Pentagon - No camera footage = No plane. A reasonable assumption.

reply to post by OuttaTime


And NONE of the interior walls were comparable to the exterior walls. Mostly studs and drywall.

reply to post by OuttaTime


Whoa! Pull back on those reins, and slow a bit....you are heading for the cliffs. Some of the nuttier "theories" are affecting you already....

If a jetliner did hit the pentagon, the charge itself may have already been in the plane.

This is absurd. But, likely IS something that a crockery spinner on some "9/11 conspiracy" website might throw out....

What they do, is come up with cockamamie ideas, but they don't reason it through, no r check to see if it's even possible. Like, if there's even room inside the airplane, somewhere. (Not to mention...well, it's just a desperately crazy idea...). Here, the "guts" of a B-757 for review:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/aeccec34606c.jpg[/atsimg]

And, bigger image:



Starting from the nose....below the cockpit area, that's the nose gear wheel well. Aft of that, below the floor is the "E&E" bay....electronics and equipment, the "brains" of the airplane and systems. Aft, is forward cargo hold. Then, you come up against the main gear wheel wells, and the center fuel tank, which spans wing-to-wing....of course, just about the entire interior of the wings themselves are filled with fuel. Aft of the wing, below the passenger cabin, the aft cargo area....back to the aft pressure bulkhead. In the tail-cone area, is the APU...essentially, a turbine jet engine, along with its electrical generator and other equipment. There just isn't a lot of "spare room".....

I talked to someone on the phone last night who recalled a testimony he read about a dozen or so fishermen on the banks of the potomac describing a red and white 'torpedo' flying low over the river.

First ever heard of that....lots of hearsay, though...timing could be off, they may have seen some military airplane well after the attacks had ended, etc.

I had also read about the mysterious white plane spotted over the towers and the pentagon prior to the events (from the pilotsfor911truth.org website forums).

Well..."consider the source" ( ). Really, as "pilots" they should know better. The "white" airplane is explained, has been....it is a version of a B-747, an E-4:

On 11 September 2001, an aircraft closely resembling an E-4B was spotted orbiting the Washington D.C. area by news outlets and citizens, during the attack on the Pentagon. This aircraft sighting has added fuel to the continued speculation and debate concerning the September 11 attacks. In his book "Black Ice" author Dan Verton identifies this aircraft as an E-4B taking part in the 2001 operational exercise "Global Guardian". The exercise was cancelled when the first plane struck the World Trade Center, and the E-4B, operating under call sign "Venus 77", which was waiting on the ramp at Andrews AFB, requested emergency clearance and immediately took off. The aircraft initially requested clearance for a direct route to Wright-Patterson AFB, in Dayton, Ohio, and was in the process of receiving clearance while it was seen circling the Nation's Capital at low altitude during the attack on the Pentagon. Four minutes later the aircraft requested clearance to circle sixty miles south of Washington D.C. Eight minutes after takeoff the aircraft requested clearance to circle Richmond, Virginia at an altitude of 19,000, where it remained for the duration of the attack.

en.wikipedia.org...

You can search for, and listen, to ATC tapes for Washington TRACON...and hear them communicating with "Venus 77 Heavy", as well as some other flights that morning.....


Earlier, my mention of the "cliffs"? Here's one of them:

There were many anomalies 24 hrs prior to the Flt 77 event (Rumsfeld declaring a war, $2.3T dollars vanishing...

Ermmm.....I don't have the link but they're everywhere for research. It was a topic of conversation, the ~$2.3T, as an accounting problem that was discovered, as computer systems had been undergoing upgrades and synchronization, throughout the DoD....and, this figure was an accumulation of decades' worth of mistakes and money falling through the cracks, due to inefficiency, over-payment, etc.

Makes little sense for him to announce it, on September 10th, IF Rummy had "foreknowledge" of 9/11....right? Not logical, at all.

Hani Hanjour being a horrible pilot....

That is overblown. "Horrible" in the sense that he wasn't up to the standards that FBOs have, when they rent to someone? An airplane that has a market value of around $50,000? It's a matter of his being "terrible" at the specific tasks and requirements for the FULL set of skills in flying....just to do what he actually did? Far simpler...it's point and steer, basically.


Now, I think this is yet another false/exaggerated claim, from "conspiracy" sites:

NTSB being denied access to investigate the crash but got access to the black boxes...

"denied" access? Is that what they're saying now? NTSB really is more appropriately tasked with determining cause and circumstance....especially when cause is UNKNOWN. Everyone knows the cause, on 9/11......

reply to post by weedwhacker

That is overblown. "Horrible" in the sense that he wasn't up to the standards that FBOs have, when they rent to someone? An airplane that has a market value of around $50,000? It's a matter of his being "terrible" at the specific tasks and requirements for the FULL set of skills in flying....just to do what he actually did? Far simpler...it's point and steer, basically.

Point and steer.???
That low to the ground..??

The most significant of these effects is known as the wing in ground (WIG) effect, which refers to the reduction in drag experienced by an aircraft as it approaches a height approximately equal to the aircraft's wingspan above ground or other level surface, such as the sea. The effect increases as the wing descends closer to the ground, with the most significant effects occurring at an altitude of one half the wingspan. It can present a hazard for inexperienced pilots who are not accustomed to correcting for it on their approach to landing,

en.wikipedia.org...(aircraft)

Then the effect of hitting a couple of light poles..??

Yet this "inexperienced" pilot who had "never" flown any large aircraft, let alone a jet traveling faster than reccomended, did this with incredible precision..

Weedwhacker...I challenge you to try it..!!!
One try, no second chances, in a simulator....
Let me know the company and I will pay them online..
I'm sure we can find a "truther" near you to witness your attempt..

It's really time for you to PUT UP or SHUT UP..
Balls in your court, Mr Pilot of 40 years....

reply to post by backinblack

Point and steer.???
That low to the ground..??
...

Then the effect of hitting a couple of light poles..??

Yes.

Ground effect drag problems occur an low speed and high angles of attack. The Pentagon attack was neither of these things.

Pentagon and 757 Ground Effect

That brings us to the question of whether an essentially untrained pilot like terrorist Hani Hanjour could have made these adjustments to fly the Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. While such fine corrections do require some degree of finesse and familiarity with an aircraft's flight characteristics, the level of expertise required is not excessive. We have shown that any influence of ground effect would have been quite small on Flight 77 given its high rate of speed and small angle of attack. The 757 was apparently in a shallow dive as well, further reducing its angle of attack such that any impact of ground effect would have been extremely small.

In addition, many modern airliners are not directly flown by the pilot but by automated systems. Most newer aircraft even use fly-by-wire (FBW) systems that take control inputs from the pilot, process them by computer, and automatically make adjustments to the control surfaces to accomplish the pilot's commands. Though the 757 is not equipped with a fully digital FBW system, it does carry a flight management computer system (FMCS), digital air data computer (DADC), and autopilot flight director system (AFDS) that provide sophisticated control laws to govern the plane's control surfaces. The AFDS not only controls the plane when the autopilot is enabled, but Boeing recommends that these computerized systems always be in operation to advise the pilots on how to best fly the aircraft. The primary advantage of computerized control systems is that they can make corrections to an aircraft's flight path and help prevent the pilot from accidentally putting the plane into an uncontrollable condition. The 757's flight augmentation system is also designed to damp out aerodynamic instabilities, and computerized control systems often automatically account for ground effect by making adjustments to the plane's control surfaces to cancel it out.

Yet this "inexperienced" pilot who had "never" flown any large aircraft, let alone a jet traveling faster than reccomended, did this with incredible precision..

These factors make it clear that ground effect could not have prevented a Boeing 757 from striking the Pentagon in the way that Flight 77 did on September 11. Nevertheless, we are still left with the claim that the pilot Hanjour flew a suspiciously "perfect" flight path on his approach to the Pentagon despite his lack of skill. It is unclear what has prompted this belief since very few eyewitnesses even describe how well the aircraft flew. The majority instead focus on the impact and aftermath. Even so, those few who did make statements regarding pilot ability indicate that Hanjour flew in a somewhat erratic manner as one would expect.

One of the most interesting quotes comes from Afework Hagos who commented on the plane see-sawing back and forth, suggesting that the pilot was struggling to keep the plane level in either pitch or roll or perhaps both. Hagos was stuck in traffic near the Pentagon when the 757 passed overhead. He reported, "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance." Another eyewitness named Penny Elgas also referred to the plane rocking back and forth while Albert Hemphill commented that, "He was slightly left wing down as he appeared in my line of sight, as if he'd just 'jinked' to avoid something." These observations were further confirmed by Mary Ann Owens, James Ryan, and David Marra who described the plane's wings as "wobbly" when it "rolled left and then rolled right" and the pilot "tilted his wings, this way and in this way."

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much."

Weedwhacker...I challenge you to try it..!!!
One try, no second chances, in a simulator....
Let me know the company and I will pay them online..
I'm sure we can find a "truther" near you to witness your attempt..

Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.

One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.

This question of whether an amateur could have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon was also posed to a colleague who previously worked on flight control software for Boeing airliners. Brian F. (he asked that his last name be withheld) explained, "The flight control system used on a 757 can certainly overcome any ground effect. ... That piece of software is intended to be used during low speed landings. A high speed dash at low altitude like [Flight 77] made at the Pentagon is definitely not recommended procedure ... and I don't think it's something anyone specifically designs into the software for any commercial aircraft I can think of. But the flight code is designed to be robust and keep the plane as safe as possible even in unexpected conditions like that. I'm sure the software could handle that kind of flight pattern so long as the pilot had at least basic flight training skills and didn't overcompensate too much.

WHY does that 'pilot' not want to give his second name?? What is he frightened off? He is hardly reporting a UFO experience he may be afraid to reveal his name about.....He is hardly going against the official conspiracy theory so would not be afraid of being called a 'terrist'--So whay can we not know his last name?

The pilots that I have seen and heard who state that flying aplane in the way it is suggested is very hard even for a professional pilot--never mind a 'terrorists with a box-cutter'--let their faces be seen and their names known, usually!

I mean--OK this is one m-fker, I admit that. You can have videos that really are convinving but either knowinlgy or unknowingly omit vital information, and coupled with ones own selective memory---things can get funny.
Now is it so that there IS plane debris? Well according to this older ATS thread ity seems so www.abovetopsecret.com... What do you think? if those pics are real, then the only alternative to how the plane parts got there is Intelligence people planting them, and how realistic is that?
So IF a plane did hit who flew it?
Porfessinal pilots--who give their names and allow their faces to be seen on video--say it would be very hard to fly even for a professional piot, and there are videos where people who are experienced flying to try the plane simulator and nearly always struggle with the supposed plane flight on the plane that day on 9/11

Also I am sure you know about Oulson, and his supposed conversation with his wife who we were asked to believe spoke to him, telling him about the terrorists with box cutters taking over the plane she was on. Yet isn't it so that this has been exposed as a lie?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by OuttaTime

 

And NONE of the interior walls were comparable to the exterior walls. Mostly studs and drywall.

Do we know this for sure? I don't know this for sure since floorplans are kinda protected. In a building dealing with sensitive issues, would they not want to use a bit of cinderblock? Drywall?

add: I checked the Pentagon map of that area


Studs and drywall containing the Naval Ops Center? The Defense Intelligence Agency? Maybe the interior walls of those agencies, but I'd imagine they would want better physical security for them. That being said, how hard would it be to punch through a couple sheets of drywall and grab a handful of documents? The military is a bit more anal than that.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Starting from the nose....below the cockpit area, that's the nose gear wheel well. Aft of that, below the floor is the "E&E" bay....electronics and equipment, the "brains" of the airplane and systems. Aft, is forward cargo hold

... hmmm.... a cargo hold right behind and below the cockpit...

Makes little sense for him to announce it, on September 10th, IF Rummy had "foreknowledge" of 9/11....right? Not logical, at all.

So you don't know Rumsfeld very well then. He's just as moral and ethical as Bernanke or Cheney is. You can defend Bin Laden if you want, but I don't.

it is a version of a B-747, an E-4

so much media confusion about what a lonely destination deficit airplane has, also known as an Advanced Airborne Command Post ( call sign Venus 77 ). It was said that the 4 E4s were grounded after the attacks, yet this one (A vastly predominant apparatus) had to wait for landing instructions?



and some food for thought concerning the 'stranded E4' and it's potential capabilities:

In addition, many modern airliners are not directly flown by the pilot but by automated systems. Most newer aircraft even use fly-by-wire (FBW) systems that take control inputs from the pilot, process them by computer, and automatically make adjustments to the control surfaces to accomplish the pilot's commands. Though the 757 is not equipped with a fully digital FBW system, it does carry a flight management computer system (FMCS), digital air data computer (DADC), and autopilot flight director system (AFDS) that provide sophisticated control laws to govern the plane's control surfaces. The AFDS not only controls the plane when the autopilot is enabled, but Boeing recommends that these computerized systems always be in operation to advise the pilots on how to best fly the aircraft. The primary advantage of computerized control systems is that they can make corrections to an aircraft's flight path and help prevent the pilot from accidentally putting the plane into an uncontrollable condition.

Originally posted by zimishey
WHY does that 'pilot' not want to give his second name?? What is he frightened off? He is hardly reporting a UFO experience he may be afraid to reveal his name about.....He is hardly going against the official conspiracy theory so would not be afraid of being called a 'terrist'--So whay can we not know his last name?

...because from first hand experience I know that there are a lot of people in the conspiracy movement who are such outright blind fanatics that they'll even harass people out of some misguided sense of "revealing the conspiracy." One conspiracy theorist I chatted with on another board did background searches on me in the hopes of finding background information to "get me" and even began forging perverted sex posts under my name to discredit me. He was so childish and obnoxious that I specifically had to warn one woman I was chatting with who actually worked at the WTC NOT to reveal herself to him. That guy went way beyond conspiracy theorist to the point where he was an outright stalker, and from what I'm hearing from other people, this case isn't exactly unique, either.

Accept or deny the fact as you please, but it's undeniable that a LOT of outright crackpots are being attracted to the 9/11 conspiracy movement for the antiestablishment outlet it offers. and they're making the rest of you look bad by association.

reply to post by zimishey

Have you seen this video www.youtube.com...
Now I was aware watrching this that there is no mention of 'airplane debris inside the Pentagon. Where do you get your information from? Please will you link us to it--videos if possible that show this aircrat debris. In this video there are pilots that insist negotioating a plane --as is reported--is virtually
impossible even for a skilled pilot never mind for the supposed 'terrorist' who apparently was a crap pilot. Can you explain that? Also the witness who says she thought she heard an explosion and walked out of the hole where it happened but saw no plane parts. WHERE was the luggage--the bodies? Checkout in the film how OTHER plane crashes look like!

Well I am surprised you havent come across these photos at all in the last few years as they are readily available by typing in "aircraft debris inside Pentagon" into any search engine. Here are two:
www.rense.com...
911review.com...
And even here on ATS:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for April, I believe, the woman who claims to have walked out of the hole, she must have been wrapped in asbestos or some fireproof clothing, because that hole was an inferno just after impact. She was most likely taken out through a different exit away from the fire. Also that movie that shows plane crashes, doesnt mean squat. You should at least know that no two plane crashes are alike. There is a difference between a plane doing a crash landing at a shallow angle at landing speeds, and a plane impacting at 400+mph into a large building. You are not going to get recognizable parts of the aircraft in the higher speed impact. A plane doing a controlled impact into a mountain is also not the same as a full speed impact into a building which also has part of the building collapse on it. So you are not going to see luggage, a tail, wings, recognizable bodies on the outside of the crash site at the Pentagon. But they did find body parts inside the Pentagon as well. You can look those up yourself as I do not wish to post those pictures as they are a little disturbing to see.

In that fil it is suggested a plane MAY have flown towards the Pentagon but not IN it, rather over it coinciding with the explosion so as to create the IMPRESSIOn a plane flew into it---especially with the media stating it did over and over. Propaganda uses psychological techniques. What do you think of this theory?

You know I have heard that same thing years ago, and had to laugh at the notion. First off, you cannot just "create the impression" of a plane crashing into the Pentagon. You just cant. Why is that? Just go back to the eyewitness accounts. Scores of people mention seeing the plane clearly zooming along at low altitude, getting lower, and faster, and then when impacting the Pentagon, in a nose down angle. Now, you have to realize something about planes and timed explosions. To have a 757 fly over the Pentagon, just as the explosives detonate to make the "crash impression" requires some very fancy flying and serious timing. From all accounts the plane was nose down right into the Pentagon. To have been able to clear the Pentagon , the pilot would have needed to pull up much much earlier, a difficult task considering he still has to clip the light poles. Then on detonation of the charges, he runs the risk of getting knocked out of the sky by the powerful concussion of the blast and possible debris ingestion into the engines. And people all say the plane went into the Pentagon, it didnt just fly over it and then an explosion happened. You cant fly the plane into the fireball/debris cloud either if you want to survive. Also, where are the reports from the other side of the Pentagon? Why arent there scores of eyewitnesses saying they saw an airplane fly over the Pentagon, and a large explosion followed? I've been to the DC/Arlington area. I have seen the different vantage points where one can be looking towards the Pentagon and have a clear view of the impact or any supposed flyovers. Ok lets say the plane flew over. The explosion happened. Now what? You just got the attention of thousands of people within 2 miles of the Pentagon to look in that direction. Where is the mention of a plane flying away after the blast? NONE. Just standing behind the Lincoln Memorial looking towards the Pentagon gives a clear view as well. I've been there. Even have photos of it. Its impossible to have "faked' a crash and just had the plane fly over.

I dont know jack about missiles. But at the beginning part of the video I link you to it is stressed impossible that a plane could have hit the Pentagon with the two big engines because there is no structural damage that matches.

The engines are not that solid and large. Weedwhacker has posted cutaways of the engines in question. What you think as the large part , is just the blade assembly. Its not going to survive impact with a wall. The parts inside are much smaller and they went inside, and have been recovered. Anyone who thinks that the damage does not match, is being dishonest.

Please show me the pictures? How come not ONE camera caught a plane flying near, and into the Pentagon that day? Why were all the cameras confiscated? The video that WAS shwon only showed an explosion which at least one witness who was actually in the building claimed that is exactly what it was---no plane.
I have heard there are pilots for truth and engineers for truth, etc, but are there any LAWYERS for truth, or detectives for trust. because this stinks to high heaven.

A few got glimpses of it. But wait, you honestly think that someone who was inside the building when it was impacted, had NO windows to look outside with, is a viable source to say no plane hit it? You do recall that people in the WTCs that didnt see the plane hit, but felt the impact and blast also didnt think a plane hit. They didnt see it. But others did see a plane. I suppose you think that the person should have walked right past a fully intact fuselage inside the Pentagon? Crashes dont work that way. If I stuck you into a building, and slammed a tanker truck into the building at high speed on the opposite side from where you are standing, how do you know what happened? Will you know if it was a tanker truck? Or was it a car? Or was it a bus? Or was it a small plane? All you would know from your perspective is that there was a large impact and explosion/fire. Now lets place you outside looking right towards the wall as the tanker truck hits the building. What will you say then? Do you understand now why her account should not be taken as "proof" or "evidence" that no plane hit the Pentagon? You take her word over the hundreds outside with a clear view of the flight in and impact. That is not rational. Thats bordering insane. (not saying you are insane or anything ). However, I would recommend a trip to DC and the Pentagon area, and see for yourself. Get stuck in 9:00AM traffic on the expressways and byways around the Pentagon. Then see for yourself just how many eyes were around when the impact happened. Stand behind the Lincoln Memorial and look towards the Pentagon. Or stand on General Lee's home at Arlington National Cemetery looking down at the wall of the Pentagon. Once you see it for yourself, all those ideas of flyover, fooled eyewitnesses, faked crashes, go away once reality sets in.

reply to post by zimishey

WHY does that 'pilot' not want to give his second name??

In addition to Weedwhacker's suggestion, it is also possible that he may be contractually forbidden from making 'official' statements.

As a former (or current) employee (or contractor) of Boeing, working on a critical system, he is most likely forbidden to discuss anything about the topic in a way that would give it the appearance of an official statement about anything remotely proprietary. Companies have official spokespeople to do that sort of thing and get all riled up if people go around telling all the company secrets to newspaper reporters.

Obviously the argument can be made that the information Brian F. was not in any detail, but that isn't the point. The rule is worker bees don't speak for the hive, spokes bees do.

That's what I wonder about the pentagon attack. We're told it was a plane, there's video of the impact, and they give us a quick shot of an explosion. Why not put all of the conspiracy theories and mistrust to bed and just show the footage in its entirety. It's just that simple. How can showing us an airplane crashing into the pentagon do any harm at all? We see the twin towers footage constantly, so what gives?

Originally posted by sbc650mike
That's what I wonder about the pentagon attack. We're told it was a plane, there's video of the impact, and they give us a quick shot of an explosion. Why not put all of the conspiracy theories and mistrust to bed and just show the footage in its entirety. It's just that simple. How can showing us an airplane crashing into the pentagon do any harm at all? We see the twin towers footage constantly, so what gives?

The only fly in the ointment there is that you are assuming there is more footage without having any evidence there is.

reply to post by sbc650mike

Why not put all of the conspiracy theories and mistrust to bed and just show the footage in its entirety. It's just that simple.

You're kidding, right? Do you read any of these posts? Nothing, nothing, no matter how apparently unambigous it may be, will ever put these "theories" to rest. People's lives are dedicated to the singular notion that the US government orchestrated 9/11. Period. No investigation, no release of information, nothing will desuade these people from their course.

Just think, even if the DoD did release clear video of Flight 77 striking the Pentagon how long before you would hear accusations of fake video. This is a closed system. Any evidence that supports the conspiracy du jour is true until proven otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as "disinfo".

Originally posted by sbc650mike
That's what I wonder about the pentagon attack. We're told it was a plane, there's video of the impact, and they give us a quick shot of an explosion. Why not put all of the conspiracy theories and mistrust to bed and just show the footage in its entirety. It's just that simple. How can showing us an airplane crashing into the pentagon do any harm at all? We see the twin towers footage constantly, so what gives?

Please.

Go one page back and read through the list that tells you exactly what are on those videos.

reply to post by hooper


Don't worry about that ,I know what is fake video because i make some too
Just release the tapes if possible from two angles and everything is ok.

Originally posted by xavi1000
reply to post by hooper

 

Don't worry about that ,I know what is fake video because i make some too

Just release the tapes if possible from two angles and everything is ok.

Thank you for affirming my suspicions. Even stuff that does not exist has already been determined to be "faked".

Wow.

reply to post by hooper


Debunker twisting the words and wrote a post who is miles away from common sense and logic.

I just say let the tapes be released (from two angles at least) and then i will know IF they are fake .And for your claim that the tapes dont exist you must proof that.

What part of my post you dont understand ? How old you are ? When you learn to read?

reply to post by xavi1000

And for your claim that the tapes dont exist you must proof that.

What part of my post you dont understand ? How old you are ? When you learn to read?

Pretty good. In just one post you manage to butcher the English language, accuse someone else of being illiterate and demand that someone prove a negative.

reply to post by hooper


English is not my first language .
You are quoting half of my post.
Again twisting and lying.

For anyone truly interested in what happened at the Pentagon I would suggest keeping an eye on the " New FDR decode " thread.

Warren Stutt, who has been engaged for a long time in decoding AA 77's flight data recorder, in particular the last few seconds, has a peer-reviewed paper shortly to be released.