No positive identification of planes?

[LastChild]

No, I don't have the technical readouts on how the ACARS system works, I have a basic idea of what it does. Why would you need the techinal readouts of the programme to determine if it could distingush planes from each other when the system wouldn't work if it couldn't? The whole idea of the system is to give the Airline data on their aircraft while it's in the air and to allow them to give it information directly. If it couldn't distingust one plane from anothr it would be useless. It doesn't take a moron to figure that out. Once again you seem to have to reduce details to a minicle point to try and claim victory when something can't be explained to that point (though I'm sure that ANTMAN or one of the others probably can get you the instruction manual if needed) rather then use your brain and a bit of logic about things. Why is this?

I didn't see this post before my last one. Where did you see this system and flight 93 covered? What's your source?

[Jonnyclueless]

How about asking LC to prove he has a computer.

[PhantomWolf]

How about asking LC to prove he has a computer.

Actually I was about to ask him if he knows how his computer positively identifies the server this forum is on, which is esentially the same priciple. The fact he seems to think that a system developed in 1978 wouldn't know which plane it was talking to in 2001 even if he doesn't know thew exact protocol it used is, to me, totally incomprehesible. The only reason I can see for his behaviour is that he wants to declare that the system couldn't work, even though it has obviously been working and identifying planes to their airlines for 30 years!

[LastChild]

Actually I was about to ask him if he knows how his computer positively identifies the server this forum is on, which is esentially the same priciple. The fact he seems to think that a system developed in 1978 wouldn't know which plane it was talking to in 2001 even if he doesn't know thew exact protocol it used is, to me, totally incomprehesible. The only reason I can see for his behaviour is that he wants to declare that the system couldn't work, even though it has obviously been working and identifying planes to their airlines for 30 years!

So you don't have anything to back-up your claim? How surprising.

[PhantomWolf]

So you don't have anything to back-up your claim? How surprising.

Because I can't show you the exact protocol that was used in 2001 by AA and UAL? Are you seriously suggesting that in 2001 their ACARS system could not distingush one plane from another? Is that what you are saying here? Come on LC actually make a claim for once. Since you obviously believe that it couldn't, or at least want to break down the system until someone can't explain it, that seems to be what you believe so just come out and say it.

BTW the systems use ARINC 633 nowdays, but whether AA and UAL did in 2001 I don't know, before Boeing and Airbus started to standardise ACARS ecah airline used it's own protocols so again the only ones that could tell you the exact protocols are those that used them. Regardless, are you going to make the claim that the ACARS system was unable to distingush between planes in 2001, because if you aren't, then the obviousness of the fact the system had to be able to to work stands out as the winner.

[LastChild]

Because I can't show you the exact protocol that was used in 2001 by AA and UAL? Are you seriously suggesting that in 2001 their ACARS system could not distingush one plane from another? Is that what you are saying here? Come on LC actually make a claim for once. Since you obviously believe that it couldn't, or at least want to break down the system until someone can't explain it, that seems to be what you believe so just come out and say it.

BTW the systems use ARINC 633 nowdays, but whether AA and UAL did in 2001 I don't know, before Boeing and Airbus started to standardise ACARS ecah airline used it's own protocols so again the only ones that could tell you the exact protocols are those that used them. Regardless, are you going to make the claim that the ACARS system was unable to distingush between planes in 2001, because if you aren't, then the obviousness of the fact the system had to be able to to work stands out as the winner.

You claiming this is not proof the planes were positively identified. Source where this was offered up as identification of any of the planes.

[16.5]

So you don't have anything to back-up your claim? How surprising.

Do you have any evidence do you have that contradicts what they are telling you, Last Child? Anything?

Here is another homework assignment for you: look up Burden of Persuasion. You see, once a proponent of a point has come forward with evidence sufficient to carry its burden of proof, the burden of persuasion shifts to the other side, here YOU, to come forward with some evidence to contradict, rebut, etc the evidence that has been amassed.

You are fine with snarky comments, but I assume that you have some evidence to support that snark? Anything??

/whoops! sorry, I meant MR. Last Child, damn straight I wouldn't want to get reported!

[PhantomWolf]

You claiming this is not proof the planes were positively identified. Source where this was offered up as identification of any of the planes.

Gee you are no fun. Can't you make one tiny little claim before I knock you over for six?

My claim is that the ACARS can positively identify the aircraft. Do you agree or disagree with this? All you have to say is yes or no. I won't even get you to prove your position, I'll just post my evidence. So go for it. What's your position?

[LastChild]

Gee you are no fun. Can't you make one tiny little claim before I knock you over for six?

My claim is that the ACARS can positively identify the aircraft. Do you agree or disagree with this? All you have to say is yes or no. I won't even get you to prove your position, I'll just post my evidence. So go for it. What's your position?

Do I agree you can assert this without backing it up? Sure it's what debunkers always do. That's why I'm asking where you read that this was how they identified the planes and how it identifies the planes.

My position is no evidence has been offered up that I know of on how the planes were positively identified. You could be making an educated assumption but that’s not proof to me that it was done or that it can be done. So what’s your source that this was used to identify any of the 9/11 planes?

[Reheat]

Good Lord, ACARS has been working at both American and United since at least the early 90's. Among other things it's the method for monitoring engine anomalies. The maintenance department knows if there is a developing engine problem BEFORE the aircraft lands. Of course, if it's not on the Internet it's not valid. :rolleyes:

Well, the database is here (http://www.acarsd.org/acars_search.html), but it doesn't go back to 2001.

[LastChild]

Good Lord, ACARS has been working at both American and United since at least the early 90's. Among other things it's the method for monitoring engine anomalies. The maintenance department knows if there is a developing engine problem BEFORE the aircraft lands. Of course, if it's not on the Internet it's not valid. :rolleyes:

Is there data somewhere for 9/11 from ACARS?

[WildCat]

So then tell me how brainiac. You do know don't you? I'm really interested. Tell me how it worked on 9/11.
Are you really unable to use Google LC? Can you do anything for yourself, or must someone hold your hand and guide you through every step of your life?

[PhantomWolf]

Still no fun. Fine.

This:

ACARS mode: 2 Aircraft reg: .N642UA
Message label: H1 Block id: 9 Msg. no: F39A
Flight id: UA0970
Message content:-
#M1BPOSN39092W076136,SWANN,215516,230,GOLDA,215624 ,BROSS,M21,28214,958/TS215516,100897B166

Is an ACARS system message from an UAL 767 (This one to be exact (http://www.airliners.net/photo/United-Airlines/Boeing-767-322-ER/1334025/M/))

This contains several bits of information including both the Flight Number (United Airlines 970 in this case) and the Plane's registration Number (N642UA).

The Registration number works in the same ways as your e-mail address or the IP adress on your computer. This both positively identifies the flight and the aircraft with the data. By the way, that particular string includes the plane telling the ground station where it is. POSN39092W076136 means Position 39.09.2 North and 76.13.6 West, the plane's Longitude and Latitude.

You can find out more, including other examples and even how to intercept the ACARS for yourself from here (http://www.acarsonline.co.uk/about/)

[16.5]

"You can find out more, including other examples and even how to intercept the ACARS for yourself from here."

He is going to now ask if you have the same data from 9/11/01. You are going to say of course not. He is going to say that you haven't proved anything, and the rest of us are going to to do a face palm.

In 3...2....1...

[PhantomWolf]

"You can find out more, including other examples and even how to intercept the ACARS for yourself from here."

He is going to now ask if you have the same data from 9/11/01. You are going to say of course not. He is going to say that you haven't proved anything, and the rest of us are going to to do a face palm.

In 3...2....1...

Very likely. It's a pity that we can't change poster's names, LC really is a Lost Cause.

[LastChild]

Still no fun. Fine.

This:

ACARS mode: 2 Aircraft reg: .N642UA
Message label: H1 Block id: 9 Msg. no: F39A
Flight id: UA0970
Message content:-
#M1BPOSN39092W076136,SWANN,215516,230,GOLDA,215624 ,BROSS,M21,28214,958/TS215516,100897B166

Is an ACARS system message from an UAL 767 (This one to be exact (http://www.airliners.net/photo/United-Airlines/Boeing-767-322-ER/1334025/M/))

This contains several bits of information including both the Flight Number (United Airlines 970 in this case) and the Plane's registration Number (N642UA).

The Registration number works in the same ways as your e-mail address or the IP adress on your computer. This both positively identifies the flight and the aircraft with the data. By the way, that particular string includes the plane telling the ground station where it is. POSN39092W076136 means Position 39.09.2 North and 76.13.6 West, the plane's Longitude and Latitude.

You can find out more, including other examples and even how to intercept the ACARS for yourself from here (http://www.acarsonline.co.uk/about/)

An IP address can be manipulated to someone trying to see it.

Where did you see the ACARS data for the 9/11 planes offered up as evidence of identification? Is this a hard question?

[PhantomWolf]

An IP address can be manipulated to someone trying to see it.

The ACARS system isn't the Internet, it runs through a single system, not multiple ones that can spoof it.

Where did you see the ACARS data for the 9/11 planes offered up as evidence of identification? Is this a hard question?

I never said that the ACARS was offered as evidence, I said that the Airlines were tracking their planes and identified the flights as theirs. AA did it around 45 minutes after Flight 11 crashed, and about an hour after 77. UA did it within 10-15 minutes of each of theirs. The Airlines knew what aircraft where involved before the Media, before NORAD and in some cases before the FAA. Either they were in on it, or their systems were telling them what planes were involved, that system is ACARS. The positive id come from the Airlines themselves, how they did that ID is a different matter and the logical evidence points to ACARS which would have been given then positional and flight data right up until the crashes.

[LastChild]

The ACARS system isn't the Internet, it runs through a single system, not multiple ones that can spoof it.

Was I the one who brought up the internet?


I never said that the ACARS was offered as evidence, I said that the Airlines were tracking their planes and identified the flights as theirs. AA did it around 45 minutes after Flight 11 crashed, and about an hour after 77. UA did it within 10-15 minutes of each of theirs. The Airlines knew what aircraft where involved before the Media, before NORAD and in some cases before the FAA. Either they were in on it, or their systems were telling them what planes were involved, that system is ACARS. The positive id come from the Airlines themselves, how they did that ID is a different matter and the logical evidence points to ACARS which would have been given then positional and flight data right up until the crashes.

So you're assuming?

[16.5]

So it doesn't positively identify the plane? Why didn't you just say so?

Was I the one who brought up the internet?

So you're assuming?

Oh brother. We have reached the end of the truth movement, and it is named Last Child.

Every question answered, in detail, and Last Child has nothing.

[pomeroo]

So you don't have anything to back-up your claim? How surprising.


Why should it be surprising? After all, thousands of people are covering-up a mathematically impossible conspiracy whose goal was...well, I'm sure it must have had some goal other than transferring control of both houses of Congress to the opposition party.

Can we conclude that you've added United and American airlines to the rather bloated conspiracy. They claim to be missing four planes and you know the real number is--what? Eight? Zero? What is the number? Finding the FDR from Flight 77 in the Pentagon proves that it didn't hit the Pentagon, right? The DNA from the passengers was planted, right?

[PhantomWolf]

Was I the one who brought up the internet?

No, you were the one that said that IP's could be manipulated, I'm pointing out that ACARS can't be.

So you're assuming?

I'm assuming they knew it was their planes because of ACARS, I'm not assuming they were the ones that confirmed the identity of the crashed planes, that part is fact.

Either they knew which planes they were, or they were lying.

Were they were lying LC?

If not, then how would they know what planes were the ones that crashed? The FAA didn't tell them, NORAD didn't, the Media didn't, so how did they know?

We do know they had in place and were using a system that would tell them, so why is it not a safe assumption that they knew because of that system?

[pomeroo]

We all know what they apparently thought. I want to know what they positively knew and how. Now I can’t find anything that seems to cover flight 93 and telemetry and how it worked that day. That’s all. I've looked at the link so far but don't see anything on how it played into 9/11 and positively identifying the planes.


Hmmm. That's a tough one. Let's see: the airlines positively knew that four of their planes crashed because those planes took off and didn't land at their scheduled destinations. Debris from them was found at the crash sites.

Whew! That was tough. You've really done your homework!

[rwguinn]

"You can find out more, including other examples and even how to intercept the ACARS for yourself from here."

He is going to now ask if you have the same data from 9/11/01. You are going to say of course not. He is going to say that you haven't proved anything, and the rest of us are going to to do a face palm.

In 3...2....1...

We Have A Winnah!

An IP address can be manipulated to someone trying to see it.

Where did you see the ACARS data for the 9/11 planes offered up as evidence of identification? Is this a hard question?

[PhantomWolf]

Hmmm. That's a tough one. Let's see: the airlines positively knew that four of their planes crashed because those planes took off and didn't land at their scheduled destinations. Debris from them was found at the crash sites.

Whew! That was tough. You've really done your homework!

It was more than that Ron, the Airlines both rang and told the FAA that their planes had crashed and confirmed the Flight numbers and the locations of those crashes. That was before the debris has been collected and even before the Media knew. United had informed the FAA within 10-15 mins of the crashes of 175 and 93. Again this was before aby wreakage had been recovered or the planes were due to land. Either they were in on it, or they knew because of ACARS. Either they are lying or their system worked.

I'm not even sure what LC is being so dumb over this. Most CTs have long since accepted that Flight 11 and Flight 175 did hit the WTC, many have even come to the point of Flight 77 and 93 occuring as stated so he's fighting a battle that is long since lost.

Unless of course he's a no planer, and then there really is no hope for him.

[Jonnyclueless]

:crazy:

I couldn't find the emote of someone bashing their head against the keyboard...

[Corsair 115]

Once again you seem to have to reduce details to a minicle point to try and claim victory when something can't be explained to that point (though I'm sure that ANTMAN or one of the others probably can get you the instruction manual if needed) rather then use your brain and a bit of logic about things. Why is this?I'd summarize it with these three words: grasping at straws.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'd summarize it with these three words: grasping at straws.

But wanting proof of straws existence.

[LashL]

I've personally observed the exterior of the Pentagon after the crash.

1) How long after the events of September 11, 2001 did you "personally observe" the exterior of the Pentagon and from what vantage point?

2) Please provide all of the details of your personal observations. Don't leave anything out.

It didn't appear as if a commercial airliner had crashed.

3) Upon what basis do you say that it "didn't appear as if a commercial airliner had crashed"? Please provide all of the details of any and all personal experience, academic qualifications and/or professional expertise you have in assessing airplane crash sites and please explain which, if any, you utilized in formulating your stated assessment. Alternatively, please advise if you were simply offering a personal, layperson's opinion on the matter, and if so, please explain the rationale for your stated conclusions.

Etc, etc.

4) When you implicitly accuse people of complicity in criminal acts as you have done above, "Etc, etc." is a woefully inadequate basis upon which to do so. Please advise, in detail, what you meant by "Etc, etc." and please advise how it relates to your implicit accusations against as-yet unnamed individuals and the matters set out above.

Thank you.

[A W Smith]

When are the internet Trolls Last Child (pdoh)and Deep44 (stundie) going to produce the planes that they say never crashed?

[cloudshipsrule]

Gee I wonder. Might there be a code or another system built into the ACARS system to distingush one plane from another. Nah, that'd be a totally dumb idea wouldn't it.


That would probably be overkilll considering planes are color-coded to prevent getting them mixed up. Aren't they?

[chillzero]

Everybody please note: Do not continue to derail various threads in this section by accusing people of being sock puppets. If you suspect someone, please send a report to the mod team with any evidence or information to support your suspicions. Stop starting bickering with these accusations.

[SDC]

We should recall that, in their denial of the planes' existence, LC and deep44 are also maintaining that the passengers who were killed either 1/ never existed, or 2/ weren't really killed, 3/ were killed, but in some other unidentified way.

Perhaps by having to listen to the Collected Works of LC and deep44. Brutal.

[LastChild]

We should recall that, in their denial of the planes' existence, LC and deep44 are also maintaining that the passengers who were killed either 1/ never existed, or 2/ weren't really killed, 3/ were killed, but in some other unidentified way.

Perhaps by having to listen to the Collected Works of LC and deep44. Brutal.

When did I do any of this including "denial of the planes' existence"? Please source.

[SDC]

It's strongly implied in your postings. Your denials are too weak. OK, let's put it this way. I've served on juries, both criminal and civil. One gets experience in deciding who is not really telling the truth, and judging the true feelings/ opinions that underlie statements by others.

Actually, that comes from being the parent of a teenager as well. "Did you finish your homework?"

So LC, you don't have to say it aloud. We all can tell. You can relax now.

[gumboot]

Just a minor nitpick, of the four flights that crashed on 9/11, AA77 was the only one that was tracked on radar right up until it crashed.

AA11 was tracked on radar from 0759 when it took off until about 0842 when it dropped below radar coverage.

UA175 was tracked on radar from 0814 when it took off until between 0858 and 0902 when it dropped below radar coverage.

AA77 was tracked on radar from 0820 when it took off until 0856 when its transponder was turned off and then again from 0905 when it reappeared on radar until 0937 when it crashed.

UA93 was tracked on radar from 0842 when it took off until about 1002 when it dropped below radar coverage.

[AMTMAN]

So then tell me how brainiac. You do know don't you? I'm really interested. Tell me how it worked on 9/11.

Here you go smart guy. When a commercial airliner takes off it sends a message stating its off time and when it lands its on time. Very important for pilots by the way, that's how they get paid. Anyway it also lets the airline know which aircraft is sending that info. Makes no sense for an aircraft to be sending data that the airline has no idea which aircraft its coming from.

[LastChild]

It's strongly implied in your postings. Your denials are too weak. OK, let's put it this way. I've served on juries, both criminal and civil. One gets experience in deciding who is not really telling the truth, and judging the true feelings/ opinions that underlie statements by others.

Actually, that comes from being the parent of a teenager as well. "Did you finish your homework?"

So LC, you don't have to say it aloud. We all can tell. You can relax now.

Actually it's all you debunkers who have failed your homework assignment I gave yesterday. Another big FAT zero.


How were the planes identified? Source it.

[WildCat]

Actually it's all you debunkers who have failed your homework assignment I gave yesterday. Another big FAT zero.
Aw look, LC is playing teacher! Isn't she cute!

[AMTMAN]

Actually it's all you debunkers who have failed your homework assignment I gave yesterday. Another big FAT zero.


How were the planes identified? Source it.

I believe I just did that. Do you want to argue with me on how aircraft systems work and how airlines opperate? Care to provide any evidence that the aircraft involved were not UAL and AA a/c? Or are you going to run and hide behind the old "I don't have a theory".

[pomeroo]

I just received a copy of Pentagon 9/11, a rather pricey book published by the Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense. One of the photos that follow page 162 is labeled, "Piece of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon." It contains the American Airlines logo and a serial number: (I'm using a magnifying glass) mo05537, which is underlined. Underneath, the numbers are 1448. The metal is twisted, so it's difficult to tell if the entire number is visible, but perhaps one of our experts can tell us more.

A rescue worker found a doll in the rubble. Think about that. Although there were children on Flight 77, the doll must have belonged to someone working at the Pentagon, as no plane actually hit the building. Right?

[AMTMAN]

I just received a copy of Pentagon 9/11, a rather pricey book published by the Historical Office, Office of the Secretary of Defense. One of the photos that follow page 162 is labeled, "Piece of the aircraft that struck the Pentagon." It contains the American Airlines logo and a serial number: (I'm using a magnifying glass) mo05537, which is underlined. Underneath, the numbers are 1448. The metal is twisted, so it's difficult to tell if the entire number is visible, but perhaps one of our experts can tell us more.

A rescue worker found a doll in the rubble. Think about that. Although there were children on Flight 77, the doll must have belonged to someone working at the Pentagon, as no plane actually hit the building. Right?

MOD5537 is the company part number for a power supply for the emergency lights on a 757.

[DGM]

Let me get this straight. Someone hacked the ACARS system to make it seam that 11.175,77 and 93 crashed where they did, but a duplicate plane was actually used instead. The original planes were flown to an undisclosed location where the passengers and crew were killed. Next their remains were brought to where it appeared they died so the DNA could be collected. Did I get that right?

Why not just use the actual flights?

[pomeroo]

MOD5537 is the company part number for a power supply for the emergency lights on a 757.


Thank you. We have established that a 757 crashed at the Pentagon and the remains of passengers from AA Flight 77 were found. But we still don't know if it was actually Flight 77 that crashed, or a different plane with the same people, or something.

(Jee-sus! Imagine if your mind started working like a conspiradroid's. What would be the point of going on?)

[pomeroo]

Actually it's all you debunkers who have failed your homework assignment I gave yesterday. Another big FAT zero.


How were the planes identified? Source it.


Aw, the "special" student wants to grade the teachers.

[LastChild]

Just a minor nitpick, of the four flights that crashed on 9/11, AA77 was the only one that was tracked on radar right up until it crashed.

AA11 was tracked on radar from 0759 when it took off until about 0842 when it dropped below radar coverage.

UA175 was tracked on radar from 0814 when it took off until between 0858 and 0902 when it dropped below radar coverage.

AA77 was tracked on radar from 0820 when it took off until 0856 when its transponder was turned off and then again from 0905 when it reappeared on radar until 0937 when it crashed.

UA93 was tracked on radar from 0842 when it took off until about 1002 when it dropped below radar coverage.

Interesting. Thanks.

Anyone care to explain how radar data was used to identify the planes when the planes periodically dropped off of radar?

[DGM]

Interesting. Thanks.

Anyone care to explain how radar data was used to identify the planes when the planes periodically dropped off of radar?
No. Because it wasn't.

[16.5]

Actually it's all you debunkers who have failed your homework assignment I gave yesterday. Another big FAT zero.

How were the planes identified? Source it.

MR. Last Child demanded that posters on this board explain to him how Airlines track their planes. It was done.

He demanded a link. It was provided.

Last child demands that posters on this board show him the exact information for the flights on 9/11/01. It is explained with a link that information is not publically available at this time because the data does not go back that far. Last Child declares VICTORY! (just as I predicted).

At this point, I truly wonder who LC is kidding other than himself.

[16.5]

No.

NOMINATED!

[Jonnyclueless]

Has anyone yet mentioned to Captain brain trust that employees of the airline came to the Pentagon to confirm the identity of the aircraft? This included a stewardess who was intimately familiar with the plane who helped confirm that it was indeed flight 77. And that woman herself is a truther. Despite thinking 9/11 was an inside job, even she could not deny that it was flight 77 after examining the remains.

[SpitfireIX]

Has anyone yet mentioned to Captain brain trust that employees of the airline came to the Pentagon to confirm the identity of the aircraft? This included a stewardess who was intimately familiar with the plane who helped confirm that it was indeed flight 77. And that woman herself is a truther. Despite thinking 9/11 was an inside job, even she could not deny that it was flight 77 after examining the remains.


Can you give a source for this? Of course, the no-planers will just claim that she's a plant. :rolleyes:

[jhunter1163]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. LC must be the blindest person I've ever encountered. After having his eyelids held open a la "Clockwork Orange" and having the answers to his questions held six inches from his bloodshot eyeballs, he STILL tries to claim that the planes that crashed on 9/11 were not positively ID'd.

That takes a special kind of separation from reality.

[LastChild]

Has anyone yet mentioned to Captain brain trust that employees of the airline came to the Pentagon to confirm the identity of the aircraft? This included a stewardess who was intimately familiar with the plane who helped confirm that it was indeed flight 77. And that woman herself is a truther. Despite thinking 9/11 was an inside job, even she could not deny that it was flight 77 after examining the remains.

Really? How long after the crash was this?

[cloudshipsrule]

Really? How long after the crash was this?

Just long enough for Angelina Jolie to plant fake plane evidence.

[LastChild]

I love calling the bluff of a pretend debunker then watching them throw a tantrum.

[lapman]

I love calling the bluff of a pretend debunker then watching them throw a tantrum.
In other words, all of this is really just a game for you and you really don't question anything. You post just for the sake of posting and really just want control. Thank you for clearing that up.

[DGM]

Did someone throw a tantrum?

[aggle-rithm]

It's strongly implied in your postings. Your denials are too weak. OK, let's put it this way. I've served on juries, both criminal and civil. One gets experience in deciding who is not really telling the truth, and judging the true feelings/ opinions that underlie statements by others.


That's the good thing about being a troofer...you would NEVER have to do jury duty!

[aggle-rithm]

Did someone throw a tantrum?

jhunter1163 put two words in italics in post #301. Does that count?

[Jonnyclueless]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. LC must be the blindest person I've ever encountered. After having his eyelids held open a la "Clockwork Orange" and having the answers to his questions held six inches from his bloodshot eyeballs, he STILL tries to claim that the planes that crashed on 9/11 were not positively ID'd.

That takes a special kind of separation from reality.

It was T. Carter a flight attendant from American Airlines who regularly flew on flight 77. She also witnessed the hijackers doing a pre-911 test flight (Obviously at the time she had no idea of the plot, and only realized this after 9/11). She spoke publicly about it at a COPA 2002 meeting. She said bodies of her friends were recovered there at the scene.

One of the reasons she thinks there was a conspiracy is because one her friends on the flight called her mother and reported 6 hijackers. But obviously she knows the plane hit the building.

http://www.parapolitics.info/copa/copa2002gallery/TCarter911.ram

A recording of her speaking at the conference. A conspiracy conference basically.

[DGM]

jhunter1163 put two words in italics in post #301. Does that count?
It appears LastChild jumped the gun on that "bluff".

[Dave Rogers]

I love calling the bluff of a pretend debunker then watching them throw a tantrum.

What an unfulfilled life you must lead.

Dave

[LastChild]

In other words, all of this is really just a game for you and you really don't question anything. You post just for the sake of posting and really just want control. Thank you for clearing that up.

Not really but thanks for acknowledging I'm the one in control here.

[lapman]

Not really but thanks for acknowledging I'm the one in control here.
You're not in control, just exposed as to why you're really here.

[DGM]

Not really but thanks for acknowledging I'm the one in control here.
So you feel you have made some sort of point? How? You hold no position on .............well anything. How is that control? It's more like intellectual limbo.

[DavidJames]

So you feel you have made some sort of point? How? You hold no position on .............well anything. How is that control? It's more like intellectual limbo.

why, why keep feeding the troll,seriously, why?

[16.5]

I love calling the bluff of a pretend debunker then watching them throw a tantrum.

You call that a tantrum??

THIS is a tantrum:

"My name is LastChild to anyone pretending to debunk here and they better use it and nothing else or they will be reported. If I see them try to derail a topic by using this lame lowlife defense mechanism towards me or anyone else they will be reported for that also."

That was after I pointed out that you were relying on Eric Hufschmid. Remember that?r

Don't personalize things. Attack the argument, and not the person.

[DGM]

why, why keep feeding the troll,seriously, why?
It's more like playing with a toy. He thinks he's cleaver enough to squirm through but it's amusing to see him always fail.

Besides it passes the time between crisis's at my shop. (hey I own the place)

[LastChild]

You call that a tantrum??

THIS is a tantrum:

"My name is LastChild to anyone pretending to debunk here and they better use it and nothing else or they will be reported. If I see them try to derail a topic by using this lame lowlife defense mechanism towards me or anyone else they will be reported for that also."

That was after I pointed out that you were relying on Eric Hufschmid. Remember that?

You claiming I relied on Eric Huhschmid was a lie and a tantrum. You are again reported for lying just to attack me.

[16.5]

You claiming I relied on Eric Huhschmid was a lie and a tantrum. You are again reported for lying just to attack me.

O'Rly? Well please allow me to rebut:On March 16, 2008, you TWICE linked to a web site, stating:

"Then why wasn't this your story or "science" from the get go?

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html"

When one goes to that web site that you TWICE linked, we find this:

"Later, Eric Hufschmid appealed to people's experience with hydrocarbon-fueled fires, such as wood stoves and gas burners, to highlight the absurdity of the fire-melts-steel claim in the video Painful Deceptions."

So, I expect that you will shortly retract your claim that I lied. Thank you in advance.

[LastChild]

O'Rly? Well please allow me to rebut:On March 16, 2008, you TWICE linked to a web site, stating:

"Then why wasn't this your story or "science" from the get go?

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html"

When one goes to that web site that you TWICE linked, we find this:

"Later, Eric Hufschmid appealed to people's experience with hydrocarbon-fueled fires, such as wood stoves and gas burners, to highlight the absurdity of the fire-melts-steel claim in the video Painful Deceptions."

So, I expect that you will shortly retract your claim that I lied. Thank you in advance.

Source where I quoted Eric Hufshmid liar.

[16.5]

Source where I quoted Eric Hufshmid liar.

OH! I see. So you link to a site that quotes him. And then you link to a site that quotes him again. But you did not "quote" him?

Alas, Last Child, I did not say you "quoted him," I said you were relying on him.

As such, again, thank you kindly for with withdrawing your claim.

[LastChild]

OH! I see. So you link to a site that quotes him. And then you link to a site that quotes him again. But you did not "quote" him?

Alas, Last Child, I did not say you "quoted him," I said you were relying on him.

As such, again, thank you kindly for with withdrawing your claim.

That site also quotes people who believe the official version just like you. Does that make you NAZI? Official version experts who initially claimed the steel melted from the Jet Fuel. That's what I was pointing to and you know it liar.

Reported again for derailing. Thank You.

[jmercer]

Ok, you two (LastChild and 16.5) - stop it with the name-calling and personal attacks. One more exchange after this mod box and you can expect to be infracted.

[pomeroo]

The book Pentagon 9/11 explains the difficult task of identifying human remains that have been badly burned. The Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) was directed by the FBI to carry out the forensic identification at the Dover Port Mortuary, at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware.

"Until forensic activity shifted away from the Pentagon to Dover, AFIP senior staff coordinated on-site with the FBI, Arlington County Fire Department, and state law enforcement officials, as well as their own chain of command, headed by the commander of the Military District of Washington. All parties worked together to recover remains while preserving crime scene evidence. After being photographed and labeled in a controlled area, twice daily beginning on the 13th, in the continuous custody of the FBI the remains were transported under Virginia State Police and Fairfax County motorcycle officer escort from the Pentagon to Davison Army Airfield at Fort Belvoir, some 15 miles south of the Pentagon. From there Army CH-47 Chinook helicopters transported them 100 miles notheast to the Dover Port Mortuary. To ensure proper legal custody and continuous evidentiary control, FBI agents accompanied the remains until they were released to the medical examiner in Dover [my bolding]."

Mark is not here to ask his often-repeated question, so I will honor his invaluable service to the rationalist cause by asking it for him: Fantasists, now that you have been spoon-fed information that you were too lazy and too incompetent to discover for yourselves, WHAT WILL YOU DO WITH IT? What course will your "investigation" now follow? Can we agree that you must now add the FBI to your insanely bloated imaginary conspiracy? How will you expose this massive cover-up--so massive, indeed, that it is mathematically impossible--and catch super-villains who operate across several agencies, several branches of government, and infect private industries such as American and United Airlines?

Will any fantasists attempt to contact personnel at Dover Port Mortuary? Why not?

[AMTMAN]

That site also quotes people who believe the official version just like you. Does that make you NAZI? Official version experts who initially claimed the steel melted from the Jet Fuel. That's what I was pointing to and you know it liar.

Reported again for derailing. Thank You.

I noticed when I pointed out to you that ACARS sends on and off times back to the airline and that each aircraft has its own identifier you say nothing. Instead you go and call other people liars and pretend debunkers. What's wrong LC, don't want to talk aircraft systems and airline operations with me?

[LastChild]

I noticed when I pointed out to you that ACARS sends on and off times back to the airline and that each aircraft has its own identifier you say nothing. Instead you go and call other people liars and pretend debunkers. What's wrong LC, don't want to talk aircraft systems and airline operations with me?


What's that matter don't want to answer my questions? Show me the ACARS records from 9/11 and where it's stated this was used to ID the planes. And tell me how planes that were falling in and out of radar are identified by that same radar.

[HawksFan]

What's that matter don't want to answer my questions? Show me the ACARS records from 9/11 and where it's stated this was used to ID the planes. And tell me how planes that were falling in and out of radar are identified by that same radar.

What makes you think you are entitled to see the ACARS data that is the property of the airline? Hmm?

[AMTMAN]

What's that matter don't want to answer my questions? Show me the ACARS records from 9/11 and where it's stated this was used to ID the planes. And tell me how planes that were falling in and out of radar are identified by that same radar.


Is that the best you can do?

Here's the problem LC, you have no questions. What you have are paranoid ramblings that would have us believe that AA and UAL were in on the conspiracy. First you want proof that there is a means to ID a plane by such a system like ACRARS. When that is done you try and play the "show me the ACARS records". Tell you what LC, call AA or UAL and ask them. You have no proof that they were not AA and UAL aircraft. Add to the fact that both airlines seem to believe that it was their aircraft. Seems to me you are the one who should be answering questions and defending his position.

Show me the ACARS records that show otherwise LC.

[rwguinn]

What makes you think you are entitled to see the ACARS data that is the property of the airline? Hmm?

Anybody see a set of goalposts around here?
I swore they were here just a few pages ago...

[WildCat]

Show me the ACARS records from 9/11 and where it's stated this was used to ID the planes.
Is it your claim that ACARS was turned off on 9/11? Do you have evidence of this?

[LastChild]

What makes you think you are entitled to see the ACARS data that is the property of the airline? Hmm?

What makes you think you are entitled to claim ASCAR identified the planes on 9/11 without showing it?

[WildCat]

What makes you think you are entitled to claim ASCAR identified the planes on 9/11 without showing it?
Since the airlines identified them as their planes... are the airlines in on the conspiracy LC? :rolleyes:

[LastChild]

Is that the best you can do?

It's got you stumped debunker.

Here's the problem LC, you have no questions. What you have are paranoid ramblings that would have us believe that AA and UAL were in on the conspiracy. First you want proof that there is a means to ID a plane by such a system like ACRARS. When that is done you try and play the "show me the ACARS records". Tell you what LC, call AA or UAL and ask them. You have no proof that they were not AA and UAL aircraft. Add to the fact that both airlines seem to believe that it was their aircraft. Seems to me you are the one who should be answering questions and defending his position.

No here's the problem. It's the same problem as always. A pretend debunker throws out a bare assertion and get's his bluff called.

Show me the ACARS records that show otherwise LC.

Show me any ACAR records. Why don't you just start by showing where it's even claimed this was used to ID the planes on 9/11? Then go look for them.

And it's your bare assertion so you call the airlines. You're the insider anyway aren't you? LOL

[LastChild]

Since the airlines identified them as their planes... are the airlines in on the conspiracy LC? :rolleyes:

Maybe. Or maybe they're mistaken. You know like all those witnesses on 9/11 who heard explosions.

[WildCat]

Maybe. Or maybe they're mistaken.
There is no evidence they are.

You know like all those witnesses on 9/11 who heard explosions.
I'm not aware of any witnesses who were mistaken about explosions. Are you?

[HawksFan]

What makes you think you are entitled to claim ASCAR identified the planes on 9/11 without showing it?

Well, I never claimed it did. However, given the information that was posted in this thread on how ACARS works and the fact that the airlines made positive ID. on the flights, it is a reasonable assumption that it was one of the things used by the airlines to make said ID.

Now, what makes you think you are entitled to see the information?

[AMTMAN]

It's got you stumped debunker.



No here's the problem. It's the same problem as always. A pretend debunker throws out a bare assertion and get's his bluff called.



Show me any ACAR records. Why don't you just start by showing where it's even claimed this was used to ID the planes on 9/11? Then go look for them.

And it's your bare assertion so you call the airlines. You're the insider anyway aren't you? LOL

I have to admit its hard to argue with someone who does not use common sense or logic like you do. Or says that he has no theories so he does not have to defend them. Which of course shows an inherent weakness in his beliefs.

I have feeling if someone provided the ACARS records you speak of you would find some way to dismiss it.

Here is a rather simple question that I know you will not answer.

Is AA and UAL in on the conpiracy? Rather simple question LC.

[LastChild]

Well, I never claimed it did. However, given the information that was posted in this thread on how ACARS works and the fact that the airlines made positive ID. on the flights, it is a reasonable assumption that it was one of the things used by the airlines to make said ID.

Now, what makes you think you are entitled to see the information?

My past experience with pretend debunkers and their bare assertions.

[SDC]

There is no obligation to show LC anything. Don't fall for it. He/ she/ artificial intelligence program is merely trolling, and when directed to an information source, replies "show it to me." The best answer is "look for yourself." It's too bad folks keep replying to the bait. I do myself. (I'm no saint, no matter what my wife says.) But things have gotten so slow, and the level of crank deniers so low, that he/ she/ artificial intelligence program is almost the only game in town.

[LastChild]

I have to admit its hard to argue with someone who does not use common sense or logic like you do. Or says that he has no theories so he does not have to defend them. Which of course shows an inherent weakness in his beliefs.

So then it should be clear to everyone how I lack common sense and logic. And how I have an inherent weakness in my beliefs. So what are you worried about? Are you smarter then everyone and afraid they might be swayed by my illogical senseless replies? Why?

I have feeling if someone provided the ACARS records you speak of you would find some way to dismiss it.

I have a feeling no ones going to provide it.

Here is a rather simple question that I know you will not answer.

Is AA and UAL in on the conpiracy? Rather simple question LC.

Not necessarily.

[DavidJames]

There is no obligation to show LC anything. Don't fall for it. He/ she/ artificial intelligence program is merely trolling,LC's replies aren't quite up to the intellectual level of those of Eliza. A quick Google reveals this descriptive quote (http://www.manifestation.com/neurotoys/eliza.php3)for both Eliza and LC

ELIZA has almost no intelligence whatsoever, only tricks like string substitution and canned responses based on keywords.

[SDC]

LC's replies aren't quite up to the intellectual level of those of Eliza. A quick Google reveals this descriptive quote (http://www.manifestation.com/neurotoys/eliza.php3)for both Eliza and LC

Cool. You have converted me, oh wise one. (I just had a chat with Eliza.) I am herewith putting the little ... uhm, I'm putting LC on ignore. Enough, comma, is enough, full stop.

ETA: Done. Aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh... That is relaxing. I think I'll, oh I don't know, contribute to a good cause, or help some orphans, or something.

[AMTMAN]

Not necessarily.

That's no much of an answer. Care to expand on that?

[DGM]

LastChild:
Wouldn't it be easier to crash the real planes then have to kill all on board and bring their remains to the sites so their DNA could be Identified. Or do you want to add yet another layer of people to the 'in on it' pile.

[DavidJames]

I think I'll, oh I don't know, contribute to a good cause, or help some orphans, or something.I'm old enough to remember the original Eliza. Here is how Eliza's (LC's) would respond to your quote...

Why don't you know, contribute to a good cause, or help some orphans, or something?Sound LC'ish doesn't it.

I'll stop now - but maybe others might considering using the link I provided above to predict LC's responses...

[beachnut]

What's that matter don't want to answer my questions? Show me the ACARS records from 9/11 and where it's stated this was used to ID the planes. And tell me how planes that were falling in and out of radar are identified by that same radar.
Tell me how you can get around the DNA of the passengers who boarded the planes? Have you told the parents, wives, and kids of those on board their loved ones are not dead because the planes they were on did not crash? Got evidence yet? No.

...

there goes you chance to impress someone with knowledge

oh, you have zero evidence

I thought you had something...

[LastChild]

That's no much of an answer. Care to expand on that?

I haven't heard anything claimed here that proves they would have to be in on anything. I asked how were the planes identified and how do you know it. What weren't they in on? You got a theory?

[LastChild]

Tell me how you can get around the DNA of the passengers who boarded the planes? Have you told the parents, wives, and kids of those on board their loved ones are not dead because the planes they were on did not crash? Got evidence yet? No.

...

I didn't ask how the people who supposedly boarded flight 77 were identified. I asked how the plane was identified.

[pomeroo]

My past experience with pretend debunkers and their bare assertions.


So, when you when you contacted the Dover Port Mortuary and asked them your insightful questions, did your investigation come any closer to unmasking the fiends behind the evil scheme to fake DNA evidence?

What, you never attempted to contact the Dover Port Mortuary?

You still haven't done anything but troll tiny blogs and ask really stupid, disingenuous questions?

Some of us are beginning to suspect that you might not be all that serious about any of this stuff.

[pomeroo]

I haven't heard anything claimed here that proves they would have to be in on anything. I asked how were the planes identified and how do you know it. What weren't they in on? You got a theory?


The planes were identified by the wreckage, by the remains of the passengers and flight crews, and by the testimony of representatives of United and American Airlines. But, you already knew that. Why do you persist with these imbecilic pseudo-questions? Do you enjoy being the object of ridicule?

[gc051360]

Maybe. Or maybe they're mistaken. You know like all those witnesses on 9/11 who heard explosions.

They didn't mistakenly hear explosions. They heard loud "BOOM" sounds, that the truth movement tries to interpret as bombs exploding.
I have a feeling no ones going to provide it.
Which of course, in your mind, makes you the "winner" by default. You try to whittle down an argument so far, that you can, in your own mind, feel like you've won the debate. But, your points are so remarkably nonsensical, that you just end up making yourself look foolish.

(EDITED THIS LAST PART OUT COMPLETELY. Felt that this first paragraph was enough to sum it up. And the person I was responding to, wouldn't care about the rest anyhow. Nor is it anything that hasn't yet been said.)

[AMTMAN]

I haven't heard anything claimed here that proves they would have to be in on anything. I asked how were the planes identified and how do you know it. What weren't they in on? You got a theory?

I thought you had no theories? Sounds like you just gave one. That theory being of course the airlines were unwitting dupes in this whole affair. Here's the problem with that. Through systems like ACARS an airline knows exactly when one of their aircraft takes off and when it lands. We are dealing with multi-million dollar investments remember. Now don't you think if it were not AA and UAL aircraft involved on 9-11 the airlines would be the first to figure it out?

Since airlines don't just misplace aircraft the only "logical" conclusion you have to come to is that they were in it. Of course the problem with that is why would a company be in on a conspiracy that would bankrupt it in the case of UAL and add billions to its balance sheet in the case of AA? You see this is why CT's like yourself dance around this subject never giving an honest answer. Because either way they make themselves look like fools.

Here's my theory. Four commerical aircraft, two belonging to AA and two to UAL, were hijacked on 9-11. Two crashed into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and the the other crashed into a field. If you have evidence that says otherwise present it. If not then please stop playing games.

[LastChild]

They didn't mistakenly hear explosions. They heard loud "BOOM" sounds, that the truth movement tries to interpret as bombs exploding.

Which of course, in your mind, makes you the "winner" by default. You try to whittle down an argument so far, that you can, in your own mind, feel like you've won the debate. But, your points are so remarkably nonsensical, that you just end up making yourself look foolish.

(EDITED THIS LAST PART OUT COMPLETELY. Felt that this first paragraph was enough to sum it up. And the person I was responding to, wouldn't care about the rest anyhow. Nor is it anything that hasn't yet been said.)

You have absolutely no source for this claim of how the planes were identified.

None.

[gc051360]

You have absolutely no source for this claim of how the planes were identified.

None.

I didn't make a claim about how the planes were identified.

But, are you saying I need a source for "deductive reasoning". Which of these is untrue?

- Airlines keep track of their planes.

- Airlines would know if one of their planes went missing.

- Airlines (if not even tracking planes in the air) could count the aircraft they have...and figure out which one's they are missing.

ETA: This is the only proof needed. The airlines had these planes. Now they don't. I like to keep it simple. 4 airplanes crashed. 4 are missing. I put the pieces together in my crime lab. Took me two years to figure this one out.

Also ETA: Also, I noticed an odd thing. The flight crews and passengers from these flights, are also missing.

What more information is needed? I don't get it. AMT has been very informative, and seems very knowledgeable, but none of his information is necessary. UNLESS, you have some sort of information about how the airlines may be mistaken.

[pomeroo]

You have absolutely no source for this claim of how the planes were identified.

None.



But I provided a source. The FBI claims that the remains of the passengers and crew of AA Flight 77 were identified at the Dover Port Mortuary by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

There's your cue:

Beep-beep. ZOOOOM!

[LastChild]

I thought you had no theories? Sounds like you just gave one. That theory being of course the airlines were unwitting dupes in this whole affair. Here's the problem with that. Through systems like ACARS an airline knows exactly when one of their aircraft takes off and when it lands. We are dealing with multi-million dollar investments remember. Now don't you think if it were not AA and UAL aircraft involved on 9-11 the airlines would be the first to figure it out?

What do you need me for? You are now debating yourself with made up theories of mine. Are you ok?

Since airlines don't just misplace aircraft the only "logical" conclusion you have to come to is that they were in it. Of course the problem with that is why would a company be in on a conspiracy that would bankrupt it in the case of UAL and add billions to its balance sheet in the case of AA? You see this is why CT's like yourself dance around this subject never giving an honest answer. Because either way they make themselves look like fools.

Are your sure you're not the one afraid of looking like a fool? Probably not or you would have bowed out of this when I first called your bluff.

As far as the airlines being fearful of going bankrupt? The smoke wasn't even clear before they had their hands out for a Govt bailout. And they got it. The Government also bought out most of the families under the condition that if they took it they had to give up their right to sue anyone. Why don't you tell me which airline has been sued for how much because on 9/11 they let hijackers through security that wound up killing almost 3,000 people?

Hijackers that were said to have gotten through with knives, pepper spray, maybe bombs or at least fake ones, and even one report of a shooting. And before you claim some of those reports are mistaken tell me how you know which ones are valid and which ones aren't. That's right you debunkers reserve the right not to have to support any of your bare assertions. If you didn't you couldn't assert to debunk anything.


SHere's my theory. Four commerical aircraft, two belonging to AA and two to UAL, were hijacked on 9-11. Two crashed into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and the the other crashed into a field. If you have evidence that says otherwise present it. If not then please stop playing games.

That's right all you have is a theory. Just as unsupported as any other CT you pretend to debunk.

[LastChild]

But I provided a source. The FBI claims that the remains of the passengers and crew of AA Flight 77 were identified at the Dover Port Mortuary by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

There's your cue:

Beep-beep. ZOOOOM!

You don't know the difference between a plane and a person?

Koo Koo poo poo zooooomarooo

[pomeroo]

What do you need me for? You are now debating yourself with made up theories of mine. Are you ok?



Are your sure you're not the one afraid of looking like a fool? Probably not or you would have bowed out of this when I first called your bluff.

As far as the airlines being fearful of going bankrupt? The smoke wasn't even clear before they had their hands out for a Govt bailout. And they got it. The Government also bought out most of the families under the condition that if they took it they had to give up their right to sue anyone. Why don't you tell me which airline has been sued for how much because on 9/11 they let hijackers through security that wound up killing almost 3,000 people?

Hijackers that were said to have gotten through with knives, pepper spray, maybe bombs or at least fake ones, and even one report of a shooting. And before you claim some of those reports are mistaken tell me how you know which ones are valid and which ones aren't. That's right you debunkers reserve the right not to have to support any of your bare assertions. If you didn't you couldn't assert to debunk anything.




That's right all you have is a theory. Just as unsupported as any other CT you pretend to debunk.


Speaking of fools and liars, you haven't commented on the devastating blow your fantasies suffered when you obtained the contact information your evil movement requires to blow this thing wide open. All of the fence-sitting agnostics are wondering what those shills and dupes at the Dover Port Mortuary said in response to your incisive queries. Don't be shy. Tell us how it went.

[gc051360]

You don't know the difference between a plane and a person?

Koo Koo poo poo zooooomarooo

LastChild, I am going to make this very simple.

4 airplanes crashed on 9-11.

The airlines are missing 4 airplanes. These, are the planes, that are said to have crashed.

They are missing no other planes.

What's the problem?

Passengers and crew, who were on these flights....are now gone.

Anyone with any sense, can put this puzzle together.

[pomeroo]

You don't know the difference between a plane and a person?

Koo Koo poo poo zooooomarooo


Well, you manifestly don't know the difference between supply and demand. But, then, you are "special." I'll keep it simple:

The plane, identified by numerous pieces of wreckage and tracked on radar, slammed into the Pentagon, killing everyone onboard. The remains were identified by forensic examiners of the AFIP.

You can run, but you can't hide.

[LastChild]

I didn't make a claim about how the planes were identified.

But, are you saying I need a source for "deductive reasoning". Which of these is untrue?

- Airlines keep track of their planes.

- Airlines would know if one of their planes went missing.

- Airlines (if not even tracking planes in the air) could count the aircraft they have...and figure out which one's they are missing.

ETA: This is the only proof needed. The airlines had these planes. Now they don't. I like to keep it simple. 4 airplanes crashed. 4 are missing. I put the pieces together in my crime lab. Took me two years to figure this one out.

Also ETA: Also, I noticed an odd thing. The flight crews and passengers from these flights, are also missing.

What more information is needed? I don't get it. AMT has been very informative, and seems very knowledgeable, but none of his information is necessary. UNLESS, you have some sort of information about how the airlines may be mistaken.

I never claimed no planes went missing. Were there only four planes in the world on 9/11?

[gc051360]

I never claimed no planes went missing. Were there only four planes in the world on 9/11?
No. What's your point?

What other planes went missing that day, and are still unaccounted for?

[pomeroo]

I never claimed no planes went missing. Were there only four planes in the world on 9/11?


Granted you are one of the most dependable punching bags here, the beating you are absorbing is particularly severe. It has almost reached the point where it's too pathetic to be enjoyable. Why not save something for next time?

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes, there were only 4 planes in the world on 9/11.

[AMTMAN]

Are your sure you're not the one afraid of looking like a fool? Probably not or you would have bowed out of this when I first called your bluff.



My bluff, if I'm not mistaken I'm the one who called yours when you challeneged people to provide evidence of a system that lets airliens ID their aircraft.

I can't say that I'm suprised by your ignorance. You are afterall the same person who thought Capt Russ actually was onto something. Little did you know his statment was a bunch of non-sense that made him look like a fool.

[gc051360]

Also, I don't know much about airlines. But, I would imagine that there are also tax, and insurance issues that go along with running a business like that. Probably requires keeping pretty good track of your aircraft.

[beachnut]

I never claimed no planes went missing. Were there only four planes in the world on 9/11?
You have never claimed anything, and you have the evidence to prove it!

Things that were used to verify the four planes; i.e. things 9/11 truth has failed to understand:
Only 4 planes were missing on 9/11, those four planes were found to have impacted where they did. RADAR data verified the planes hit. DNA data independently verified this. FDR data for 77 and 93 verified where they impacted. 6 years and 9/11 truth is still unable to connect the dots to anything.

The ignorance of 9/11 truth makes it impossible for them to figure out the simple parts of this.

There is no evidence that contradicts 11, 175, 77 and 93 hit where they did. Failure of the mighty minds of 9/11 truth to figure out where the planes hit is indicative of the level of rational thought and lack of knowledge that afflicts what seems to be all 9/11 truth members. Why?

[AMTMAN]

As far as the airlines being fearful of going bankrupt? The smoke wasn't even clear before they had their hands out for a Govt bailout. And they got it. The Government also bought out most of the families under the condition that if they took it they had to give up their right to sue anyone. Why don't you tell me which airline has been sued for how much because on 9/11 they let hijackers through security that wound up killing almost 3,000 people?

Do you realize how ignorant this statement makes you look? The only thing that bailout did was to keep them from going under completly. Are you trying to say the the airlines had advanced knowledge of the event becasue of the bailout money? In spite of that bailout money United, Delta, Northwest and US Airways still declared BK. American only staved off BK by the skin of their teeth.

Want to know which airlines have been sued over 9-11 smart guy? Try United and American. Man, you really don't bother to do your homework do you.

< http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100301354.html >

< http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-13-911-families-cover-usat_x.htm >

< http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/18/sept.11.lawsuits/index.html >

[A W Smith]

Not really but thanks for acknowledging I'm the one in control here..

fixed that for ya

Do not change other people's words.

[LashL]

Why don't you tell me which airline has been sued for how much because on 9/11 they let hijackers through security that wound up killing almost 3,000 people?


How about you start here (http://www.sept11tortlitigation.com/plaintiffs_executive.html) then go here (http://www.sept11tortlitigation.com/answers_complaints.html) and here (http://www.sept11tortlitigation.com/court_papers.html) and do some reading?

Some of the airlines that have been sued: American, United, US Airways, Air Canada, Colgan Air, Continental, Delta, AirTran Airways, ATA Airlines, America West Airlines, Atlantic Coast Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Northwest.

[LastChild]

Do you realize how ignorant this statement makes you look? The only thing that bailout did was to keep them from going under completly.

Wrong. Talk about ignorant.

http://www.thetravelinsider.info/2003/0328.htm

Almost before the dust had settled after 9/11, US airlines were given an outright gift of $5 billion in cash by the US government. Profitable airlines were given gifts as well as unprofitable ones. Airlines did not have to show or prove anything to receive their share of the handout. Some airlines even estimated their losses, as a result of 9/11, were less than the unasked for gift they received!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/09/eveningnews/main532311.shtml

While two-thirds of the money doled out by the Department of Transportation did go to the major carriers, hundreds of millions more went to places you wouldn't expect.

"It was a massive boondoggle," says Republican Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald. "Congress just got out the ladle and shoveled it all over the place."

For example: $20 million was shoveled to three bankrupt airlines like Vanguard, Midway, and Reliant. Nearly $165 million went to package-delivery companies. Another $5 million went to helicopter companies that, among other things, ferry workers to oilrigs and run tours to the Grand Canyon. Even three companies that arrange travel from the U.S. to Cuba cashed in.

Are you trying to say the the airlines had advanced knowledge of the event becasue of the bailout money?

No. What DID I tell you about arguing with yourself?

In spite of that bailout money United, Delta, Northwest and US Airways still declared BK. American only staved off BK by the skin of their teeth.

How are they doing now and if some of the aren't doing well were they even before 9/11? Does 9/11 really have anything to do with them not doing well still?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031201-549004,00.html

US Airways, on the other hand, received more than any other carrier but has not done enough with it. "The ATSB knew there was a fundamental question of whether US Airways was even viable, given its high labor costs and weak route structure," says a former government official familiar with the board's thinking.


Want to know which airlines have been sued over 9-11 smart guy? Try United and American. Man, you really don't bother to do your homework do you.

I'm taking you to school is what I'm doing. The articles are about how many families out of all of them, who all settled before it went through trial? And who bought out the rest of them again? And what did the few families who held out learn about who didn't do their job that day and what did they settle for let's see...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100301354.html

"Franz and family members said they could provide few details about what they learned or how much they received in the settlement. They agreed to keep the financial arrangements confidential, and a broad gag order forbids them from sharing information gleaned in the case."

More bought out silence proves what? Don't ever bother to try and do my homework again. I don't want to fail.

Next

[pomeroo]

Wrong. Talk about ignorant.

http://www.thetravelinsider.info/2003/0328.htm

Almost before the dust had settled after 9/11, US airlines were given an outright gift of $5 billion in cash by the US government. Profitable airlines were given gifts as well as unprofitable ones. Airlines did not have to show or prove anything to receive their share of the handout. Some airlines even estimated their losses, as a result of 9/11, were less than the unasked for gift they received!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/09/eveningnews/main532311.shtml

While two-thirds of the money doled out by the Department of Transportation did go to the major carriers, hundreds of millions more went to places you wouldn't expect.

"It was a massive boondoggle," says Republican Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald. "Congress just got out the ladle and shoveled it all over the place."

For example: $20 million was shoveled to three bankrupt airlines like Vanguard, Midway, and Reliant. Nearly $165 million went to package-delivery companies. Another $5 million went to helicopter companies that, among other things, ferry workers to oilrigs and run tours to the Grand Canyon. Even three companies that arrange travel from the U.S. to Cuba cashed in.



No. What DID I tell you about arguing with yourself?



How are they doing now and if some of the aren't doing well were they even before 9/11? Does 9/11 really have anything to do with them not doing well still?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031201-549004,00.html

US Airways, on the other hand, received more than any other carrier but has not done enough with it. "The ATSB knew there was a fundamental question of whether US Airways was even viable, given its high labor costs and weak route structure," says a former government official familiar with the board's thinking.




I'm taking you to school is what I'm doing. The articles are about how many families out of all of them, who all settled before it went through trial? And who bought out the rest of them again? And what did the few families who held out learn about who didn't do their job that day and what did they settle for let's see...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100301354.html

"Franz and family members said they could provide few details about what they learned or how much they received in the settlement. They agreed to keep the financial arrangements confidential, and a broad gag order forbids them from sharing information gleaned in the case."

More bought out silence proves what? Don't ever bother to try and do my homework again. I don't want to fail.

Next


Say it slowly: Dover Port Mortuary.

You can run, but you can't hide.

[LastChild]

Say it slowly: Dover Port Mortuary.

You can run, but you can't hide.


I'll try but do you really think they can identify the plane? If you're wrong on this I'm going to be really disappointed.

[AMTMAN]

Wrong. Talk about ignorant.

http://www.thetravelinsider.info/2003/0328.htm

Almost before the dust had settled after 9/11, US airlines were given an outright gift of $5 billion in cash by the US government. Profitable airlines were given gifts as well as unprofitable ones. Airlines did not have to show or prove anything to receive their share of the handout. Some airlines even estimated their losses, as a result of 9/11, were less than the unasked for gift they received!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/09/eveningnews/main532311.shtml

While two-thirds of the money doled out by the Department of Transportation did go to the major carriers, hundreds of millions more went to places you wouldn't expect.

"It was a massive boondoggle," says Republican Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald. "Congress just got out the ladle and shoveled it all over the place."

For example: $20 million was shoveled to three bankrupt airlines like Vanguard, Midway, and Reliant. Nearly $165 million went to package-delivery companies. Another $5 million went to helicopter companies that, among other things, ferry workers to oilrigs and run tours to the Grand Canyon. Even three companies that arrange travel from the U.S. to Cuba cashed in.



No. What DID I tell you about arguing with yourself?



How are they doing now and if some of the aren't doing well were they even before 9/11? Does 9/11 really have anything to do with them not doing well still?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101031201-549004,00.html

US Airways, on the other hand, received more than any other carrier but has not done enough with it. "The ATSB knew there was a fundamental question of whether US Airways was even viable, given its high labor costs and weak route structure," says a former government official familiar with the board's thinking.




I'm taking you to school is what I'm doing. The articles are about how many families out of all of them, who all settled before it went through trial? And who bought out the rest of them again? And what did the few families who held out learn about who didn't do their job that day and what did they settle for let's see...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100301354.html

"Franz and family members said they could provide few details about what they learned or how much they received in the settlement. They agreed to keep the financial arrangements confidential, and a broad gag order forbids them from sharing information gleaned in the case."

More bought out silence proves what? Don't ever bother to try and do my homework again. I don't want to fail.

Next


Here is a simple fact, that bailout money kept some airlines from going under completely. Are you trying to say otherwwise? By the way what are you trying to say? I get the impression that you don't have much of an idea yourself.

I noticed that Vanguard Airlines is mentioned. This of course shows that in spite of the bailout money airlines still went bankrupt. And by the way Vanguard did not go BK till AFTER they got the bailout money. So the statement "$20 million was shoveled to three bankrupt airlines like Vanguard, Midway, and Reliant" is not entirely accurate. Guess if you had done your homework you would have known that.

You asked what airlines were sued as if none were. Of course you can't get around the fact that both AA and UAL were sued. So if you were trying to imply that the government somehow protected them for whatever reason that is obviously not the case.

More bought out silence proves what? Don't ever bother to try and do my homework again. I don't want to fail.

Now that is just classic. If you had done your homework you would have known that both AA and UAL were both sued. If you had done your homework you would have known about ACARS and its capablitities. If you had done you homework you would have know that Captain Russ Wittenberg's statements were non-sense. Instead like most truthers if someone says something you like you accept it without question.

Here are some more facts that you obviously were not aware of. In 2002 United applied for a $1.8 billion federal guarantee, it was rejected by the government. The end result was UAL declaring BK. American by the way never applied for one even though they could of.

LC, if you have anything to show that it was something other than AA and UAL aircraft used on that day please do so.

[gc051360]

I'll try but do you really think they can identify the plane? If you're wrong on this I'm going to be really disappointed.

Lastchild, answer these two questions.

1) Do you know of any other planes, that went missing on September 11th, and are still unaccounted for?

2) Do you believe the airlines are mistaken with their identification of their planes? If so, why?

ETA: If you are gonna answer #2 with "I don't know, I'm just asking questions" I would ask, why do you distrust the airlines ability to keep track of their own airplanes, and use common sense?

[AMTMAN]

Lastchild, answer these two questions.

1) Do you know of any other planes, that went missing on September 11th, and are still unaccounted for?

2) Do you believe the airlines are mistaken with their identification of their planes? If so, why?

ETA: If you are gonna answer #2 with "I don't know, I'm just asking questions" I would ask, why do you distrust the airlines ability to keep track of their own airplanes, and use common sense?

I hope you are not expecting an honest answer. At most you will get "I have no theories."

[gc051360]

I hope you are not expecting an honest answer. At most you will get "I have no theories."
I expect an answer, that doesn't deal with the questions.

I expect him to ramble a bit, never come to a conclusion, and then pretend like he has made a point.

This has become an exercise in futility. But, I would hope that at least part of him understands that he is completely irrational about this issue.

[Reheat]

This has become an exercise in futility. But, I would hope that at least part of him understands that he is completely irrational about this issue.

You're implying that he is rational about ANY issue. I haven't seen one yet.

[LashL]

Talk about ignorant.

Why, yes, let's.


Why don't you tell me which airline has been sued for how much because on 9/11 they let hijackers through security that wound up killing almost 3,000 people?

How about you start here (http://www.sept11tortlitigation.com/plaintiffs_executive.html) then go here (http://www.sept11tortlitigation.com/answers_complaints.html) and here (http://www.sept11tortlitigation.com/court_papers.html) and do some reading?

Some of the airlines that have been sued: American, United, US Airways, Air Canada, Colgan Air, Continental, Delta, AirTran Airways, ATA Airlines, America West Airlines, Atlantic Coast Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Northwest.

Have you managed to do any reading to educate yourself yet, or are you simply JAQing off, as usual?

[A W Smith]

Why, yes, let's.




Have you managed to do any reading to educate yourself yet, or are you simply JAQing off, as usual?


No last Child is Trolling, It is obvious. There are plenty of witnesses who saw flight 77 fly into the pentagon


Richard Benedetto: "It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly."
Omar Campo, a Salvadorean" "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting grass and it came in screaming over my head."
Joseph Candelario: "I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it."
James Cissell: "I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ... Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board."
Dennis Clem: "There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."
Michael Dobbs: "It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle."
Penny Elgas: "... the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car .... I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes."
Cheryl Hammond: "We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running."
Joe Harrington: "... one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd."
Albert Hemphill: "The aircraft, look[ed] to be either a 757 or Airbus."
Terrance Kean: "I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon."
William Lagasse: "It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. ... I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground."
Robert Leonard: "I ... saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon."
Lincoln Liebner: "I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low."
Elaine McCusker: "I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating."
Mitch Mitchell: "I ... saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it .... It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon."
Terry Morin: "The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines."
Christopher Munsey: "I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon ...."
Vin Narayanan: "I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet."
John O'Keefe: "I don't know whether I saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet ...."
Steve Riskus: "I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the ‘American Airlines' logo on the tail as it headed towards the building .... I clearly saw the ‘AA' logo with the eagle in the middle."
James Ryan: "I see an American Airlines plane, silver plane, I could see AA on the tail. ... The plane was low enough that I could see the windows of the plane. I could see every detail of the plane. In my head I have ingrained forever this image of every detail of that plane. It was a silver plane, American Airlines plane, and I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane."
Joel Sucherman: "... looking straight ahead there was a jet, what looked to be an American Airlines jet, probably a 757, and it came screaming across the highway ... [and] hit the west side of the Pentagon."
Donald "Tim" Timmerman, a pilot: "I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon ... and so I have quite a panorama. ... It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question."
Mike Walter: "I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. ... It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. I saw the big ‘AA' on the side."
Ian Wyatt: "I duck, I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane and then boom."

Thats just some. You and me both know that there are many more witnesses. (http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm) Even the Troll Last Child knows that. he has been taken to school and is just arguing semantics. He has lost. By urinating on the graves of the 9/11 victims he has gained all the respect deserved of a PDoh phile.

[LastChild]

Here is a simple fact, that bailout money kept some airlines from going under completely. Are you trying to say otherwwise? By the way what are you trying to say? I get the impression that you don't have much of an idea yourself.

I noticed that Vanguard Airlines is mentioned. This of course shows that in spite of the bailout money airlines still went bankrupt. And by the way Vanguard did not go BK till AFTER they got the bailout money. So the statement "$20 million was shoveled to three bankrupt airlines like Vanguard, Midway, and Reliant" is not entirely accurate. Guess if you had done your homework you would have known that.

You asked what airlines were sued as if none were. Of course you can't get around the fact that both AA and UAL were sued. So if you were trying to imply that the government somehow protected them for whatever reason that is obviously not the case.

More bought out silence proves what? Don't ever bother to try and do my homework again. I don't want to fail.

Now that is just classic. If you had done your homework you would have known that both AA and UAL were both sued. If you had done your homework you would have known about ACARS and its capablitities. If you had done you homework you would have know that Captain Russ Wittenberg's statements were non-sense. Instead like most truthers if someone says something you like you accept it without question.

Here are some more facts that you obviously were not aware of. In 2002 United applied for a $1.8 billion federal guarantee, it was rejected by the government. The end result was UAL declaring BK. American by the way never applied for one even though they could of.

LC, if you have anything to show that it was something other than AA and UAL aircraft used on that day please do so.

Do you have anything showing how the planes were identified?

[LastChild]

Why, yes, let's.
Have you managed to do any reading to educate yourself yet, or are you simply JAQing off, as usual?

Have you managed to find any links showing out of all the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 because of airline negligence how many made it to trial? Or are you just posting irrelevance as usual?

BTW how were the planes identified?

[LastChild]

No last Child is Trolling, It is obvious. There are plenty of witnesses who saw flight 77 fly into the pentagon


Thats just some. You and me both know that there are many more witnesses. (http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm) Even the Troll Last Child knows that. he has been taken to school and is just arguing semantics. He has lost. By urinating on the graves of the 9/11 victims he has gained all the respect deserved of a PDoh phile.

Oh brother. Which one got a license plate? Did they all see the same thing?

[LastChild]

Lastchild, answer these two questions.

1) Do you know of any other planes, that went missing on September 11th, and are still unaccounted for?

No. Do you know every plane that was in the air that morning?

2) Do you believe the airlines are mistaken with their identification of their planes? If so, why?

I don't know. Do you know they were identified?

ETA: If you are gonna answer #2 with "I don't know, I'm just asking questions" I would ask, why do you distrust the airlines ability to keep track of their own airplanes, and use common sense?

Was there no point when they lost track of any of those planes on 9/11?

[Bobert]

LastChild,
Time to take your hard evidence to the streets my man!
Lets get the Trials started!
I know you can do it!

[Corsair 115]

I find it amazing that LastChild apparently cannot recognize how utterly foolish and completely empty his arguments are. How does one reach that level of self-delusion?

[A W Smith]

Oh brother. Which one got a license plate? Did they all see the same thing?

last Troll have you found where that aircraft is today? Can you produce it? I asked you many pages ago. What about the evidence?
have you proof that the DNA of the people on that flight was tampered with? Have you proof that the wreckage was planted while the entire area was surrounded by witnesses? Have you proof that the personal effects of the passengers was planted at the pentagon? the burden of proof is on you Troll. all evidence points to flight 77. You know that. We all know that. You are just trolling. It is an obvious game for you because you and your movement has lost.

[LashL]

Have you managed to find any links showing out of all the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 because of airline negligence how many made it to trial? Or are you just posting irrelevance as usual?


Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

You asked a specific question: "Why don't you tell me which airline has been sued for how much because on 9/11 they let hijackers through security that wound up killing almost 3,000 people?"

I responded by providing a list of some of the airlines that have been sued, and providing you with excellent and detailed resources on the numerous lawsuits against numerous airlines, including the original court documents. And you now suggest that these are irrelevant to your question about lawsuits against airlines arising out of the events of 9/11? :jaw-dropp


It is obvious that you didn't even look at the sources I provided, let alone read them. Instead of attempting to educate yourself, instead of reading relevant sources and documents on the very matters that you pretend to be interested in, you completely ignore them, refuse to read them, and go right back to JAQing off again.

How pitiful.

I am not going to waste my time responding to your goalpost-shifting questions above because you have demonstrated quite clearly that you are not interested in dialogue, you are not interested in learning, you are not interested in discussion, you are not willing to invest even a modicum of effort in educating yourself, and you are only trolling to satisfy your own twisted fantasies.

[LastChild]

last Troll have you found where that aircraft is today? Can you produce it? I asked you many pages ago. What about the evidence?
have you proof that the DNA of the people on that flight was tampered with? Have you proof that the wreckage was planted while the entire area was surrounded by witnesses? Have you proof that the personal effects of the passengers was planted at the pentagon? the burden of proof is on you Troll. all evidence points to flight 77. You know that. We all know that. You are just trolling. It is an obvious game for you because you and your movement has lost.

Yeah sure I'm just trolling, I have no evidence, I've already lost whatever you say.

If I'm just trolling then why do you keep responding?

I'm the one asking for the evidence for your story and it's you who has none to support your CT.

What have I lost that you have won? Why are you still here?

[LastChild]

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

You asked a specific question: "Why don't you tell me which airline has been sued for how much because on 9/11 they let hijackers through security that wound up killing almost 3,000 people?"

I responded by providing a list of some of the airlines that have been sued, and providing you with excellent and detailed resources on the numerous lawsuits against numerous airlines, including the original court documents. And you now suggest that these are irrelevant to your question about lawsuits against airlines arising out of the events of 9/11? :jaw-dropp


It is obvious that you didn't even look at the sources I provided, let alone read them. Instead of attempting to educate yourself, instead of reading relevant sources and documents on the very matters that you pretend to be interested in, you completely ignore them, refuse to read them, and go right back to JAQing off again.

How pitiful.

I am not going to waste my time responding to your goalpost-shifting questions above because you have demonstrated quite clearly that you are not interested in dialogue, you are not interested in learning, you are not interested in discussion, you are not willing to invest even a modicum of effort in educating yourself, and you are only trolling to satisfy your own twisted fantasies.

Yeah right.

How many made it to trial Lawyer? LOL

[LastChild]

Granted you are one of the most dependable punching bags here, the beating you are absorbing is particularly severe. It has almost reached the point where it's too pathetic to be enjoyable. Why not save something for next time?

Yeah I'll just bet your trying to beat something. All day long. Does it still work?

[LastChild]

I find it amazing that LastChild apparently cannot recognize how utterly foolish and completely empty his arguments are. How does one reach that level of self-delusion?

Got that identification yet? No huh?

[LastChild]

LastChild,
Time to take your hard evidence to the streets my man!
Lets get the Trials started!
I know you can do it!

It's your evidence for your story I'm looking for remember? Find any yet?

Good Job!

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

I find it amazing that LastChild apparently cannot recognize how utterly foolish and completely empty his arguments are. How does one reach that level of self-delusion?

Why hasn't IT come to this troll's rescue?
I am aware they are good buddies.

[LashL]

Yeah right.

How many made it to trial Lawyer? LOL

As I said above,

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

You asked a specific question: "Why don't you tell me which airline has been sued for how much because on 9/11 they let hijackers through security that wound up killing almost 3,000 people?"

I responded by providing a list of some of the airlines that have been sued, and providing you with excellent and detailed resources on the numerous lawsuits against numerous airlines, including the original court documents. And you now suggest that these are irrelevant to your question about lawsuits against airlines arising out of the events of 9/11? :jaw-dropp


It is obvious that you didn't even look at the sources I provided, let alone read them. Instead of attempting to educate yourself, instead of reading relevant sources and documents on the very matters that you pretend to be interested in, you completely ignore them, refuse to read them, and go right back to JAQing off again.

How pitiful.

I am not going to waste my time responding to your goalpost-shifting questions above because you have demonstrated quite clearly that you are not interested in dialogue, you are not interested in learning, you are not interested in discussion, you are not willing to invest even a modicum of effort in educating yourself, and you are only trolling to satisfy your own twisted fantasies.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Got that identification yet? No huh?

you called Woody allen yet?

[Jonnyclueless]

I find it amazing that LastChild apparently cannot recognize how utterly foolish and completely empty his arguments are. How does one reach that level of self-delusion?


He will when he grows up.

[gc051360]

No. Do you know every plane that was in the air that morning?
No. But I know that no other airlines report missing airplanes that day. All other aircraft are accounted for.
I don't know. Do you know they were identified?
Yes. By the airlines.
Was there no point when they lost track of any of those planes on 9/11?
It doesn't matter if they lost track of them. It doesn't even matter if they were tracking them. None of that matters.

Follow very carefully. This is insanely simple. The airline used to have these planes. Now they do not. 4 planes are missing. 4 crashed on 9-11. No other planes are unaccounted for, from that day. Case closed. That's all the evidence needed. Done. Easy right? Thinking is easy, when you can do it rationally. In order to refute this, you need some semblance of proof that either the airline is lying, or mistaken.

(I edited out some superfluous crap. I'll keep this post simple)

[AMTMAN]

Do you have anything showing how the planes were identified?

Let's see here there's ACARS, AA and UAL are short two aircraft each, there's the video footage of the 767's hitting the WTC. Then there are the families of the AA employees collecting insurance money. Now LC what do you have that says otherwise? What's that, you don't have anything? Just as I thought. And could you please give an answer yes or no about wether AA and UAL were in on it or not.

[LastChild]

Let's see here there's ACARS

Yeah I called that bluff remember?

, AA and UAL are short two aircraft each,

And?

here's the video footage of the 767's hitting the WTC.

Video of what? How many video's of how manY different planes. Can you read any serial numbers from any of that video?

Then there are the families of the AA employees collecting insurance money.

What's this got to do with identifying the planes?

Now LC what do you have that says otherwise?

What do you have in the first place? Assumption doesn't count as debunking. See why it's all just pretend? Maybe it makes you feel better to pretend to know things? Maybe it bothers you when someone points it out?

What's that, you don't have anything? Just as I thought. And could you please give an answer yes or no about wether AA and UAL were in on it or not.

Can you please show how the planes were identified? Or shhhhhh... be quiet.

[beachnut]

No one is as challenged as 9/11 truth; unable to understand much of anything. Now they are upset because they can not understand how people figure out which 4 planes hit the WTC, Pentagon, and PA.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg
Here they are researching the problem! Wowzer
How can a fringe group get so many challenged people on this one topic? Why are they unable to use logic and rational thought? Cause and effect a grade school concept, forgotten by the members of 9/11 truth.

[LastChild]

No one is as challenged as 9/11 truth; unable to understand much of anything. Now they are upset because they can not understand how people figure out which 4 planes hit the WTC, Pentagon, and PA.

Here they are researching the problem! Wowzer
How can a fringe group get so many challenged people on this one topic? Why are they unable to use logic and rational thought? Cause and effect a grade school concept, forgotten by the members of 9/11 truth.

Ever had an original thought?

[AMTMAN]

Yeah I called that bluff remember?



And?



Video of what? How many video's of how manY different planes. Can you read any serial numbers from any of that video?



What's this got to do with identifying the planes?



What do you have in the first place? Assumption doesn't count as debunking. See why it's all just pretend? Maybe it makes you feel better to pretend to know things? Maybe it bothers you when someone points it out?



Can you please show how the planes were identified? Or shhhhhh... be quiet.

Do you have anything that proves otherwise LC? No you do not that's why you continue playing the games that you do.

So far you and the rest of your so called movement have come up snakeyes on that count. Instead you repeat the same tired old mantras of a morally bankrupt movement. So if you wish to go on believing people like Russ Witenberg, PfT, etc, etc don't let me stop you.

[AMTMAN]

Ever had an original thought?

Obviously you have never had one.

[Bobert]

LastChild=troll

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

[Corsair 115]

Got that identification yet? No huh?And you continue to dig the hole deeper. It's almost enough to get me interested in psychology... how does such self-delusion get started and how is it maintained? How does one get to the point of willingly and happily ignoring basic facts?

[pomeroo]

I'll try but do you really think they can identify the plane? If you're wrong on this I'm going to be really disappointed.


The passengers on AA FLight 77 were found inside the Pentagon. What conclusion would you care to draw? Is the FBI now part of your imaginary conspiracy? Does the agency consist entirely of Bush supporters? Do you ever have a point?

There is no real controversy about the large flying object that crashed into the Pentagon. Stop acting the fool.

[pomeroo]

Have you managed to find any links showing out of all the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 because of airline negligence how many made it to trial? Or are you just posting irrelevance as usual?

BTW how were the planes identified?


BTW, the planes were identified by the pieces of wreckage found at the crash sites, the remains of their passengers and flight crews, eyewitness accounts, and testimony by representatives of the airlines--AS YOU KNOW.

You have made an utter fool of yourself--again.

[pomeroo]

Yeah I'll just bet your trying to beat something. All day long. Does it still work?


It sure works with you.

[pomeroo]

{snip-drivel}

Can you please show how the planes were identified? Or shhhhhh... be quiet.



Since you have mired yourself in another imbecilic pseudo-debate, let's try to figure out what you're pretending.

Do you think that there is a raging controversy over the fates of the passengers on the four hijacked planes? Yes, there are demented, agenda-driven liars who claim all sorts of nonsense. They have absolutely nothing to back them up. The people on those planes are dead; their remains were found at the crash sites and indentified. Do you believe that the fates of the passengers and crews remain undetermined? Is the FBI part of your imaginary conspiracy?

United and American airlines lost four planes on the day of the jihadist attacks. Do you think the airlines are lying? What is their motive? How many planes did they lose? What about the air traffic controllers who tracked the missing aircraft? Are they also part of your imaginary conspiracy? Were more than four planes involved? Where did the extra planes come from? Getting back to the passengers and crews of the original four planes, what exactly did happen to them?

George Papcun, described by fantasists as the "father of voice-morphing technology," argued in a paper I posted here that the conspriacy liars are all wet: the phone calls from the hijacked planes could not have been faked. Is he wrong? How do you know? Is he part of your imaginary conspiracy?

The last person to get his ears pinned back attempting to peddle the remote-control crap was the extremely silly Max Photon. Would you care to try your luck?

Stop your mindless tap dancing and start answering questions, LastTroll.

[Reheat]

I've seen many twoofers imply or directly state that they believe there was a plane substitution during one or more of the flight during the periods of momentary lost radar contact or transponder changes. LC has used this several time in this thread. That is so preposterous it's actually hilarious. It's as if they've taken the script for a "Die Hard" movie or something similar. In actual fact it is not that easy to rendezvous in flight even when it's planned and done using air-to-air radar by highly experienced pilots.

For example, a typical rendezvous between a Fighter and a Tanker typically begins in excess of 20-30 miles or further with about a 5 mile offset (I believe the offset is correct, beachnut. If not correct it.) At any rate the Tanker and Fighter head toward one another and the Tanker turns at 21 miles offset from the fighter. This is typically done with air-to-air radar in the Fighter or it can be done with Tacan (none of these devices are possessed by Commercial Airliners.) Ideally, the Tanker rolls out of the turn with the Fighter in close trail. There was no time for this kind of maneuver on 9/11 by any of the flights, not even close.

Then, of course, there the problem with a place to store something painted in an Airline scheme. It's as if there are any bases where this would be remotely possible without dozens of people seeing a strange airplane take off from this fictional location. Twoofer seem to think there are multiple places (apparently abandoned) where it would be possible to do this. It's as if there are multiple folks in the USAF dumb enough to not see this especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Even civilians in the area would notice something unusual if there were even remotely a place where this could be done.

It amuses me to see this delusional theory even mentioned. It is so preposterous that fits into the realm of "space beams" or nukes at the WTC. Not possible twoofers, not within the short time radar contact was lost with some of the flights. Anyone who mentions this in a serious manner should be given the same insult treatment as "no planers" and driven out of the Forum "tarred and feathered" on a rail.

[pomeroo]

I've seen many twoofers imply or directly state that they believe there was a plane substitution during one or more of the flight during the periods of momentary lost radar contact or transponder changes. LC has used this several time in this thread. That is so preposterous it's actually hilarious. It's as if they've taken the script for a "Die Hard" movie or something similar. In actual fact it is not that easy to rendezvous in flight even when it's planned and done using air-to-air radar by highly experienced pilots.

For example, a typical rendezvous between a Fighter and a Tanker typically begins in excess of 20-30 miles or further with about a 5 mile offset (I believe the offset is correct, beachnut. If not correct it.) At any rate the Tanker and Fighter head toward one another and the Tanker turns at 21 miles offset from the fighter. This is typically done with air-to-air radar in the Fighter or it can be done with Tacan (none of these devices are possessed by Commercial Airliners.) Ideally, the Tanker rolls out of the turn with the Fighter in close trail. There was no time for this kind of maneuver on 9/11 by any of the flights, not even close.

Then, of course, there the problem with a place to store something painted in an Airline scheme. It's as if there are any bases where this would be remotely possible without dozens of people seeing a strange airplane take off from this fictional location. Twoofer seem to think there are multiple places (apparently abandoned) where it would be possible to do this. It's as if there are multiple folks in the USAF dumb enough to not see this especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Even civilians in the area would notice something unusual if there were even remotely a place where this could be done.

It amuses me to see this delusional theory even mentioned. It is so preposterous that fits into the realm of "space beams" or nukes at the WTC. Not possible twoofers, not within the short time radar contact was lost with some of the flights. Anyone who mentions this in a serious manner should be given the same insult treatment as "no planers" and driven out of the Forum "tarred and feathered" on a rail.


These nonsensical "debates" grow tiresome. Here you have an obnoxious kid pretending to wonder how the the hijacked planes were identified. If the fact that remains of the passengers, crews, AND most of the hijackers were found at the crash sites and identified by DNA testing isn't good enough for you, what will be? AA Flight 77 is tracked on radar headed toward the Pentagon. A commercial airliner hits the Pentagon and the remains of the people traveling on Flight 77 are found there. Does any sane person think that the airline is wondering what happened to its plane? Either everybody--airlines, air traffic controllers, the FBI, the forensic examiners, the police and fire departments--is part of the imaginary conspiracy or you have stop asking inane questions.

[DavidJames]

I've seen many twoofers imply or directly state that they believe there was a plane substitution during one or more of the flight during the periods of momentary lost radar contact or transponder changes. LC has used this several time in this thread. That is so preposterous it's actually hilarious. It's as if they've taken the script for a "Die Hard" movie or something similar. In actual fact it is not that easy to rendezvous in flight even when it's planned and done using air-to-air radar by highly experienced pilots.

For example, a typical rendezvous between a Fighter and a Tanker typically begins in excess of 20-30 miles or further with about a 5 mile offset (I believe the offset is correct, beachnut. If not correct it.) At any rate the Tanker and Fighter head toward one another and the Tanker turns at 21 miles offset from the fighter. This is typically done with air-to-air radar in the Fighter or it can be done with Tacan (none of these devices are possessed by Commercial Airliners.) Ideally, the Tanker rolls out of the turn with the Fighter in close trail. There was no time for this kind of maneuver on 9/11 by any of the flights, not even close.

Then, of course, there the problem with a place to store something painted in an Airline scheme. It's as if there are any bases where this would be remotely possible without dozens of people seeing a strange airplane take off from this fictional location. Twoofer seem to think there are multiple places (apparently abandoned) where it would be possible to do this. It's as if there are multiple folks in the USAF dumb enough to not see this especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Even civilians in the area would notice something unusual if there were even remotely a place where this could be done.

It amuses me to see this delusional theory even mentioned. It is so preposterous that fits into the realm of "space beams" or nukes at the WTC. Not possible twoofers, not within the short time radar contact was lost with some of the flights. Anyone who mentions this in a serious manner should be given the same insult treatment as "no planers" and driven out of the Forum "tarred and feathered" on a rail.I believe it's futile to try and convince a CTists that their fantasy isn't possible with current technology. The fact is technology changes and what's wasn't possible 20 years ago is now and what isn't now, may be 20 years from now. I have no doubt your description of plane rendezvous is correct, but can you state with 100% certainly something isn't in development which would change your scenario?

For me, I'd rather demand they prove their scenario. They think planes were swapped, don't tell them it's not possible, don't get caught up in technology pissing contest, instead demand they prove that it happened.

Don't argue if thermite can be used in a CD, demand they show proof that it was.

Don't argue if a plane can be remote controlled, demand they show proof that it was.

Don't argue if a missle could have made the hole in the Pentagon, demand they show proof it did.

Don't get into a position with fantasist arguing about the possibilities of fantasys, that's what they do best, they think up fantasys.

ETA...

I feel the same way about the towers. When someone says something like, the towers fell to fast, I think it's a waste of time showing them calculations, The idiots asking the questions won't understand the answers anyway. The first response should be, "show me the calculations proving the towers fell to fast".

[gc051360]

Can you please show how the planes were identified? Or shhhhhh... be quiet.
Airlines keep track of their airplanes, both on the air, and on the ground. They have identified the airplanes. Why do you doubt their ability to keep track of their aircraft?

[beachnut]

I've seen many twoofers imply or directly state that they believe there was a plane substitution during one or more of the flight during the periods of momentary lost radar contact or transponder changes. LC has used this several time in this thread. That is so preposterous it's actually hilarious. It's as if they've taken the script for a "Die Hard" movie or something similar. In actual fact it is not that easy to rendezvous in flight even when it's planned and done using air-to-air radar by highly experienced pilots.

For example, a typical rendezvous between a Fighter and a Tanker typically begins in excess of 20-30 miles or further with about a 5 mile offset (I believe the offset is correct, beachnut. If not correct it.) At any rate the Tanker and Fighter head toward one another and the Tanker turns at 21 miles offset from the fighter. This is typically done with air-to-air radar in the Fighter or it can be done with Tacan (none of these devices are possessed by Commercial Airliners.) Ideally, the Tanker rolls out of the turn with the Fighter in close trail. There was no time for this kind of maneuver on 9/11 by any of the flights, not even close.

Then, of course, there the problem with a place to store something painted in an Airline scheme. It's as if there are any bases where this would be remotely possible without dozens of people seeing a strange airplane take off from this fictional location. Twoofer seem to think there are multiple places (apparently abandoned) where it would be possible to do this. It's as if there are multiple folks in the USAF dumb enough to not see this especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Even civilians in the area would notice something unusual if there were even remotely a place where this could be done.

It amuses me to see this delusional theory even mentioned. It is so preposterous that fits into the realm of "space beams" or nukes at the WTC. Not possible twoofers, not within the short time radar contact was lost with some of the flights. Anyone who mentions this in a serious manner should be given the same insult treatment as "no planers" and driven out of the Forum "tarred and feathered" on a rail.
When we turned on the fighters, after you were cleared down track, we would keep an offset based on winds and the area. So the offset varied, we had a NAV (Magellan) and he would do his work, just a little knowledge to back him up during training was needed. It was best to let Magellan do his job and back him up.

We met 111s one day when N. Korea was chopping up Captains. The weather was bad.

The funnies save by a pilot (me) for a nav, was an SR-71 rz. The nav said give him another 360, but the DME A/A was going 99, 98, 97 as fast as a second it seemed! I looked back at Magellan and said I did not think a 30 degree, 360 turn would turn out well, with what I was seeing on the DME from the COMM3. The super NAV agreed and we proceeded to the 21 NM tanker turn range, as the speed demon SR approached from far above. The key for the SR is to not go down stream too much, he will be descending down somewhere in space down that track so our orbit had to be very specific in space and time, unlike picking up you as long as you were below us.

You are correct, a plane substitution would have been seen by FAA radar and the bad guys (who do not exist) would have been caught! We would have the FAA telling on the bad guys and we would have a big story. Does anyone in the truth movement understand the FAA radars are taped, or something, so they can figure out where planes were when something goes wrong. Even the altitude can be calculated years later if the tapes are saved. How do they think we figure out accidents! What is lacking in a 9/11 truth member? The basic ability to be an individual who wants to be more than they can be! I was lucky, I look back at UPT and remember people strapping me in my JET (okay, the tax payer jet), in the KC-135 when I was a Major and an LC, I was treated like a CEO of a company. Why are 9/11 truth member settling for mediocrity and not thinking for themselves. It may be hard to look up and understand some of the issues about 9/11; maybe it takes a 1200 SAT score, but I never thought for a second that all of us were not created equal. Why are 9/11 truthers such mindless followers. How much offload did you need, and can we get a barrel roll and a torch? How did the boom get those F-4 guys to do those barrel rolls, and why did I wince as I saw the F-4 upside down out my top window? (was it the pinup he had in the boom pod window?)

Instead of acrobatics, I had to settle for being on time no matter how late I took off. The idiots who try to blame the US military for 9/11 are nuts and dirt dumb. The substitution is really a dumb notion 4 times over. The FAA would have been a hero if there were substitutions.

[gumboot]

You are correct, a plane substitution would have been seen by FAA radar and the bad guys (who do not exist) would have been caught! We would have the FAA telling on the bad guys and we would have a big story.


To be fair they could have pulled off a aircraft substitution on AA77 if they had planned it carefully enough.

That's not to say it would have succeeded - merely that it was possible. An aircraft swap for the other three flights would have been impossible.

AA77 was hijacked while covered by a secondary-only Long Range Radar Site, so if the sub aircraft had no transponder they could have swapped over.

The problem here is two-fold however.

You have to get the sub aircraft to the RZ without being detected, and you have to get AA77 away from the RZ without being detected. Both aircraft would need to fly through airspace with primary coverage. While the sub aircraft could approach undetected because ATC did not have primary active, they would still have to avoid all other air traffic, where there was a lot of.

AA77, however, would be moving away from the RZ point to some undisclosed location while ATC were actively looking for it and had primary active.

We know precisely when AA77 reappeared on primary radar because there are ATC radar recordings that capture it. Had there been two primary-only returns in that area, the ATC recordings would have captured it.

In either scenario, those carrying out the attack have to be controlling both aircraft for it to work. If they're already controlling AA77 there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for swapping it with another aircraft.

[tarrou]

If I'm just trolling then why do you keep responding?



IMO the only reasonable comment from Lastchild in the entire thread.

Clearly Lastchild is either unable to engage in any kind of rational discussion, or he/she is just playing around aka Trolling.

[Jonnyclueless]

"If I'm just trolling then why do you keep responding?"

To meet the stundie quota.

[AMTMAN]

As far as the airlines being fearful of going bankrupt? The smoke wasn't even clear before they had their hands out for a Govt bailout. And they got it. The Government also bought out most of the families under the condition that if they took it they had to give up their right to sue anyone. Why don't you tell me which airline has been sued for how much because on 9/11 they let hijackers through security that wound up killing almost 3,000 people?

.

< http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/27/wtc.suit/index.html >

[LastChild]

< http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/27/wtc.suit/index.html >

Is there a point there? Let me know when it goes to trial.

[AMTMAN]

Is there a point there? Let me know when it goes to trial.

I guess if you don't get the point I was trying to make then trying to explain it to you would be a waste of time.