Ted Olsen and flight 77 the phone calls that never were.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Jesushere

What do you not understand about being held hostage, and violent hijackers trying to control the kidnapped?

Maybe Olson could not get to the other passengers to warn them of what her husband told her? Maybe Olson was found out by the terrorists and silenced? How many hijackings before 9/11 intensionally crashed the aircraft?


I find it odd conspiracists hardly ever target Renee May’s phone call.

Out of 58 passengers, only two made calls. And there still doubts anyone could have telephoned someone from the air on a cell phone for minutes on end without disruption. Barbara Olson was not supposed to be on that flight so she could be an unwitting glitch in the planning? And flight 77 disappeared for an hour nobody knows even today where it was at that time, they just assume the blip that appeared over Washington was the same flight?

a reply to: Jesushere

No it didn't. They went back and examined the radar data and it was tracked its entire flight. It wasn't tracked in real time, but it was tracked on radar.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Sorry, that's not true the lost the plane at 8.56 on the radar. A target was tracked again at 9.32 by Dulles controllers.

Real-time is how you track a plane, not a radar reconstruction that can be manipulated later on.

Nvm. I keep forgetting why I don't get into these discussions anymore.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You can't track a plane that was not picked up radar in real time. What they did was a reconstruction of the flight path they later believed the flight took for an investigation into 9/11.

We know because of Washington centre there was no radar return.

American 77, However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.

a reply to: Jesushere

Wrong. Go learn how radar works and maybe you'll start to understand what they did. It wasn't the "believed flight path" it was the actual path they took.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Anyways not going to agree on this, next.

Floyd the Taxi driver claims he came across the highway with the people involved in the false flag and said he is in on it faking this event. Does this not bust the Government official narrative about 9/11.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It gets tiresome. I'm very patient and try to understand why people aren't getting the concept I'm explaining and try six ways from sunday to explain it. I've come to the conclusion that they're determined to believe what they want to believe and nothing else.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Do people not realize that hundreds of people saw the plane hit the Pentagon? I was one of them. Traffic was at a standstill around the Pentagon. I was one of them. It was low, extremely low, so low I and others thought it would hit the highway and take out a bunch of people, loud, it was moving...A few years ago i met some one else who was also in traffic near the Pentagon...so not sure why so many people seem to believe it was not a plane, This was a very populated area, densly populated, not sure why people think no one saw this happen

a reply to: Brosen

😂

originally posted by: craterman
No seats, no luggage, no bodies. Yeah, sure, it must have been a plane.

The passports !!! But what about the passports...
Groundhog Day again, same ol same ol "no interest in any other topic" poster.

originally posted by: Jesushere
a reply to: Zaphod58

Anyways not going to agree on this, next.

Floyd the Taxi driver claims he came across the highway with the people involved in the false flag and said he is in on it faking this event. Does this not bust the Government official narrative about 9/11.

Then what is the explanation for...
-the contact damage of the navy annex?
-the clipped vegetation?
-the damage to the trailers in the construction yard?
-items in the construction yard pushed towards the pentagon?
- the damage to the low concrete wall by one of the jets engines.

You present the light poles out of context. Mr. Floyd account is out of context with the other contact damage. Out of context with the 100 plus witnesses that attest to a large commercial jet.


Did Mr. Floyd’s account change with time?

www.scientistsfor911truth.org...

Downed Light Poles
In the aftermath of the event at the Pentagon, there were five downed light poles that formerly stood beside the main highway and an exit ramp. This is confirmed by photographs and eyewitness testimony. Their former positions were on either side of a damage trail or path consistent with the passage of a large plane. The separation of the poles perpendicular to the damage trail is about 100 ft. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is almost 125 ft. The fact that other poles close to the plane path were not clipped sets an upper limit of 13037 ft to the wingspan. Thus, the evidence is consistent with the wingspan of a Boeing 757. Photographs show that the impact point on the poles becomes progressively lower as the plane descends on approach to the Pentagon38.
Several witnesses (for example, Bright39, Khavkin40, Hagos41) reported that they saw the plane clip the poles. Others reported the plane clipped a telephone pole and utility pole guide. Witnesses such as Hemphill and Morin described a minor flash as the plane crossed the highway toward the Pentagon, indicating a collision with some object. A taxi cab driver, Lloyde England, reported that a severed pole damaged his windshield as his taxi traveled on the highway. Other witnesses support this much-maligned42 report. Some witnesses saw the light poles after they were downed. There are 22 citations of the plane hitting lamp poles and other objects to be found at this location.43 There are no witnesses who saw the poles suddenly destruct in the absence of a plane or who noticed damaged poles lying on the ground prior to the impact.
The downed light poles are in the “best evidence” category that a large plane flew low over the lawn from the highway toward the Pentagon. There is no sign of explosive damage; the poles appear to have been struck a massive horizontal blow which not only severed them at the ground and impact point but also bent them, as would be expected given their inertia.
The eyewitness and physical evidence provided by the downed light poles points to the passage through them of a large plane that hit the Pentagon a second or less later. This weighs against all the alternative theories except for explosives (bombs) for the physical damage, and a staged event is still needed to explain the witness testimony.
Requirement: Those who hold to the alternative theories must produce a credible alternative explanation for the downed light poles, in order to still claim that these theories are viable. If no credible evidence or explanation can be produced, these theories must be discarded.
Status: Requirement not fulfilled.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Nvm. I keep forgetting why I don't get into these discussions anymore.

I finally gave up as well.

Just as yourself, I actually have some real world experience with both aviation, heavy construction and have a grasp on basic Newtonian physics.

I've read the NIST reports and understand their contents and conclusions, I've listened to and read the evidence( or lack of) supporting the alternative theories and have no doubt about what really happened.

I enjoyed trolling the 911 truther movement at times for the grins and giggles but in all honesty have only reached 1 person out of dozens of discussions.

At this point it is nearly religious zealotry that drives anybody still hanging on to the notion that 9/11 went down any way but as the official story lays it out

Sure there were multiple conspiracies involved, conspiracy on the part of the hijackers to perpetrate the attack, conspiracy on the part of government to cover their mutual interests etc...

I will admit, some of the stuff is still comical enough to read along with but not worth the time responding to.

originally posted by: Fermy

originally posted by: craterman
No seats, no luggage, no bodies. Yeah, sure, it must have been a plane.

The passports !!! But what about the passports...
Groundhog Day again, same ol same ol "no interest in any other topic" poster.

One, who is basing the jets hit the pentagon and the towers solely based on a passport.

Two, through the various threads:
-people have documented the engine found at the wold trade center.
-the fuselage parts found around the WTC
-human remains identified by DNA of the terrorists, passengers, and crew at the WTC.
-other personal items were recovered from the flights that hit the towers.
-the same items of evidence were also recovered at the pentagon.


Why do conspiracists ignore the actual physical evidence to create a faith based belief in no jets?

a reply to: FlyingFox

To me it sounds like she says "please pray"

The entire "calls made from the doomed flights" is horse# imho. Recently I came across this video which explained a lot to me.


Another question which was asked years ago was in regards to the FDR and CVR on Flight 93 to which I've never seen explained.

a reply to: TXRabbit

Care to actually form a argument. I stopped trusting truth movement propaganda when I found out the claim the towers fell at the rate of free fall was a lie. The pictures of cut columns at the WTC were done by clean up crews with thermal lances, no thermite. There was a wide debris field of personal effects, jet wreckage, and human remains in the trees at shanksville, and the claims of no wreckage/ no human remains was a lie. The towers fell through the path of greatest resistance was a lie.

a reply to: neutronflux

The towers fell through the path of greatest resistance was a lie.

You have stated this a few time now. Please explain how this is a lie.

If the greatest resistance wasn't the 90+ undamaged/compromised floors (and core) below, then what was?

The towers both collapsed very quickly through the greatest path of resistance.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

You have stated this a few time now. Please explain how this is a lie.

If the greatest resistance wasn't the 90+ undamaged/compromised floors (and core) below, then what was?

The towers both collapsed very quickly through the greatest path of resistance.

The energy required to divert the falling mass elsewhere would be greater than the energy required to shear off the truss seats supporting the floors.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

Is it true I have quoted this before?

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolition
www.skeptic.com...

According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.