Can I convince PF's resident truthers that American 77 hit the Pentagon?

Ummm.. YES it does.

 

Oh, so your evidence that I am a shill is because of your own incredulity. Thanks! Glad to know that, like everything else you post, there is no evidence to back that up as well. Thanks for that.

Also, if you call a 3 topic rebuttal a "lecture" than that goes to show you've never attended any real classes. Again, thanks for continuing to show your failure as a researcher, critical thinker, or educated individual. It goes to show the quality of the "information" you post here. *thumbs up*

 

Ummmm,yes it does fraud...

 

Depending on a person's IQ, it is more likely to match Flt&& than anything else. The lower one's IQ, or the lower one's integrity, the less it resembles Flt77.

This fact remains inescapable, and only a moron would argue otherwise: It resembles Flt77 more than it does any other object which could possibly have been there and made contact with the facade of the Pentagon.

 

There is some evidence, like the picture we are discussing here and the damage done to the structure and what was found in the ruins, to support our position. There is ZERO for any other cause of the destruction. You are just ranting.

 

I re-evaluated the situation. I will say it again though, I believe a plane hit the Pentagon.

 

Why do you insist that it was not this one?

 

What do you mean?

 

May I ask Jango, being as you have claimed to have 're-evaluated' the situation. Was it my link that prompted the re-evaluation?

 

Honestly, a little bit, yes, but I was almost in that train of thought for a while. Your blog isn't perfect though. I'd recommend striving for being a fact-teller, not a ridicule machine. You'll persuade more easily if the tone of voice is more neutral, less threatening, and more inviting... if that's what you're looking for.

Nevertheless, there are still issues that pertain to the Pentagon, and that flight.

 

I'll take that into account, although the worst of it of course is the title of the blog, which I set up just for the hell of it but now cannot seem to changed ( EDIT - Wait just a second, I found a way to change it that's better)

I had issues with the flight too until I spent a good deal of time figuring out why and what happened. I tried to put as much of that into my AA77 Flight reconstruction (at the bottom of the blog) but there were still some gray areas that any viewer would need to go over in far more depth. I assume some of those gray areas are where your interest lies (ie. Radar 'hole' that AA77 disappeared into, phantom AA11, SS knowing about AA77 40 miles away and not communicating to NEADS, the Mineta time line issues, Langley fighter scramble heading, no shoot down order being communicated). Not until hours of digging through material and asking dozens of questions to the right people I fill in those gray areas. You've got quite a task a head of you.

 

Among other things, yes.

Secretary Rumsfeld's actions are peculiar. I hadn't known that his aide cautioned and tried to direct him back inside (naturally, where his duties lie).

The supposed phone call between Ted Olson and his wife. The fabrication has implications for the larger story, potentially.

I'm skeptical about air defense technologies -- I tend to think that the Pentagon would be well-protected from air related threats given the sheer height of the Cold War build-up, as well, continued to be held mentality. Not to mention, the knowledge of commercial aircraft being used as kamikazes that spread throughout the intelligence community in the 1990s. And, any analyst would have the Pentagon on their threat matrix or risk analysis for potential terrorist and/or foreign country attack. The reason: The Pentagon is the central military hub of the world.
I know, "Reagan International Airport is...", but what is air defense technology if you cannot control it? I mean, were launchers unprogrammable in 2001?
At any rate, if I am wrong, and the Pentagon did not have air defense technologies -- shouldn't we be asking why? Given all of the intelligence over the years...

 

Because even Friend or Foe systems have faults. Look at what happened to Iran Air Flight 655. That was transmitting all the right codes, it just happened the scope of the Aegis cruiser also picked up a fighter code in the same direction. The share scandal which erupted.. they would be crazy to put a similar type of system in the middle of one of the busiest airspaces in the world. Even suggesting it would be setting oneself up for crucifixion. The FAA, ICAO, ALPA, IATA, and any Airline or GA pilot operating out of any of the DC airports would demand heads roll if there was ever even a word that Anti-Aircraft weaponry was deployed right in the middle of their airspace. I'm sorry Jango, but no way.

Cold War, and beyond, Pentagon has always had air protection, but from conventional air attack. NORAD. Their job was to watch outside the US boarders. Anything heading for the Pentagon would have to come over the arctic. There would be ample time to scramble and intercept before it got anywhere near the Pentagon. They were never prepared for one of the thousands of commercial airliners internally to turn of course and fly intentionally into the Pentagon. Should they have known better? Perhaps, remember hind sight is always 20/20. In 2001 they may have relied on their intelligence system to protect them from terrorism, not military entities. But government is incompetent. Thats nothing new. They are, and always have been. I studied three year levels of Air Crash Investigation as part of my degree, and I can tell you with utmost certainty, nothing is ever changed until blood is spilled. Its a sad fact of life when it comes to government and their agencies, and there are hundreds of examples in the aviation industry alone. "Don't blame on conspiracy what can be blamed on stupidity" - or in this case, incompetence.

As for the Ted Olson issue, it's one I never really looked into. I heard, of course, that it was claimed the call never happened, however I never gave it much attention due to the fact at that stage I considered it to be irrelevant to whether AA77 hit the Pentagon or not. I may have a look into it now.

 

You need to look at the Ted Olsen issue, and report back here. Lies all over the place in this false flag operation.

 

I gave a brief look into it. Seems about what I remember it to be. The main controversy is that Barbara Olson did not have a credit card on her, and therefore could not have made the call.

Is that it? Thats a pretty far stretch of the imagination to then claim it must be fake. Perhaps she used someone else's? Or, more likely, she did like Todd Beamer did on UA93 and dialed 0 for the operator and then got put through collect? Both used GTE Airfones.. I cannot see how Barbara not having a credit card somehow rules out all possibilities and leaves that it must have never happened..

Is this the main argument, or have I missed something?

 

The "0 minutes" notation on the phone record may just reflect the number of billable minutes recorded. If there was some sort of collect calling arrangement, it would not reflect billable minutes.

 

Right, it would display as a charge on the recipients bill statement.

Wow, Jango. Kind of set you off there huh?

 

You talk crap all of the time.

 

Well...first it was cell phone calls, and then when that wasn't flying well (no pun intended) then it was air phones. There's more disinformation in that particular aspect of the fiasco but, that inconsistency was amongst the first of the problems with the reported BS.

 

Well, 0 chargeable minutes, sure, the call was put through collect by an operator talking to a lady on a hijacked airplane, do you really thing they would charge for that all? My example from UA93 using the same airphones was offered to be put through to his wife (assuming free of charge). Is the phone record available?

Edit; just found this;

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Barbara_Olson_calls

 

I believe all that needs to be recognized is the FBI files indicating that the phone call between the couple was 'unconnected', which of course means that the phone call would be 0:00 in length. They were released during the Zacarias Moussaoui trial.

 

...says Jango

 

I don't care if you deny it, everyone here that posts opposite of you knows the truth. Clearly, you dislike me, and everyone you 'post against'. So yeah, you talk crap, and are disrespectful. Be a man and admit it.

 

mmm I think it'd be hard to prove either way, but you do seem to be right, there is something awry there. Not amounting to conspiracy level of course, but still something. Further digging will be needed on my part.

 

I made a couple of amendments to the blog, including re-title, formats, and added this below the 'Durability of Airliners to handle high loads/overspeed;

Hijacking of Federal Express Flight 705 - (1994)

"Auburn Calloway, a FedEx employee facing possible dismissal for lying about his previous flying experience, boarded the scheduled flight as a deadheading passenger with a guitar case carrying several hammers and a speargun. He intended to disable the aircraft's cockpit voice recorder before take-off and, once airborne, kill the crew using the blunt force of the hammers so their injuries would appear consistent with an accident rather than a hijacking."

"The flight crew eventually succeeded in restraining Calloway, though only after moments of inverted and near-transonic flight beyond the designed capabilities of a DC-10. Heavily loaded with fuel and cargo, the plane was approaching too fast and too high to land on the scheduled runway 9. Sanders requested by radio to land on the longer runway 36. Ignoring warning messages from the onboard computer and using a series of sharp turns that tested the DC-10's safety limits, Sanders landed the jet safely on the runway at well over its maximum designed landing weight"

"As of January 2011, the aircraft involved still flies for FedEx as a converted MD-10-30F and is registered as N306FE" - Source