The place where Flight 77 was swapped with a drone

[Woody Box]

...is apparently documented by the flight explorer software:






You can follow this animated gif step-by-step if you slow it down by pressing the mouse outside the window and keep it pressed until you like to continue. It consists of 39 steps. At step 20 (the Northern edge of the path), you will realise that the plane icon doesn't move - BUT - the accompanying data change:

Suddenly the plane changes

a) the altitude (second line, first number including arrow):

one moment, it is at 31200 ft., going down
the next moment, it is at 35000 ft., climbing

b) the speed (second line, second number):

one moment, it is 476 mph
the next moment, it is 458 mph

c) the estimated arrival time (fourth line):

one moment, it is 1:21 p.m.
the next moment, it is 1:16 p.m.

All that happens when the plane seems to stop in the air. It looks like we have to deal here with two different planes: the first one is the original flight 77. The second one is a drone which later self-destructed over the Ohio/Kentucky border, producing confusion among Indianapolis controllers because the radar signal suddenly vanished.

This drone was probably not the missile that hit the pentagon - way too complicated. They launched the pentagon missile from a much shorter distance.

For more details: please visit

http://airgames.bravehost.com

[rsmith6621]

1. Nice Theory....But

It aint going to get Kerry/Edwards in the White House....we are going to have to work to get him elected.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

2. Launched the Pentagon missile?

LOL!

Come on, you people are still into that idiotic nonsense? Get real. A plane hit the Pentagon.

[Dr Strangelove]

4. Did It?

Whats makes you think a plane hit the pentagon? Maybe you could post a photo that shows some plane wreckage, bodies, luggage etc.

[Endangered Specie]

5. Explore some of the links in here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=18949&mesg_id=18949

[DulceDecorum]

23. Been there, done that,

and refuted most of them
by given hard facts,
and links to these hard facts
so that YOU
the person reading this,
may draw your OWN conclusions.

The Pentagon Thread: Part 5.1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=3550

[Endangered Specie]

7. In any large group of people, there will be the idiots,

cashews and folks incapable of critical thinking... DU is, with this forum as all the evidence needed, no exception.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sven77]

3. cruise missle

maybe a cruise missle homing in on the pentagon.

[Endangered Specie]

6. Im sorry, but cruise missles dont knock down lightposts

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/


nor do they get confused by tons of eyewitnesses

http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

[stickdog]

8. Yes, I think the evidence shows that A plane hit the Pentagon.

But if it was Flight 77, why can't we see all of the surveillance footage?

[Endangered Specie]

11. I assume you are referring to

the tapes that the FBI took... Indeed, I dont know this but that in of itself should be looked on oversuspiciously... I would speculate that the FBI is still a slow cumbersome organization and hasnt gotten around to releasing them, or are still reviewing them.

Lets keep in mind though, that people viewed them before the FBI got the tapes, and they havent said anything to contradict the current opinion on what happened.

[stickdog]

13. And that means what? That they don't have as good as publicists as

Madonna?

Come on. We know they CONFISCATED the only tape in the public domain and its never been seen or heard from again. Then they released their own shorter, shittier, doesn't-show-anything tape instead, even though the DOD SURELY had dozens of their own security cameras trained on the Pentagon. And it's now been three years, so if this failure is due to some sort of bureaucratic sloth, then it more than rivals Terry Gilliam's imagination.

And who knows how many other tapes they confiscated that we DON'T know about? You know, like that FAA tape that some guy cut into 100 pieces and put into 100 wastebaskets. Nothing suspicious about that. No sir.

[RH]

29. No they did not release their own ....

That was not an official release.

[Woody Box]

9. xymphora on Flight 77

http://www.xymphora.blogspot.com

Sept 7 '04


The bottom line is that there is only one piece of evidence that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. One. What is that evidence? That the Bush Administration said so. That's it. All the eye-witness evidence, such as it is, either contradicts the Official Story or was obviously tainted by the unsupported assertions of the Bush Administration. Every single bit of physical evidence completely contradicts the Official Story. Your propensity to believe the blatant nonsense of the Official Story is directly proportional to how cravenly you accept the word of authority. You may think you're radical, but I think you're too scared to believe your own lyin' eyes. The problem with the obvious truth of what happened at the Pentagon on September 11 is that it directly contradicts the fairy-tale view Americans still have of their government. If it wasn't Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon, September 11 was at least in part a conspiracy of the highest levels of the American government. Americans have been accepting official cover-up horseshit for so long that I truly believe they can no longer tell the difference between truth and nonsense.

[geek tragedy]

10. That's funny.

We should believe this idiot instead of the overwhelming evidence, including the bodies at the site. Not.

[Endangered Specie]

12. That is the idea behind all CT

All make up and no facts, and a massive lack of brain matter, replaced by cashews.

[BeFree]

14. Careful Endangered

You are getting a little too personal.

+++++++++++++++

I truly wish someone could convince us that AA77 was what hit the pentagon. It would be nice to see some physical evidence besides some twisted metal pieces that may, or may not have been from AA77.

Light poles? That's nothing. A small hole? That's something.

Really, if anyone can get some evidence, I'd love to see it. I've seen what's available and it doesn't convince me of anything.(on edit: it does convince of one thing... there is a reason why the state can't, or won't release the evidence that it has. And that reason has a lot to do with gWb's hand.)

Until the time comes that evidence is presented that comes from official sources, and is convincing, I shall remain free to think and speak as I please.

[stickdog]

15. Yes, we just made up the Maine, the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin,

Operation Northwoods, the 1968 Democratic convention, the U-2 incident, the Tuskeegee experiments, Ground Zero, the Manhattan Project, the tobacco science cover up, the asbestos science cover up, Iran Contra, Watergate, MKULTRA, Operation Paperclip, Project Bluebird, etc., etc., etc.

What creative minds conspiracy theorists have to just make all this shit up!

[Endangered Specie]

22. Creationism, Holocaust Denial, Alien Abduction, Roswell,

Crop Circles, Eqypt-Alien Relations, Isreal involved in 9/11, Bermuda Triangle... etc.


Keep in mind that most of those you listed came about BEFORE CT types were telling us about it.

[stickdog]

30. So the people "whining" about the heath effects of

asbestos and "Ground Zero" and "Agent Orange" and the Gulf War Syndrome and now depleted uranium weren't all historically derided as paranoid nut cases? Because that would be news to them, now wouldn't it?

What you illustrate when you say "most of those things were BEFORE conspiracy theorists" is no less than the fatal flaw logical flaw in conventional wisdom automatically cateogorizing any and all unproven claims of government and corporate malfeasance as wild-eyed "conspiracy theories." The problem is that as soon as any former "conspiracy theory" becomes generally accepted as historical fact, it's no longer categorized as a "conspiracy theory." The incredible brazenness of the original charges, the unthinkable immorality of the culpable parties, and universal derison ridicule that was formerly heaped upon the accusers are all minimized and in many cases completely forgotten. When yesterday's tinfoil hat raving become today's historical fact, its previous categorization as the ravings of madmen is conveniently dismissed as some sort of quirky historical novelty that existed in a time when the nature of powerful human institutions was somehow fundamentally different.

But what does history actually tell us about the propensity of powerful humans to work together in the pursut of far less than altruistic and often shockingly immoral ends? It certainly doesn't tell us that governmental and corporate malfeasance are unlikely, now does it?

[geek tragedy]

31. The Ground Zero stuff was very plausible.

Bush lying about environemental hazards? Of course he was lying.

But that wasn't a big exotic conspiracy and coverup--just a big lie. No dead bodies to explain away or stuff like that.

[stickdog]

33. But lying about the health risks at Ground Zero very likely took decades

off the life expectancies of thousands of New Yorkers.

And we know for a fact that many, many hundreds of NYers have already been diagnosed with chronic lung ailments. The Bush administration had no qualms when it came to inflicting misery and human suffering on American citizens on one of the grandest scales imaginable. And for what? Just to get Wall St. back open a few days early? For that "higher purpose," our federal government saw fit to tell Ground Zero volunteers that it was safe to work without re-breathers? What kind of a psychopath tells parents and teachers that it's A-OK to send their kids back to play in schoolyards literally covered in asbestos, heavy metals and all sorts of other highly toxic waste?

If someone can do this without blinking an eye -- if this very same someone can send 1,000 American soldiers to their graves based on a tissue of lies, exactly what puts complicity in the deaths of 3,000 people outside the realm of reason?

[RH]

32. governmental and corporate malfeasance

does not quite equate to criminal conspiracy.

The essential difference is in forgiving them for they know not what they do. That's the really scary bit. They really do think that God is on their side.

And if you're talking about corporate malfeasance how much does history tell us about the American government but not the American people as a whole? While most of the World's population struggles to survive on the equivalent of one or two dollars a day, if they're lucky enough not to be dying of aids or foul water, what exactly, in philosophical terms should entitle anybody else to a disproportiately superior privilege? When they go off to invade a foreign country to seize hold of its oil business the venture is not just to put the stuff in big glass trophy case.

When all said and done the USA is a democracy. It ends up with a government that is over indulged, immature, insecure, aggressive, myopic, ignorant and conceited because the Nation is much the same, over indulged, immature, insecure, aggressive, myopic, ignorant and conceited.

And if anybody wants to see the proof of that there is an abundance of it to be found in material posted to this forum.

[stickdog]

35. So if our leaders convince us to support wars based on lies, is that not

criminal? If -- as Wolfowitz has stated -- they put their heads get together and decided the best way to sell us on the need to invade Iraq was to universally, continuously and heinously exaggerate the level of threat it posed, was that not a conspiracy?

And how many thousands have we killed in Iraq so far in a disastrous and sinister war of aggression? Has Bush murdered 50,000 people there yet or will it take us a few more months to pass that milestone?

And what of the man Bush deposed? Would you deny that he and his ruling junta were also obviously guilty of criminal conspiracies? And what of our "Shah" in nearby Iran? And the Ayatollahs who came to power when his overreaching conspiratorial grip became his undoing? And what about the Iran-Contra scandal? Was that by any chance actually an unbelievably vast and sprawling criminal conspiracy ? Or was it merely another self-obsessed dream of our far-too-spoiled populace?

And is sodium flouride really something you'd want to spike kids' drinking water with? Just so we won't have to put so many mercury fillings in their mouths, perhaps? I admit that I may be getting bit hysterical here. Unfortunately, unlike my dear mother, I can't enjoy the full panacea-like benefit of a pre-emptive removal of a perfectly healthy uterus. On the other hand, a lobotomy and a few rounds of electroshock treatment could still end up being just what the doctor ordered.

Do the sordid histories of Enron and WR Grace and RJ Reynolds and A. H. Robins tell us anything about anything? Did Standard Oil really conspire with I.G. Farben, or was that just another delusion? And the BCCI scandal and the S&L bail out and now the hedge fund malfeasance? Were they all just a few bad apples who just happened to "require" billions of our tax dollars, not for themselves, of course, but rather entirely for the "good of the marketplace"? Certainly, the seemingly ubiquity of systemic corruption is in no way indicative of our financial systems in general. It no doubt borders on full-blown insanity to even consider the entirely baseless suggestion that elites routinely leverage their wealth and power to bend, break and/or completely rewrite the rules to their ever increasing advantage.

[RH]

36. Yes, all very well but ....

it is really nought but an academic indulgence to be hammering on like this anyway.

Which court do you have in mind with which to put them on trial? In the UK some people, including a barrister I happen to know well, have looked into the possibility of mounting a personal charge against Tony Blair but it just aint going to happen.

Corruption in high places is not news. Its been around since Julius Caesar and before. To be taken seriously you've got to have a serious alternative to offer, another way to do things, and what in the USA would fit that description? Where is the improvement?

I do not see it. By way of opposition I see endless despair thinly wrapped in a tin foil top coat, a lot of immature sensational wailing as if in the hope of what?

[stickdog]

37. Truth, like beauty, has its own power.

The history of human society can be roughly assessed as a struggle between the governed's will to truth and justice vs. the governors' will to power, profit and control.

There is no question which meme is currently (and generally) culturally dominant, but inescapable truth is powerfully subversive. And the inescapable truth of our current situation is that our governors have been single-minded in their pursuit of more and more power and less and less disclosure. And while they've packaged these demands as the only reasonable response to an insidious threat that perpetrated a shockingly horrific national disaster, the very best we can say about our governors is that they've so crassly exploited our national pain that they've long since squandered the trust of anyone less gullible than Gomer Pyle.

Under these circumstances, it is IMPERATIVE that anybody who values truth, justice and liberty fully appreciate the imperative immediacy of this long running battle. Admittedly, we don't have nearly enough disclosure to work with to fully assess their exact degree of willful culpability. However, we have EVERY REASON to question their good faith and NO REASON WHATSOEVER to grant them the benefit of our very palpable and utterly inescapable doubts.

To summarize:

If BushCo's crimes are "merely" rank incompetence, opportunism and graft that APPEAR far sinister, then it's hardly a high crime to have thought even worse of him until proven otherwise.

However, if BushCo's crimes actually ARE on the scale of the other BIG LIES they so eerily resemble -- and the little evidence we do have provides ample justification to at least SUSPECT as much, then those who have inexplicably toiled so tirelessly to marginalize this very real possibility are nothing less than criminal co-conspirators -- witting or not.

[RH]

38. I see

As I'd thought, you don't actually have the faintest idea of what to do about it.

[stickdog]

39. To update Orwell: "If there is any hope, it's in the grassroots."

There are millions of active energized people who are willing to donate their time and money to attempt to remake their country into a more free, just and truthful nation. The communicative power of their well-informed and well-meaning political angst is our best hope.

In contrast, corporate media and the thoroughly corrupt political insiders who dominate both major parties at the highest levels are our worst enemies.

The most important thing any of us can do right now is to refuse to let media pundits, political power brokers and the dreaded "Conventional Wisdom" they so fiercely guard and aggressively promote define the ever narrowing parameters of "legitimate" political debate, systematically marginalizing and/or crushing anyone with even a modicum of personal integrity who manages to evoke the subversive power of truth, freedom and/or justice.

Yes, many Americans still fear nothing more than potentially exposing their own ignorance by granting their personal instincts and insights the same authority they grant the "experts" they see on TV. But millions of others are finally waking up to the fact that our entire top down party/pundit system of false divisions, meaningless controversies and spin-the-throttle sound-bytes is nothing more than a glorified political Skinner box.

Once enough of us learn to trust ourselves to think outside this Skinner box, trying to cohere US public opinion without invoking the subversive power of truth, freedom and/or justice will be as futile an operation as herding tigers.

I'm trying to encourage people to open up their minds to all logical, self-consistent and reasonably likely possibilities, not just the select few that intersect with Conventional Wisdom. Yes, the "conspiracy inclined" mindset often exhibits its own kind of limiting world view -- fervently grasping at dubious plots and patterns well outside the boundaries of basic sound judgment. But never has so much logic, truth, insightful historical analysis and entirely justified cynicism and skepticism been so aggressively and purposefully tossed out with the UFO bath water.

Any cursory study of history proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that no crime is too heinous for organized elite criminality. Furthermore, no historical theme is more constant and ubiquitous than the malfeasance of the powerful few at the expense of the victimized many. So while history proves that elite criminality is almost certainly the rule rather than the exception, Conventional Wisdom not only pretends that the very concept of organized elite criminality is too absurd for words, it enforces this dishonest pretension with a deluge of universal disdain and ridicule so overwhelming that even incarcerated child molesters feel less maligned and marginalized.

Methinks CW doth protest too much ...

Figure out why, and you'll never get boxed in again.

[MrSammo1]

25. Why do you?

Why do you bother trying to reason with idiots?

There are two kinds of people, those who can think analytically, and those who can't!



In Bushworld, jets vaporize or pulverize.
In Bushworld, F-15's don't do their job.
In Bushworld, jet wings fold.
In Bushworld, terrorist hijackers that fly jets into building, can still be alive.
In Bushworld, Osama Bin Laden can change the size of his nose.
In Bushworld, only the FBI can understand what Osama says in videos.
In Bushworld, Osama's relatives don't need to be questioned, and can be allowed to fly out of the US when no one else can.
In Bushworld, steel structure buildings implode demolish style and fall at or faster than free fall speeds.
in Bushworld, steel has the same density as air.
In Bushworld, if anyone doesn't buy the lies surrounding 9/11, he isn't a patriot.

[geek tragedy]

17. Don't forget a will to ignore all evidence that contradicts their version

of events.

"The bodies of the passengers of Flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site? That proves nothing."

You can't reason with such people.

[tngledwebb]

18. Where do you draw your line, GT?

What part of official media or government reports do you NOT believe? There must be line somewhere. Ie, if the current Admin said they WILL find WMD's in Iraq soon, are you a believer or would you have doubts ? Do you think Washington Post and NYT are reliable? Even they don't say that anymore.

[geek tragedy]

20. Good question.

As a rule, I generally distrust political institutions and individuals. Bush's White House, for instance.

I am more likely to believe institutions that are not political in purpose, like DoJ.

Of course, one of the big problems I hear from people I know in DoJ is how Bush and Asscroft have politicized it in the past two years.

Generally, the weight of evidence is what I go with. Picking at bits and pieces of the Flight 77 evidence is like the Freepers whining about superscript. There is really no credible alternative, with ANY evidence supporting it whatsoever, that anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[DulceDecorum]

26. Re: the weight of evidence

geek tragedy says:
Generally, the weight of evidence is what I go with. Picking at bits and pieces of the Flight 77 evidence is like the Freepers whining about superscript. There is really no credible alternative, with ANY evidence supporting it whatsoever, that anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

Please excuse me, geek tragedy,
I have two questions for you
concerning the effect that
the Mother Of All Walls
has on aircraft and their debris.

There are numerous photos and reports concerning lime-green pieces of metal inside and outside the Pentagon.
It is alleged that the lime-green color is that of the primer that was used in the manufacture of the plane.

It is alleged that N644AA is the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the pieces of metal painted with the lime-green aviation primer came off this particular plane.

N644AA was built in 1991.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=644aa

Still with me, geek tragedy?
Good.
Now, let us talk about the primer.
Please pay particular attention to the DATES mentioned in this next excerpt.

BOARD MEETING DATE: November 8, 1996
AGENDA NO. 2
Proposal:
Set Public Hearing to Amend Rule 1124 - Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations
Synopsis:
Proposed amendments will extend the compliance dates for several types of adhesive bonding primers, fuel-tank coatings, solid-film lubricants and primer coatings from 1997 to either 1998, 2000 or 2002 because compliant coatings have not been qualified by all major aerospace companies. In addition, the VOC limits are proposed to be decreased for dry lubricative coatings.
http://www.aqmd.gov/hb/96112a.html

So the hearing was held in 1996.
The date that the low VOC primer rule would go into effect
was to be changed from 1997 to a later year.
Please note that N644AA had already been built and was still flying the friendly skies while these hearings were in progress.
Please also note that "COMPLIANT COATINGS HAVE NOT BEEN QUALIFIED BY ALL MAJOR AEROSPACE COMPANIES."

Background:
In response to South Coast Air Quality Management District's tightening of Rule 1124, Boeing looked to qualify a low-VOC (<350 g/L as mixed) primer to BMS 10-79, Urethane Compatible, Corrosion Resistant Primer.
Results
In July of 2000, after much research, Boeing Materials Technology (BMT) qualified Dexter Aerospace's 10P20-44 low-VOC primer system to the BMS 10-79 specification. The "-44" primer system has been in use for several years at Boeing paint hangars as an exterior decorative primer (as qualified to BMS 10-72 Exterior Decorative paint System).
<snip>
The low-VOC primer is glossier than the conventional primer, and it is more of a yellow green (as compared to the darker green color of the conventional 10-79 primer).
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/environmental/BMS10-79.html

Do you see the problem, geek tragedy?

The yellow-green paint,
Dexter Aerospace's 10P20-44
was qualified as a low-VOC primer system by
Boeing Materials Technology
in JULY 2000.

N644AA was built in 1991
which is NINE WHOLE YEARS
BEFORE
that lime-green paint entered general usage as a primer at Boeing.

Here are the two questions, geek tragedy.

HOW IS IT
that a plane built using dark-green primer
is reduced to a few small pieces of metal with lime-yellow primer?

Does the lime-green debris vs N644AA dark-green primer
CLEARLY AND VISIBLY
demonstrate that something OTHER than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
Or is this on par with the whinings of Freepers?

[Slit Skirt]

27. ...hang in there

2 lawsuits filed
each one stating Bush knew...Cheney did it
another one claiming Saudi involvement
another one claiming obstruction of justice.

to convince others that refuse to believe is not worth the time...just move on to spread the word...
WE WILL HAVE THE LAST LAUGH.

[geek tragedy]

28. That's even more trivial than proportional spacing.

I tend to give more weight to eyewitnesses and dead bodies, but that's just me.

But go ahead tilting at windmills. Just don't act outraged when no one takes CT'ers seriously.

[DulceDecorum]

34. Truth Suppression Technique Number one

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
http://www.universalway.org/Foreign/truthsuppression.html

I am DEEPLY ENCOURAGED.

Here
AGAIN
are the two questions, geek tragedy.

HOW IS IT
that a plane built using dark-green primer
is reduced to a few small pieces of metal with lime-yellow primer?

Does the lime-green debris vs N644AA dark-green primer
CLEARLY AND VISIBLY
demonstrate that something OTHER than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon?
Or is this on par with the whinings of Freepers?

[RH]

21. I draw no line.

I accept and apply the usual standards of jurisprudence, those that ought to apply to anybody.

As soon as you prefer to apply your own particular prejudice you're on the slippery slope.

[RH]

19. "one piece of evidence"

One wonders if it could ever get any worse and then it does.

:eyes:

The word from on scene independent witnesses was out long before the Bush Administration said anything about it.

"Every single bit of physical evidence completely contradicts the Official Story."?

Really?

Having posted this as if it were worth something please explain. How do the five felled lamp poles contradict the official story? The floor is your. Tell us about it, and without please any more of the totally unsubstantiated "would have" assertions. What is there about five broken lamp poles that contradicts the official story?

Was I somehow deluded into thinking that the evidence contradicted the consipracy theorist who said that an airliner could not possibley have hit the Pentagon because it would have hit the lamp poles?

:crazy:

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/poles_.htm

[MrSammo1]

24. only one piece of evidence

I'd like to see that? I haven't seen any? I've been looking for 3 years?