When did they ID AA77's parts?

Originally posted by REMISNE
So you do not need evidence like photos you just go by what you have been told happened? You make a good media robot.

I don't know about jthomas, but no, I do need evidence. I have that evidence which you completely ignore. I have radar data from over a dozen ARSR radar facilities (military and civilian) which tracked the plane all the way from Dulles to the Pentagon. I have ATC audios and hand-written statements from those that identify the plane that took off as AAL77. I have data from 4 ASR radar facilities which track that plane dead into the Pentagon (backed up by the flight data recorder). I have ATC audio from a C-130 pilot and Reagan controllers, real-time dispatch audio from the Arlington County police, that verify the plane ended at the Pentagon and did not fly over. I have 100+ eyewitnesses (including the NoC witnesses) that say they plane flew into the Pentagon (some who actually saw the plane enter the building), downed light poles which are consistent with the flight data recorder positional, RA and acc data. I've got additional statements from the military personnel that recovered plane and body parts, and DNA identification of passengers of flight 77 found inside the Pentagon.

And that is data (evidence) I have collected for myself over the past 3 years through FOIA and actual field trips to the Pentagon, not the media.

How about that NSA FOIA?

Originally posted by 911files
I have 100+ eyewitnesses (including the NoC witnesses) that say they plane flew into the Pentagon (some who actually saw the plane enter the building).

So you believe a witness that stated that "they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757"?

I've got additional statements from the military personnel that recovered plane and body parts, and DNA identification of passengers of flight 77 found inside the Pentagon.

So all the military people knew it was a 757 and flight 77?

How were bodies found inside the buidling when the passengers were taken to the back of the plane and we know the back of the plane did not make it into the building?

Originally posted by jthomas
The laughs on you, Lillydale. ALL of the evidence already demonstrated that it was AA77 that hit the Pentagon. None of us need photographs to know that it was AA77 - including you.

Like I said, one can never underestimate the intelligence of you 9/11 "Truthers."

Your apology to the families of the victims of AA77's crash into the Pentagon and the thousands of people who worked at the Pentagon in the aftermath of 9/11 is past due, Lillydale.

WHAT PART OF THE WING IS IT?

WHERE WAS IT IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO AA77?

Since I am asking a THIRD TIME to BACK UP YOUR OWN PICTURE, you must be LYING. Instead of backing it up, you no longer need it? You are so full of crap. Thanks for the Appolonia though, this will do since it is pretty clear that you are full of it.

Like I said, either answer those or apologize. You have failed to answer those after several tries. You are a LIAR.

[edit on 12/30/09 by Lillydale]

How were bodies found inside the buidling when the passengers were taken to the back of the plane and we know the back of the plane did not make it into the building?

Yep, it does sound like ole Roger.

You KNOW the back of the plane did not make it into the building? How do you know that? Because from the evidence it most definitely appears that the back of the plane did enter the building. Not to mention, he did not say bodies....he said body parts. They were found throughout the path of
Flight 77 as it traveled through the building.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
They were found throughout the path of
Flight 77 as it traveled through the building.

Well i guess you do not believe the military witness that was closest to the Pentagon that stated the back of the plane did not make it into the building.

Common sense along with facts state the plane could not have made it into the building because of the constuction of the plane.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by jthomas
The facts and evidence are not in dispute.

You have no actual evidence, and the official FBI criminal reports have not been released yet.

It was identified as AA77, a Boeing 757, immediately. That you slipped up and admitted an aircraft hit the Pentagon leaves you in the hopeless position of refuting the evidence that it was AA77.

Show me any real evidence or official FBI criminal report that identifed the plane as AA77 immediatly or admit you are wrong.

reply to post by Lillydale


Oh, Lilly....

It seems a real pilot would have known that. Hmmmm.....

Pilots don't have to deal with ALL of the various FARs. Oh, and I'll admit, I had, until today, never HEAD of the CFR that (obviously) encompasses a HECK OF A LOT MORE than just aeronautical related govermnet regulations, now doesn't it???

Now, if you (or Ultima1) had mentioned something about the "FARs" in your posts, THEN it would have been better understood by me. (And, I daresay, by just about every one else I know, unless they are a goverment records expert, or moleman-bookish nerd type).

Ya know, on reflection, I've probably seen the acronym "CFR" before, but since it was never directly related to the subject at hand, at the time, and was not relevant, I just never bothered to decipher WHAT the acronym meant.

Certainly, though, NOW that it's out on the table, here, let's examine, shall we?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, if you (or Ultima1) had mentioned something about the "FARs" in your posts,

Seems like you will have to admit that a crew chief has more knowledge about the inner workings of a plane and the bookwork part of aviation too.

reply to post by Lillydale


Lilly, here's part of CFR 25, subpart F: "EQUIPMENT FUNCTION and INSTALLATION"

§ 25.1301 Function and installation.

(a) Each item of installed equipment must—

(1) Be of a kind and design appropriate to its intended function;

(2) Be labeled as to its identification, function, or operating limitations, or any applicable combination of these factors;

(3) Be installed according to limitations specified for that equipment; and

(4) Function properly when installed.

(b) EWIS must meet the requirements of subpart H of this part.

Paragraph 25.1309 goes on to specify more about the installed equipment requirements for malfunction warnings, systems indications to the crew, etc.

So far, this is just overall boilerplate stuff that codifies the necessary requirements determined to be minimum, by FAA, for aircraft certification...

You referenced a lot of sub-parts, care to single out the sentences that support your claims about these serial numbers, and spare us the waste of time. I can read through this as well as anybody, but it's boring as heck.

YOU wish to claim the fantastic, per your OP...bring it on, bring the specific evidence.

otherwise, the handwaving and bluster isn't quite cutting it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
YOU wish to claim the fantastic, per your OP...bring it on, bring the specific evidence.

LOL. What specific evidence would you like to see to prove something did NOT happen?

Originally posted by Lillydale

WHAT PART OF THE WING IS IT?

WHERE WAS IT IDENTIFIED AS BELONGING TO AA77?

You're really squirming, Lillydale

Since I am asking a THIRD TIME to BACK UP YOUR OWN PICTURE, you must be LYING. Instead of backing it up, you no longer need it? You are so full of crap. Thanks for the Appolonia though, this will do since it is pretty clear that you are full of it.

Short memory you have, eh, Lillydale? Shall I remind you of that you could NOT demonstrate what the debris in the photo was? Let's do that:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

JT:Second, please tell us what the debris is in the background where all the men are standing.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/010469869cb8.jpg[/atsimg]

Liliydale: Hmmmm...well I could guess plane debris. I could guess wing debris. I could even guess it is a sea of dead seagulls. I can guess all day long but unfortunately, that is all you can do too.

JT: Exactly. Now you are catching on. You can look at that photo of debris all day long and you agree that you are unable to tell us of what that debris is composed.

Lilydale: Not one thing in that picture indicates that it is debris from "shattered" wings.

JT: Since you agree you cannot tell us of what the debris in the background is composed, then you would agree that you cannot tell us that the debris does not contain wing debris. You can only say, "I don't know."

That was easy, wasn't it. All you have to do is learn to be skeptic and you can learn to ask the right questions and answer them yourselves.

But as I told you long ago, you have thousands of people who can tell you. You can ask them yourself what the debris was they walked through, picked up, recovered, and removed, but you repeatedly refuse to ask them.

In the meantime, we have absolutely no reason NOT to accept ALL of the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon. Neither do you.

It's all over for you AA77 Deniers, Lilydale. Please do the decent thing and apologize to the families of the victims of AA77's crash into the Pentagon.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
otherwise, the handwaving and bluster isn't quite cutting it.

Let me ask you a simple question.

Are the plane crashes on 9/11 considered a crime, YES or NO?

reply to post by REMISNE


Well, ULTIMA...Misner, whomever...

Yes. I suppose a "crew chief", or A&P mechanic, or FAA employee in aircraft certification standards (or an individual in airline management, especially a Flight Operations executive, who must ALSO deal with these terms ) would tend to be more cognizant of the CFR, and its codes.

WE specialize in other things.

YOU specialize, WE specialize. WE must sometimes take it on faith that YOU have don your jobs properly, just as YOU must take it on faith that WE do ours.

That faith has failed a few times, in the recorded history of aerospace (and just about every other human technology).

reply to post by jthomas


Seriously, what is your problem??????

What part of the WING is that?

How do you know what plane it came from?

Just answer me.

Two simple questions. Answer them or you are obviously just a troll.

DO the decent thing, admit you are lying about what it is, apologize, OR PROVE YOU ARE NOT LYING. Why can't you do this simple simple thing? Me not proving what it is does not make it automatically what you claim it is with no proof.

THE PAINT JOB DOES NOT EVEN MATCH THE WINGS OF THE ALLEGED PLANE, GENIUS.

[edit on 12/30/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by jthomas
Please do the decent thing and apologize to the families of the victims of AA77's crash into the Pentagon.

Its time you stop disrespecting the familes and apologize for spreading the lies of the media.

reply to post by jthomas


jt, that doesn't look like a section of the wing, sorry.

I am agreeing it IS a piece of American Airlines 77, but because of the red and white exterior scheme paint it looks more like a small fragment of the fuselage.

The zinc chromate on the interior surfaces is also a dead give away.

In fact, I'd be surprised if any pieces from the wings survived in that condition --- unless a wingtip, perhaps, but I don't think there's evidence that a wingtip dragged the ground prior to hitting the building.

And, really doubt that the leading edge slats would have separated from the pole strikes, not when they were retracted at the time, and the elapsed time from pole hit to hitting the building. At most, there would have been dents in the leading edges, but I don't imagine that would have dislodged the slats.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by jthomas
The facts and evidence are not in dispute.

You have no actual evidence, and the official FBI criminal reports have not been released yet.

Yes, we know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. ALL of the evidence from multiple sources told us that immediately. You know that, U1. You are in the position of having to demonstrate otherwise. Sorry, young fella.

It was identified as AA77, a Boeing 757, immediately. That you slipped up and admitted an aircraft hit the Pentagon leaves you in the hopeless position of refuting the evidence that it was AA77.

Show me any real evidence or official FBI criminal report that identified the plane as AA77 immediatly or admit you are wrong.

As you well know, U1, ee do not need any FBI criminal report, serial numbers, or videos, to know that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. You are welcome to provide evidence to the contrary but as we have seen repeatedly, you are unable to.

Feel free to refute what I gave to you a few years ago but you ran away from:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Don't keep us waiting any longer, U1.

Originally posted by jthomas
Yes, we know that AA77 hit the Pentagon. ALL of the evidence from multiple sources told us that immediately.

You do not know, you were told this. Or you and others would be able to post the facts and evidence i have asked for again and again for the last 4 years.

As you well know, U1, ee do not need any FBI criminal report, serial numbers, or videos, to know that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. .

Let me ask a simple question. Are the planes crashes on 9/11 considered a crime, YES or NO?

If the plane crashes are considered a crime then yes you do need a proper ID of the aircraft, basic CSI 101.