wakenbake22 (October 15, 2008 at 6:56 pm)

The NORAD animation shows light pole one wasn't hit, because of the north of Citgo path.The NTSB animation and the FDR data show light pole one couldn't be hit, because the plane was too high.No witnesses (besides the driver) see the cab get hit, or see the pole sticking out of the cab, or mention driving past the cab. So why was light pole one down, why was the cab blocking the road and why was there a hole in the windshield?Why plant evidence?

KnowledgeIsPowr (October 15, 2008 at 6:56 pm)

"And you tried to claim that this area wasn't covered by primary radar, which is also untrue."Oh digging that hole deeper. Seriously when does it ever stop? I have never been misquoted so much in my life. Even my 4 year old repeats better than you and I don't even have it in writing for him.I said, in all caps I know how dumb you are:"NOT ALL AIRPORTS HAVE PRIMARY RADAR."

wakenbake22 (October 15, 2008 at 6:50 pm)

You only followed it up after I pointed out you were wrong. And you tried to claim that this area wasn't covered by primary radar, which is also untrue.Now you are posting quotes from after 9, from after the object was seen disappearing from radar over Ohio and assumed crashed by ATC. So, you tried to claim a plane can't be tracked when the transponder was shut off, I called you on it, you didn't innocently correct your vague statement.

KnowledgeIsPowr (October 15, 2008 at 6:48 pm)

"And to this day no evidence it was flight 77."So there was no forensic evidence?

KnowledgeIsPowr (October 15, 2008 at 6:41 pm)

I loathe retarded troofers who have to lie to try to cath you in a lie.No I meant Doppler radar you embosol. You assumed when I said "radar" that I meant all radar. Your assumption is not my lie. I guess thinking you would be smart enough to pick up on the fact that I quickly and immediately followed that post with explanantions on the different radars and what I meant was too much for your little pea brain to handle.Wont happen again.

wakenbake22 (October 15, 2008 at 6:41 pm)

ATC watched flight 77 drop off the radar over Ohio.Then there is no sign of anything. Then about 50 miles out of DC, ATC at Dulles see an unidentified object.You debunkers assume it is flight 77 they see, but ATC all thought it was a military plane, because of how fast it was and how it flew.11 minutes later, the explosion at the Pentagon. No fighters scrambled, no order given from Cheney.And to this day no evidence it was flight 77.

MuckupAgain (October 15, 2008 at 6:33 pm)

"They watched the dot after transponder was off, then the dot disappeared."And at what altitude was the dot? They didn't know because with no transponder data ATC have no idea of the aircraft altitude. Therefore any assumption that the plane crashed is just that, an assumption.Has anyone checked to see at what altitude an aircraft would disappear from radar in the area reported? If you can provide that data,and it supports your claim,then MAYBE you'll be onto something. Good luck!

KnowledgeIsPowr (October 15, 2008 at 6:33 pm)

"Earlier, the first thing you posted, you said once a transponder is off, they can't track a plane on radar. "Did I say they could not track a plane on PRIMARY RADAR? Hmmm, survey says, no I didn't.Hmmm, I left it generic so I could expound on it, which I immediately did.God you are retarded. Seriously something is wrong with you. Easy to see why you are a troofer.

KnowledgeIsPowr (October 15, 2008 at 6:29 pm)

I'll even point out your exact lie. Dumb it downa bit for you:"They watched the dot after transponder was off...."From ATC transcript:9:02:28 — Indianapolis Control, Henderson Sector Radar Associate: yeah we have NO RADAR CONTACT and uh no communications with himI even used capitalization for you. You are welcome.

MuckupAgain (October 15, 2008 at 6:29 pm)

"Do you admit you are totally wrong with your claim that it flew low and under the radar?"I posited several alternatives scenarios to your 'it must have crashed' theory, any of which, alone or in combination, are equal or more probable than the ATC ASSUMPTION that you post.Yes, the ATC guys are experts but, given the situation (i.e. the WTC impacts) you could forgive them for getting it wrong. It's not like they've had a window from which they could see AA77 crashing, is it?