I keep asking.

[Liability]

are you really this stupid or are you trying to be funny? i said for 8 minutes the flight wasnt tracked. the FAA said the same thing (which is where i got the info from). you say the same thing.

so what is your point again?

Rotfl! I anticipated you would ignore the facts. You are so fucking lame you bold PART of a sentence and ignore everything else. I even said "it's not endemic to the 8 minutes."

Look at the part you are ignoring:

"Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56"

"Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56"

Do you get what that means? If the RECONSTRUCTION was done AFTER 9/11 then there was not a live primary radar. Which reminds me, didn't I already suggest you pay close attention to the first sentence?

Your inability to comprehend simple things is so fucking predictable I can guess what you will ignore before you even do it. I still can't get over how you actually fucking edited a sentence midstream to defend your claim. It just shows you have little to no desire to even attempt being honest.

re·con·struct (rkn-strkt)
tr.v. re·con·struct·ed, re·con·struct·ing, re·con·structs
1. To construct again; rebuild.
2. To assemble or build again mentally; re-create: reconstructed the sequence of events from the evidence.
3. To cause to adopt a new attitude or outlook: a diehard traditionalist who could not be reconstructed.
recon·structi·ble adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
reconstruct [ˌriːkənˈstrʌkt]
vb (tr)
1. to construct or form again; rebuild to reconstruct a Greek vase from fragments
2. to form a picture of (a crime, past event, etc.) by piecing together evidence or acting out a version of what might have taken place

Can we understand from this that to reconstruct something it must have previously existed? Cannot REconstruct something that never was there.

If you insist on using actual valid logic on these guys, you will
(a) confuse the living snot out of them
(b) frustrate them and
(c) nevertheless fail to persuade them, since they are impervious to truth, accuracy, reason and logic.

 

[CurveLight]

are you really this stupid or are you trying to be funny? i said for 8 minutes the flight wasnt tracked. the FAA said the same thing (which is where i got the info from). you say the same thing.

so what is your point again?

Rotfl! I anticipated you would ignore the facts. You are so fucking lame you bold PART of a sentence and ignore everything else. I even said "it's not endemic to the 8 minutes."

Look at the part you are ignoring:

"Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56"

"Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56"

Do you get what that means? If the RECONSTRUCTION was done AFTER 9/11 then there was not a live primary radar. Which reminds me, didn't I already suggest you pay close attention to the first sentence?

Your inability to comprehend simple things is so fucking predictable I can guess what you will ignore before you even do it. I still can't get over how you actually fucking edited a sentence midstream to defend your claim. It just shows you have little to no desire to even attempt being honest.

re·con·struct (rkn-strkt)
tr.v. re·con·struct·ed, re·con·struct·ing, re·con·structs
1. To construct again; rebuild.
2. To assemble or build again mentally; re-create: reconstructed the sequence of events from the evidence.
3. To cause to adopt a new attitude or outlook: a diehard traditionalist who could not be reconstructed.
recon·structi·ble adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
reconstruct [ˌriːkənˈstrʌkt]
vb (tr)
1. to construct or form again; rebuild to reconstruct a Greek vase from fragments
2. to form a picture of (a crime, past event, etc.) by piecing together evidence or acting out a version of what might have taken place

Can we understand from this that to reconstruct something it must have previously existed? Cannot REconstruct something that never was there.

First, you're trying to help another OCTA by completely ignoring his claim. He said there are "radar records" but you want to skip right over that. If there were actual records then no "radar reconstruction" would have been necessary. Just another example of the OCTA camp ignoring facts out of convenience.

I also notice you didn't post anything about radar reconstruction. Do you know when the CR did it? How? The CR's "radar reconstruction" is nothing more than the CR claiming it was 77's flight path because that is what the CR wanted it to say but they do this from the assumption 77 hit the Pentagon. Working from a conclusion backwards you can make any mystery magically fit what you want it to.

To answer your last question, yes, forensic reconstructions are not 100%. The quality of available info determines the reliability of the reconstruction and since we know the Commission did not do an investigation it's safe to say their self produced conclusions are at best questionable. Ie. They omitted Mineta's testimony from the Report even though there is independent and credible factual information that fully supports what he said. A true investigation does not omit reliable testimonies.

 

[CurveLight]

Rotfl! I anticipated you would ignore the facts. You are so fucking lame you bold PART of a sentence and ignore everything else. I even said "it's not endemic to the 8 minutes."

Look at the part you are ignoring:

"Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56"

"Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56"

Do you get what that means? If the RECONSTRUCTION was done AFTER 9/11 then there was not a live primary radar. Which reminds me, didn't I already suggest you pay close attention to the first sentence?

Your inability to comprehend simple things is so fucking predictable I can guess what you will ignore before you even do it. I still can't get over how you actually fucking edited a sentence midstream to defend your claim. It just shows you have little to no desire to even attempt being honest.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
reconstruct [ˌriːkənˈstrʌkt]
vb (tr)
1. to construct or form again; rebuild to reconstruct a Greek vase from fragments
2. to form a picture of (a crime, past event, etc.) by piecing together evidence or acting out a version of what might have taken place

Can we understand from this that to reconstruct something it must have previously existed? Cannot REconstruct something that never was there.

If you insist on using actual valid logic on these guys, you will
(a) confuse the living snot out of them
(b) frustrate them and
(c) nevertheless fail to persuade them, since they are impervious to truth, accuracy, reason and logic.

Here's another gem of an OCTA that basically does nothing but post childish nonsense.

 

[Fizz]

holy crap, you are a moron. radar records means records of it being on radar. records are documents of things that happened in the past.

are you really this fucking stupid?

 

[Skull Pilot]

We all know the whole thing was a plot cooked up by George Bush so he could kill Saddam.

So all those people on the planes that hit the towers were like taken off by a cool cable slide like in that movie with Harrison Ford and then whisked away to a secret island.

Then they had voice impersonators like that guy Rich Little call all the families from cell phones.

Now all those people who were supposed to be killed are living on a tropical Island like in that TV show Gilligan's Island and all their families were given money to keep quiet.

Jeez where have you been?

 

[Fizz]

Will you again ignore the fact the CR contradicts your claim about "radar records?" Look at it one more time and let's see how much more you will embarrass yourself by ignoring the fact the CR used RADAR RECONSTRUCTION AFTER NINE-ELEVEN! Hahahaha...you're just another OCTA embarrassing the hell out of yourself because you are defending something you are not qualified to speak about.

you really do have a reading comprehension problem.

what do you think the 9/11 commission used for radar reconstruction?? possibly the radar records? of course it happened after 9/11.

and what did the radar reconstruction show? that it was not on radar for 8 minutes and 13 seconds.

my god, you are a complete fucking idiot!!!

now to get back to the post i was replying to when you went off on this stupid radar tangent (because you thoroughly got pwned on the FDR thread)..... it is impossible that flight 77 was over the ocean.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The ignorance of many posters here is astonishing.I hate that old tired laughable complaint that it could not have been pulled off with thousands involved because somebody would have talked by now.That is being just plain ignorant because there are at least two examples of a conspiracy involving thousands and that conspiracy was kept for several decades.

One is back in the late 40's,the CIA was involved in a secret covert war against Indonisians that the american people did not know about and was kept a secret from the american people for over 40 years. And just in the 90's we found out about some secret covert operations the military was involved in in world war one that also involved thousands and was kept a secret for over 70 years. You Bush dupes need to enroll in some political science classes in college and stop listening to these psyche op agents like Fizz and Ollie sent here to post disinformation cause thats obviously what your doing.

 

[Foxfyre]

The ignorance of many posters here is astonishing.I hate that old tired laughable complaint that it could not have been pulled off with thousands involved because somebody would have talked by now.That is being just plain ignorant because there are at least two examples of a conspiracy involving thousands and that conspiracy was kept for several decades.

One is back in the late 40's,the CIA was involved in a secret covert war against Indonisians that the american people did not know about and was kept a secret from the american people for over 40 years. And just in the 90's we found out about some secret covert operations the military was involved in in world war one that also involved thousands and was kept a secret for over 70 years. You Bush dupes need to enroll in some political science classes in college and stop listening to these psyche op agents like Fizz and Ollie sent here to post disinformation cause thats obviously what your doing.

Assuming that you are correct about these two instances--you provided no documentation of what you are even talking about--neither of these were events broadcast for days and weeks on end by ALL the U.S. media and media around the world, and neither of these events involved thousands of people killed, maimed, obliterated, or missing who were important to their friends, families, and colleagues, and neither involved thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people involved in lengthy investigations, rescue, recovery, and forensics.

So show us again how the analogy you are citing is anything comparable?

 

[Toro]

If it were possible to brainstorm down the halls of sincerity I'd be happy to offer some plausible scenarios but unfortunately, this op is nothing but bait to continue the moronic name calling (which I am guilty of too) and an excuse to further demonize anyone who questions the OCT. Are there any OCTAs on this board that can discuss the issue without falling into the name calling trap when presented with uncomfortable info?

Gunny, I haven't seen many of your posts on this but by and large they are nothing but mockeries. Don't expect sincere responses when your displays of insincerity have overshadowed the issue.

Nonsense.

You say that you are merely asking questions, but you seem not to be particularly interested in the plausibility of 100 people disappearing within half an hour and their body parts and mementos showing up within the Pentagon. Instead, you write about the duration of flight data recorders and pilot doors. Those are minor questions compared to "What happened to the people and the planes?" because you simply can be wrong about your information about the flight data recorder and the doors. 100 people disappearing into thin air and their body parts showing up elsewhere is a much more difficult question. Planes and people don't just disappear, with strong evidence of them being somewhere when you claim they might be elsewhere. But you deride those who ask the question.

I'll play along because I already know how it will unfold.
I don't write only about a fdr and pilot door sensors so what's up with the dishonesty? I can list several reasons why the OCT on flight 77 doesn't make sense but no matter how much evidence is presented you will just wave it off. What mementos were found in the Pentagon? A 757 disinegrates but mementos survived?
Unlike many OCTAs
I'm not an aviation expert, forensics specialist, engineer, or even somewhat intelligent so I have read and listen to what the experts have to say and there are way too many experts offering their insights and giving solid explanations why 77 doesn't make sense. Hell, even if 77 did hit the pentagon that still fails to explain how it got there. Or are we to believe Allah magically transformed Hanjour into an expert pilot overnight?

It's not that I deride those who ask the question. It's that it is not a sincere question. All of us here know the purpose for asking is to have an excuse to call people names. There are several plausible explanations for what happened if 77 didn't hit the Pentagon but OCTAs
don't have any respect for any idea that doesn't support the Bush admin. We have several people pointing out the 9E Commission was not an investigation......it was a pr scam to try and appease victims families and first responders. They are the core group responsible for the Truth movement.

I loathed the Bush administration.

As I posted recently elsewhere on what was found at the Pentagon.

"During an interview earlier this week, Koch delicately handled eerie mementos of the crash found during cleanup: Whittington's battered driver's license... a burnt luggage tag and a wedding ring lie on a book dedicated to those lost in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. The wedding ring belonged to Ruth's daughter and the luggage tag belonged to one her granddaughters."

OnlineAthens: News: Vivid memories, but is 9/11's impact fading? 09/11/04

“Suzanne Calley died aboard American Airlines Flight 77 when terrorists hijacked the plane and sent it crashing into the Pentagon... Rescue crews were able to pull Calley’s body from Flight 77’s wreckage.

Jensen [Calley’s husband] spent last year’s anniversary of the national tragedy in Washington, D.C. There, a Pentagon official - assigned to Calley’s family as a liaison - gave Jensen his wife’s wedding ring, which had been recovered from the plane.”

GilroyDispatch.com | 9-11 sorrow, but a joyful life

If you are asking questions, you must ask yourself, how did those mementos wind up the Pentagon?

Nobody whom I know who has dismantled the twoofers arguments believes the government's official report in its entirety. You would have to be either naive or a fool to think that the government is going to tell you everything in a report that details the greatest attack on civilians on American soil by a foreign agent in the 225 year history of the nation. But that is a far, far cry to "Bush did it."

 

[Liability]

Can we understand from this that to reconstruct something it must have previously existed? Cannot REconstruct something that never was there.

If you insist on using actual valid logic on these guys, you will
(a) confuse the living snot out of them
(b) frustrate them and
(c) nevertheless fail to persuade them, since they are impervious to truth, accuracy, reason and logic.

Here's another gem of an OCTA that basically does nothing but post childish nonsense.

Oh give it up bent tight. You have been so thoroughly exposed here that even your appalling lack of credibility is embarrassed to be associated with you.

 

[CurveLight]

Will you again ignore the fact the CR contradicts your claim about "radar records?" Look at it one more time and let's see how much more you will embarrass yourself by ignoring the fact the CR used RADAR RECONSTRUCTION AFTER NINE-ELEVEN! Hahahaha...you're just another OCTA embarrassing the hell out of yourself because you are defending something you are not qualified to speak about.

you really do have a reading comprehension problem.

what do you think the 9/11 commission used for radar reconstruction?? possibly the radar records? of course it happened after 9/11.

and what did the radar reconstruction show? that it was not on radar for 8 minutes and 13 seconds.

my god, you are a complete fucking idiot!!!

now to get back to the post i was replying to when you went off on this stupid radar tangent (because you thoroughly got pwned on the FDR thread)..... it is impossible that flight 77 was over the ocean.

Can you show what they used for the "radar reconstruction?"

Can you provide any evidence of "radar records?" no, because you completely made that up.

I never said 77 was over the ocean.

Then you bring up the fdr? Rotfl! Call people some more names cause you really suck at debating. Really bad.

 

[HUGGY]

Threads like this although important in theory are impossible to navigate in an environment like this. 60% or more of the population of the USA believe in god. That means they believe either what they want out of whole cloth or they are morons that believe what theyt are told to believe. In any case a rational disscusion of something that tears at the very foundations of our country and what we shoud desire what it stands for cannot be taken onseriously when most of the participants believe firmly in invisible all powerful entities. We might as well hold this discussion in the day room at the state mentally ill facility.

 

[CurveLight]

Will you again ignore the fact the CR contradicts your claim about "radar records?" Look at it one more time and let's see how much more you will embarrass yourself by ignoring the fact the CR used RADAR RECONSTRUCTION AFTER NINE-ELEVEN! Hahahaha...you're just another OCTA embarrassing the hell out of yourself because you are defending something you are not qualified to speak about.

you really do have a reading comprehension problem.

what do you think the 9/11 commission used for radar reconstruction?? possibly the radar records? of course it happened after 9/11.

and what did the radar reconstruction show? that it was not on radar for 8 minutes and 13 seconds.

my god, you are a complete fucking idiot!!!

now to get back to the post i was replying to when you went off on this stupid radar tangent (because you thoroughly got pwned on the FDR thread)..... it is impossible that flight 77 was over the ocean.

Can you show what they used for the "radar reconstruction?"

Can you provide any evidence of "radar records?" no, because you completely made that up.

I never said 77 was over the ocean.

Then you bring up the fdr? Rotfl! Call people some more names cause you really suck at debating. Really bad.

 

[eots]

it is not the truth movement that blocks a fact driven investigation

 

[CurveLight]

If you insist on using actual valid logic on these guys, you will
(a) confuse the living snot out of them
(b) frustrate them and
(c) nevertheless fail to persuade them, since they are impervious to truth, accuracy, reason and logic.

Here's another gem of an OCTA that basically does nothing but post childish nonsense.

Oh give it up bent tight. You have been so thoroughly exposed here that even your appalling lack of credibility is embarrassed to be associated with you.

I must have missed the meeting where it was decided you have the authority to judge others' credibility. lol.....look at most of your posts on this issue...you call people names. Wow. Impressive!

 

[CurveLight]

Threads like this although important in theory are impossible to navigate in an environment like this. 60% or more of the population of the USA believe in god. That means they believe either what they want out of whole cloth or they are morons that believe what theyt are told to believe. In any case a rational disscusion of something that tears at the very foundations of our country and what we shoud desire what it stands for cannot be taken onseriously when most of the participants believe firmly in invisible all powerful entities. We might as well hold this discussion in the day room at the state mentally ill facility.

I would love to have a discussion on this issue where no flaming is the goal of all participants but as we can see....not many are interested in a sincere dialogue on the matter.

 

[CurveLight]

it is not the truth movement that blocks a fact driven investigation

Look how many times Fizz has claimed "radar records" prove 77's flight path as a fact when he can't even address the fucking CR stating they used radar reconstruction. He doesn't know how those are made but it doesn't matter. OCTA facts are as trustworthy as cotton candy umbrellas. The same can be said for some truther groups too but overall between the two, OCTAs
are clearly the least informed.

 

[HUGGY]

it is not the truth movement that blocks a fact driven investigation

Look how many times Fizz has claimed "radar records" prove 77's flight path as a fact when he can't even address the fucking CR stating they used radar reconstruction. He doesn't know how those are made but it doesn't matter. OCTA facts are as trustworthy as cotton candy umbrellas. The same can be said for some truther groups too but overall between the two, OCTAs
are clearly the least informed.

There are hundreds of the Fizzeled on this MB. They are in constant need of an impossible validation of the truth they want. It gets tiresome babysitting the ego of the willfully ignorant.

 

[Fizz]

it is not the truth movement that blocks a fact driven investigation

Look how many times Fizz has claimed "radar records" prove 77's flight path as a fact when he can't even address the fucking CR stating they used radar reconstruction. He doesn't know how those are made but it doesn't matter. OCTA facts are as trustworthy as cotton candy umbrellas. The same can be said for some truther groups too but overall between the two, OCTAs
are clearly the least informed.

holy shit, you are a jackass.

do you fucking think they went out and rebuilt radar towers or some stupid shit for the reconstruction? THEY LOOKED AT THE RECORDS, MORON!!!

 

[CurveLight]

it is not the truth movement that blocks a fact driven investigation

Look how many times Fizz has claimed "radar records" prove 77's flight path as a fact when he can't even address the fucking CR stating they used radar reconstruction. He doesn't know how those are made but it doesn't matter. OCTA facts are as trustworthy as cotton candy umbrellas. The same can be said for some truther groups too but overall between the two, OCTAs
are clearly the least informed.