Can I convince PF's resident truthers that American 77 hit the Pentagon?

NAB · Mar 12, 2013

Hannibal said: ↑

How about addressing the specific inconsistency to the claim you made - as I posted above - before you go changing the subject and ducking?

ETA: Oh Lord ... do you even read what you link to? From your link:

The Masonic Eye left on the lawn as a calling card of the Illuminati?? THAT'S your source's evidence??

Still ... address the first link (Punchout) first, we can examine your Masonic Eye Theory later.
Click to expand...

Remember, he prefers IN...DE...PEN....DENT sources.

Independent of science
Independent of common sense
Independent of rational thought
Independent of consistency
Independent of intelligence
Independent of reality

Meanwhile, LOOK!!!! Shills!!!!11

herp derp. What a waste of effin bandwidth.

Hannibal · Mar 12, 2013

Hannibal said: ↑

You were shown the evidence that you were in error. Will you continue to ignore it?

That photo you posted was from the inner ring.

I'm referring to the link you put in this post, which is even labeled a punchout hole:
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...erican-77-hit-pentagon-17.html#post1062287554
Click to expand...

Rather than link to a source that claims there was a Masonic Eye drawn on the lawn of the Pentagon, how about addressing your error in the link above. "Punch out".

leftysergeant · Mar 12, 2013

Scott said: ↑

Hey leftysergeant

You keep talking as if you had credibility. You keep forgetting that you destroyed your credibility a while back when you said these things.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/290910-do-you-trust-us-government-11.html#post1062370641

I suppose you're trying to bury that part of the debate to reduce the number of people who see it.

What do all of you other pro-official version posters think of what he said?
Click to expand...

You bring your own intelligence into serious question here. Any idiot can see that in the picture with the plane mostly hidden behind the toll booth box, there is a trail of smoke. You have no credibility and never will have any.

Scott · Mar 12, 2013

Are you going to be like a typical truther and stick in a circle about video to completely cover the fact it's only a very small portion of my blog? Are you going to ignore RADAR? FAA ATC? Pilots and other witnesses? Original documents and over 50 images of debris?
Click to expand...

I dealt with most of those issues in this discussion on another thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/275987-few-debunking-links.html#post1061950663

There's nothing conclusive there. There are plausible explanations for everything you listed. Debris can be planted in the building before the crash and on the lawn after the crash. Witnesses can be plants, etc and none of it makes the conclusive proof of an inside job go away.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144746

What? You're not going to see a shadow from a grainy film of an object 500 feet away. Now you're being desperate. The video shows a 757. You're deliberately placing your truther blinkers on.
Click to expand...

A 757 is twelve feet wide.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html

On a sunny day like this...
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

...a twelve-foot-wide shadow would be very visible.
http://www.picturescolourlibrary.co...iewpage=picture_details_np.jsp&pclref=2495531

The fact that there's no shadow under the spot where you pro-official version posters say there is a plane totally demolishes your argument.

9/11 was an inside job · Mar 12, 2013

Scott said: ↑

Check out what Webster Tarpley says at the 59:20 time mark of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF1GUusfp-0

The mqm-107 drone may have been the craft that hit the Pentagon.
http://www.google.es/#hl=es&gs_nf=3...024&bih=549&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&cad=b

Look at this picture which shows the nose of the craft that hit the Pentagon.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

It looks exactly the same as the nose of the mqm-107 drone.
Click to expand...

He wont,scholars and experts views mean nothing to them.only what our corrupt government institutions and our corporate media they worship mean anything to them.

leftysergeant · Mar 12, 2013

Scott said: ↑

The fact that there's no shadow under the spot where you pro-official version posters say there is a plane totally demolishes your argument.
Click to expand...

First, you are assuming that the ground where the shadow would have fallen would be at the same level as the plane of focus of the camera. Stupid thing to pre-suppose. Further, you miss the fact that the shadow would have fallen under the smoke trail.

You are not as good at this photo analysis stuff as you think yourself to be.

Scott · Mar 12, 2013

You bring your own intelligence into serious question here. Any idiot can see that in the picture with the plane mostly hidden behind the toll booth box, there is a trail of smoke. You have no credibility and never will have any.
Click to expand...

Leftysergeant is trying to mislead those viewers who don't actually click on the link and look at what he said. Click here to see what the actual issue is.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/290910-do-you-trust-us-government-17.html#post1062385588

Hannibal · Mar 12, 2013

Scott said: ↑

Leftysergeant is trying to mislead those viewers who don't actually click on the link and look at what he said. Click here to see what the actual issue is.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/290910-do-you-trust-us-government-17.htm#post1062385588
Click to expand...

False, you are just attempting (once again) to derail conversation.

cjnewson88 · Mar 12, 2013

Scott said: ↑

I dealt with most of those issues in this discussion on another thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/275987-few-debunking-links.html#post1061950663
Click to expand...

I saw it before. It does nothing to dispute the blog, merely an attempt to dispute the video, which it doesn't do. You link poor quality images. I showed you one which shows the aircraft, yet you continue to resort back to the poor quality image which shows a smear. Do be honest to yourself.

Your third link is laughable. Who did the dimensions for that? Where's the math? If it looked like that, it would have impacted far to the western side of the control tower. It impact on the eastern side. Your photoshopped image fails.

There's nothing conclusive there. There are plausible explanations for everything you listed.
Click to expand...

Really? Then why do you ignore the RADAR/FAA data, pilot witnesses, air traffic control witnesses? I'd like a "plausible" explanation please. As well as a "plausible" explanation as to why Hani Hanjour is on camera boarding AA77, why his name, with other terrorists, shows on the flight manifest?

Debris can be planted in the building before the crash and on the lawn after the crash.
Click to expand...

Ah right, despite the hundreds of people stopping on the very busy motorway to stop and look, the "men in black" slipped out with massive chunks of airplane debris from their pockets. Sound legit to you? Got evidence?

Witnesses can be plants,
Click to expand...

Got evidence? How many witnesses saw a missile?

[video=youtube;FfQEwxxVyKY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfQEwxxVyKY[/video]

etc
Click to expand...

Oh please, do continue. Got evidence?

and none of it makes the conclusive proof of an inside job go away.
Click to expand...

In your opinion. A sane mind thinks otherwise. A sane mind knows no-planers are nuts.

A 757 is twelve feet wide.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757family/pf/pf_200tech.html

On a sunny day like this...
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

...a twelve-foot-wide shadow would be very visible.
http://www.picturescolourlibrary.co...wpage=picture_deta ils_np.jsp&pclref=2495531
Click to expand...

Really? Is that so. Is the Booth camera taken from an aerial view? I didn't know that. Amazing research you've got there. Well, I guess that must be game, set and match, right?..

The fact that there's no shadow under the spot where you pro-official version posters say there is a plane totally demolishes your argument.
Click to expand...

Hang on, a global hawk has a wing span of 130.9 ft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_RQ-4_Global_Hawk

On a sunny day like this...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cCKCN8TmauY/UPsE7TSmUII/AAAAAAAAARs/vgBcxcXIjr0/s1600/Pent3Full.jpg

a 130 ft shadow would be very visible.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/fromthefield/files/2010/04/396897main_ED09-0306-68-sized.jpg

Where is it on 9/11?

The fact that there's no shadow under the spot where you pro-conspiracy version posters say there is a global hawk/missile totally demolishes your argument.

leftysergeant · Mar 12, 2013

Global Hawk wings are made of composite material. They would not crush masonry walls.

holston · Mar 12, 2013

- - - Updated - - -

Hannibal · Mar 12, 2013

Both pics are pure fantasy.

holston · Mar 12, 2013

http://www.justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php

4. Two days after September 11, speaking under oath at his confirmation hearings as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers (acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 11) told the Senate that no military aircraft were scrambled to intercept the diverted passenger flights until after the Pentagon was hit (at 9:38 a.m., according to official timelines). (Myers testimony to Senate, 9/13/01, see also, Appendix A2, point 3b.) This was reiterated the next day by NORAD spokesman Maj. Mike Snyder (Boston Globe, 9/15/01).

5. NORAD contradicted Myers's testimony four days later, when it released a partial timeline of air defense response on September 11 (NORAD, 9/18/01).[date corrected from 9/17] NORAD said two fighter planes were scrambled from Otis AFB on Cape Cod at 8:46 a.m., with orders to intercept the New York attack aircraft, Flight 11 and Flight 175. Another pair of fighters were dispatched from Langley AFB in southern Virginia at 9:30 a.m., with orders to intercept Flight 77, according to NORAD. The timeline also specified the times at which NORAD claims to have received alerts from the FAA that the attack flights had been diverted. The worst response attributed to the FAA was for the third errant plane, Flight 77. NORAD said it only received an alert about Flight 77 from the FAA at 9:24 a.m., nearly 30 minutes after the FAA became aware that the Flight 77 transponder had stopped broadcasting (at 8:56 a.m.; last known signal from Flight 77 was at 8:50 a.m.). [The evidence of NORAD's online release itself, which had a mistaken date from 1997 in the browser "title bar," indicates a hurried or confused rendering of the information.]
Click to expand...

(Transponder broadcasts from planes under IFR locate the craft and specify its altitude. When these are interrupted, craft can still be located by "skin paint" on primary radar, albeit without altitude data.)
Click to expand...

Of special interest would be the prior performance within NORAD's Northeastern Air Defense Sector ("NEADS"), which is headquartered at Rome, New York. Such a cumulative analysis--with special attention to cases when passenger planes deviated from course in the air-traffic control zones within which the 9/11 attacks occurred--would provide indispensable context for serious research into the subject of air defense response on September 11. This data is currently unavailable to the public, and there is no indication such an analysis was undertaken by the Kean Commission.
Click to expand...

3. Response by FAA and NORAD on 9/11/01 should have become more rapid as the intent of the plot became clear and forces accordingly went on alert. Instead, according to official timelines, response times became slower as the attacks proceeded.
Click to expand...

6. More than a year later, in a brief statement of May 21, 2003, the FAA disputed the NORAD account. The statement said FAA officials gave notification of diverted flights, including Flight 77, at points earlier than those specified in the NORAD chronology: "Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD, the Secret Service, and other government agencies... NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m., but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification." [The FAA has not published a detailed chronology of the 9/11 events.]
Click to expand...

7. Two days after that, at the Kean Commission hearings of May 23, 2003, the details of the NORAD timeline of 9/17/01 were upheld once again by the retired officers Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott (both active as NORAD officers on 9/11/01).
Click to expand...

9. More than a year later, the 9/11 Commission hearings introduced an entirely new timeline in "Staff Statement No. 17" (Kean Commission, 6/17/04), which radically contradicts the accounts issued until then by both NORAD and FAA.
Click to expand...

11. "Staff Statement No. 17" is also the first government document to mention a "phantom aircraft." At an unspecified time after the first WTC crash at 8:46 a.m., the FAA sent out a false report that Flight 11 was still airborne and flying south over New Jersey, according to the Kean Commission staff. They say that the NORAD interceptors taking off from Langley AFB at 9:30 a.m. were not scrambled to intercept Flight 77, as NORAD and the FAA had claimed. Instead, these fighters were actually sent in pursuit of "Phantom 11," the Commission staff said. "Phantom 11" apparently did not correspond to any actual plane in the air. "We have been unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information," The 9/11 Commission Report concludes (p. 26). The report does not clarify how it came to be that this mistake was still being propagated 44 minutes after the Flight 11 crash (i.e., when the jets were scrambled from Langley AFB). The report does not ask how the misconception could have arisen at all, if no blip was visible on the FAA radar to be falsely identified as Flight 11 in the first place.
Click to expand...

12. From the above, we draw a number of inescapable conclusions: Because the NORAD and FAA timelines were still in conflict as of May, 2003, officials of either NORAD or FAA (or both) were still upholding false accounts to the public more than 1½ years after September 11. Because the 9/11 Commission staff statement of June 2004 radically conflicts with both, either it is false, or both the NORAD and the FAA accounts were false. In whatever permutation, some combination of government officials must have been disseminating serious falsehoods over an extended period of months and years.
Click to expand...

c. The alleged hijacker and pilot of Flight 77, Hani Hanjour, never completed his flight school courses and was judged below standard by his instructors in Mesa, Arizona, according to The 9/11 Commmission Report.
Click to expand...

d. The only available images of the Pentagon attack, five blurry still frames from a security camera at some distance, were obtained by CNN from an unknown source in March 2002. However, the U.S. government possesses further evidence that may clarify circumstances of the attack.
Click to expand...

An additional, apparently separate drill was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on the morning of 9/11/01, under the direction of CIA officer John Fulton. It was intended to simulate the crash of an "errant plane" into the headquarters of the National Reconnaissance Office ("NRO") near Washington (AP, 8/21/01). The government has never released a statement about whether any office was coordinating the multiple wargames and exercises held on September 11, which appear to have also involved operations within NEADS. A full investigation of the events would give priority to determining who was in charge.
Click to expand...

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php

4. Two days after September 11, speaking under oath at his confirmation hearings as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers (acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 11) told the Senate that no military aircraft were scrambled to intercept the diverted passenger flights until after the Pentagon was hit (at 9:38 a.m., according to official timelines). (Myers testimony to Senate, 9/13/01, see also, Appendix A2, point 3b.) This was reiterated the next day by NORAD spokesman Maj. Mike Snyder (Boston Globe, 9/15/01).

5. NORAD contradicted Myers's testimony four days later, when it released a partial timeline of air defense response on September 11 (NORAD, 9/18/01).[date corrected from 9/17] NORAD said two fighter planes were scrambled from Otis AFB on Cape Cod at 8:46 a.m., with orders to intercept the New York attack aircraft, Flight 11 and Flight 175. Another pair of fighters were dispatched from Langley AFB in southern Virginia at 9:30 a.m., with orders to intercept Flight 77, according to NORAD. The timeline also specified the times at which NORAD claims to have received alerts from the FAA that the attack flights had been diverted. The worst response attributed to the FAA was for the third errant plane, Flight 77. NORAD said it only received an alert about Flight 77 from the FAA at 9:24 a.m., nearly 30 minutes after the FAA became aware that the Flight 77 transponder had stopped broadcasting (at 8:56 a.m.; last known signal from Flight 77 was at 8:50 a.m.). [The evidence of NORAD's online release itself, which had a mistaken date from 1997 in the browser "title bar," indicates a hurried or confused rendering of the information.]
Click to expand...

(Transponder broadcasts from planes under IFR locate the craft and specify its altitude. When these are interrupted, craft can still be located by "skin paint" on primary radar, albeit without altitude data.)
Click to expand...

Of special interest would be the prior performance within NORAD's Northeastern Air Defense Sector ("NEADS"), which is headquartered at Rome, New York. Such a cumulative analysis--with special attention to cases when passenger planes deviated from course in the air-traffic control zones within which the 9/11 attacks occurred--would provide indispensable context for serious research into the subject of air defense response on September 11. This data is currently unavailable to the public, and there is no indication such an analysis was undertaken by the Kean Commission.
Click to expand...

3. Response by FAA and NORAD on 9/11/01 should have become more rapid as the intent of the plot became clear and forces accordingly went on alert. Instead, according to official timelines, response times became slower as the attacks proceeded.
Click to expand...

6. More than a year later, in a brief statement of May 21, 2003, the FAA disputed the NORAD account. The statement said FAA officials gave notification of diverted flights, including Flight 77, at points earlier than those specified in the NORAD chronology: "Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD, the Secret Service, and other government agencies... NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m., but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification." [The FAA has not published a detailed chronology of the 9/11 events.]

7. Two days after that, at the Kean Commission hearings of May 23, 2003, the details of the NORAD timeline of 9/17/01 were upheld once again by the retired officers Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott (both active as NORAD officers on 9/11/01).
Click to expand...

9. More than a year later, the 9/11 Commission hearings introduced an entirely new timeline in "Staff Statement No. 17" (Kean Commission, 6/17/04), which radically contradicts the accounts issued until then by both NORAD and FAA.
Click to expand...

11. "Staff Statement No. 17" is also the first government document to mention a "phantom aircraft." At an unspecified time after the first WTC crash at 8:46 a.m., the FAA sent out a false report that Flight 11 was still airborne and flying south over New Jersey, according to the Kean Commission staff. They say that the NORAD interceptors taking off from Langley AFB at 9:30 a.m. were not scrambled to intercept Flight 77, as NORAD and the FAA had claimed. Instead, these fighters were actually sent in pursuit of "Phantom 11," the Commission staff said. "Phantom 11" apparently did not correspond to any actual plane in the air. "We have been unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information," The 9/11 Commission Report concludes (p. 26). The report does not clarify how it came to be that this mistake was still being propagated 44 minutes after the Flight 11 crash (i.e., when the jets were scrambled from Langley AFB). The report does not ask how the misconception could have arisen at all, if no blip was visible on the FAA radar to be falsely identified as Flight 11 in the first place.
Click to expand...

12. From the above, we draw a number of inescapable conclusions: Because the NORAD and FAA timelines were still in conflict as of May, 2003, officials of either NORAD or FAA (or both) were still upholding false accounts to the public more than 1½ years after September 11. Because the 9/11 Commission staff statement of June 2004 radically conflicts with both, either it is false, or both the NORAD and the FAA accounts were false. In whatever permutation, some combination of government officials must have been disseminating serious falsehoods over an extended period of months and years.
Click to expand...

c. The alleged hijacker and pilot of Flight 77, Hani Hanjour, never completed his flight school courses and was judged below standard by his instructors in Mesa, Arizona, according to The 9/11 Commmission Report.
Click to expand...

d. The only available images of the Pentagon attack, five blurry still frames from a security camera at some distance, were obtained by CNN from an unknown source in March 2002. However, the U.S. government possesses further evidence that may clarify circumstances of the attack.
Click to expand...

An additional, apparently separate drill was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on the morning of 9/11/01, under the direction of CIA officer John Fulton. It was intended to simulate the crash of an "errant plane" into the headquarters of the National Reconnaissance Office ("NRO") near Washington (AP, 8/21/01). The government has never released a statement about whether any office was coordinating the multiple wargames and exercises held on September 11, which appear to have also involved operations within NEADS. A full investigation of the events would give priority to determining who was in charge.
Click to expand...

Hannibal · Mar 12, 2013

Yeah, terrible pilot. Flew right into a building.

cjnewson88 · Mar 12, 2013

holston said: ↑

Click to expand...

No one.

[video=youtube;3Jb2jWl1ELM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jb2jWl1ELM[/video]

[video=youtube;I2jDWkj-v_g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2jDWkj-v_g[/video]

[video=youtube;1RtrcI6AHtk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RtrcI6AHtk[/video]

cjnewson88 · Mar 13, 2013

holston said: ↑

http://www.justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php
Click to expand...

holston, it is painfully clear you have not researched even slightly into the air defense on 9/11.

Here, download, listen to channel 2 and 7. Then all the rest. Inform yourself.

Jango · Mar 13, 2013

The thing I don't understand is: Doesn't (didn't) the Pentagon and NORAD have command and control centers? In thinking of those centers, wouldn't it be likely, especially in regards to NORAD, for them to have a big screen of their own with all air traffic flying around at any given time?

cjnewson88 · Mar 13, 2013

Jango said: ↑

The thing I don't understand is: Doesn't (didn't) the Pentagon and NORAD have command and control centers? In thinking of those centers, wouldn't it be likely, especially in regards to NORAD, for them to have a big screen of their own with all air traffic flying around at any given time?
Click to expand...

I do not believe the Pentagon had them as the logs taken by the secrete service shows they were getting all their information from FAA Herndon, who had access to Traffic Display Management (TSD) but not raw Radar. We know, for example, the SS and therefore Pentagon received information on AA77 first about at 0930, when it was around ~30 miles out, via the FAA HQ telcon, who got their information from Radar Controllers at ZDC TRACON who spotted the primary target inbound towards the capital. So, it would seem TRACON centers had raw radar, FAA HQ only had TSD (which does not show primary targets unless they've been tagged), and Pentagon had neither.

RtWngaFraud · Mar 13, 2013

Jango said: ↑

The thing I don't understand is: Doesn't (didn't) the Pentagon and NORAD have command and control centers? In thinking of those centers, wouldn't it be likely, especially in regards to NORAD, for them to have a big screen of their own with all air traffic flying around at any given time?
Click to expand...

You'd think with war games going on, they'd already be up and running well prior to the REAL pre-staged operation. That or they could have at least turned on CNN...

Jango · Mar 13, 2013

cjnewson88 said: ↑

I do not believe the Pentagon had them as the logs taken by the secrete service shows they were getting all their information from FAA Herndon, who had access to Traffic Display Management (TSD) but not raw Radar. We know, for example, the SS and therefore Pentagon received information on AA77 first about at 0930, when it was around ~30 miles out, via the FAA HQ telcon, who got their information from Radar Controllers at ZDC TRACON who spotted the primary target inbound towards the capital. So, it would seem TRACON centers had raw radar, FAA HQ only had TSD (which does not show primary targets unless they've been tagged), and Pentagon had neither.

Click to expand...

I can maybe see the Pentagon not having one at the time, but not NORAD. No way Jose.

Hannibal · Mar 13, 2013

Jango said: ↑

I can maybe see the Pentagon not having one at the time, but not NORAD. No way Jose.
Click to expand...

Why would NORAD be looking at civilian traffic? That wasn't their focus, that's the job of the FAA. NORAD looked outward.

cjnewson88 · Mar 13, 2013

Jango said: ↑

I can maybe see the Pentagon not having one at the time, but not NORAD. No way Jose.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I can't comment because I honestly do not know. I know NORAD at Mt Cheyenne does have a large screen, but I have no idea what systems go into it. NEADS had primary radar source, but that can be a needle in a haystack unless you know where to look.

Jango · Mar 13, 2013

Hannibal said: ↑

Why would NORAD be looking at civilian traffic? That wasn't their focus, that's the job of the FAA. NORAD looked outward.
Click to expand...

That doesn't equate to them not having the equipment in house to monitor the continental United States, though.

Jango · Mar 13, 2013

cjnewson88 said: ↑

Honestly, I can't comment because I honestly do not know. I know NORAD at Mt Cheyenne does have a large screen, but I have no idea what systems go into it. NEADS had primary radar source, but that can be a needle in a haystack unless you know where to look.
Click to expand...

Which I'm sure they knew when they heard "we have a confirmed hijack" (I'm paraphrasing) or (even) when they noticed four transponders flick off.

Hannibal · Mar 13, 2013

Jango said: ↑

That doesn't equate to them not having the equipment in house to monitor the continental United States, though.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll grant you that. What should they have done with it?

- - - Updated - - -

Jango said: ↑

Which I'm sure they knew when they heard "we have a confirmed hijack" (I'm paraphrasing) or (even) when they noticed four transponders flick off.
Click to expand...

That would be the FAA, not NORAD. NORAD didn't monitor civilian traffic.

Log in or Sign up

Can I convince PF's resident truthers that American 77 hit the Pentagon?

NAB Active Member

Hannibal New Member

leftysergeant New Member

Scott Well-Known Member

9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

leftysergeant New Member

Scott Well-Known Member

Hannibal New Member

cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

Attached Files:

AA77Pent_zps2492bb69.jpg

leftysergeant New Member

holston Banned

Hannibal New Member

holston Banned

Hannibal New Member

cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

Jango New Member

cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

RtWngaFraud Banned

Jango New Member

Hannibal New Member

cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

Jango New Member

Jango New Member

Hannibal New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Can I convince PF's resident truthers that American 77 hit the Pentagon?

NAB Active Member

Hannibal New Member

leftysergeant New Member

Scott Well-Known Member

9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

leftysergeant New Member

Scott Well-Known Member

Hannibal New Member

cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

Attached Files:

AA77Pent_zps2492bb69.jpg

leftysergeant New Member

holston Banned

Hannibal New Member

holston Banned

Hannibal New Member

cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

Jango New Member

cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

RtWngaFraud Banned

Jango New Member

Hannibal New Member

cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

Jango New Member

Jango New Member

Hannibal New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches