their seats.

Show us pictures of the passengers still strapped in the seats, not one piece of notoriously weak eyewitness evidence.

So the word of a first responder is "notoriously weak" when they are describing events and scenes that could put a dent in your precious theories, yet when "missymoo999" - another first responder - posted in the WTC 7 thread in a manner which could possibly bolster your position, you didn't seem to find her position / observations "notoriously weak"...?

Funny that, eh?

Cz

Edited March 16, 2012 by Czero 101

[Babe Ruth]

The military "fakes stuff" all the time. The first public record of that was the Supreme Court case known as Reynolds v. U.S. way back in 1953. The Washington Post did a thorough story about that in its June 22, 2003 edition, entitled "An Injustice Wrapped In A Pretense."

Right on up to Pat Tillman and beyond, with many dozens of examples in between, such as Gulf of Tonkin.

That so many rational people base their entire case upon the veracity of the government demonstrates just how UNscientific their case is.

That the NTSB was shoved aside by the Pentagon in the investigation of 4 supposed airliner crashes on one day speaks volumes about the high probability of more "fake stuff" by the government, specifically the DoD.

[Q24]

So in other words, they were lying...?

Well no, let’s not jump to conclusions.

Journalistic licence does not automatically equate to lying for many reasons.

Perhaps Mark Williams said, “the bodies of victims were burnt, still in their seats” and the reporter elaborated, as they tend to do, “discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats”.

It is not lying, just a dramatic misinterpretation.

Of course we don’t know for sure because the actual quote is not there. And I know better than to trust any one eyewitness when a quote does exist, never mind when it does not.

Is this really so unreasonable?

So your initial problem is that it wasn't quoted, but even if it were quoted, you wouldn't believe it? More "journalistic license", I suppose...?

It was one suggestion why the evidence you provided is insufficient, to which I then added another.

I don’t understand why you think an indirect quote attributed to a single eyewitness would be sufficient. I could ‘prove’ all sorts of crazy things if that were the standard of evidence required. There is no point taking offence, I’m just explaining why people question the event.

To reiterate: -

1. A direct quote is really needed to get off the ground.
   
2. More than a single eyewitness is required.
   

The rest of your post does not resolve either problem so I will stop here.

[booNyzarC]

That so many rational people base their entire case upon the veracity of the government demonstrates just how UNscientific their case is.

The official version of events is not based entirely on "the veracity of the government." Not by a long shot.

Furthermore, are you attempting to say that your case is somehow scientific?

[itsnotoutthere]

Possibly journalistic licence – it is not quoted, and if it were it would be unbelievable. There was barely a recognisable piece of debris, much less possibility of whole seats with passengers still strapped in. More likely Mark Williams may have mistaken office workers still sitting in their chairs where the fires exploded through the offices.

Show us pictures of the passengers still strapped in the seats, not one piece of notoriously weak eyewitness evidence. The photographs of office victims were released, so why not the passengers?

Thanks, but this is entirely insufficient.

Did you know that when the emergency services searched the wreckage of the Lockerbie plane they found several people sill strapped in there seats & they found one with a baby in his lap.

Edited March 16, 2012 by itsnotoutthere

[skyeagle409]

The military "fakes stuff" all the time.

Since American Airlines reported the loss of American 77 at the Pentagon and is not part of the U.S. military nor any government agency, your post falls flat of its face

Question is, why did I have to repeat that fact to you? That should help explain why, according to Wanderer, I sound like a broken record because it seems that you have a very short memory as to whom owned the B-757 a.k.a. American 77. .

Edited March 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Oh, so you just have to look on the engine to see the serial number, then you can match it? Sounds easy enough.

I assume NIST did that then?

I don't see why they would be checking engine tags during recovery operations at the Pentagon when they could obtain ID information from American Airlines, and remember the black box of American 77 was recovered.HINT!!!

Edited March 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

There is no audit trail of the collection process and transit. Many human remains were recovered from the Pentagon, as would be expected in a building where 125 office workers perished, but were not identified on-site. The passenger DNA samples could have been inserted at any point in the process, from any location.

Why not ask the families of the passengers and crew of American 77 if that was possible. In fact, why don't you tell us what happened to Barbara Olson.

Edited March 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

You see Wandering? The poor fellow's cognitive process does not function. Of course you know that already.

How amusing that you were unable to deceipher as to why I posted that information. Goes to show that you do not have what it takes to debate anyone on American 77. Since I posted that information for a reason, would you care to try again since you didn't get it the first time?

Your lack of knowledge of the way things are done in the real world of aviation is clearly evident. Now once again, what can be determined from the information that I have posted for you in regards to American 77?

Edited March 16, 2012 by skyeagle409

[ChrLzs]

Indeed – the precedent of false flag deception and political lies are well documented.

Sighs wearily.

No points awarded for telling us which logical fallacy this is a TEXTBOOK example of...