Aldo did a fantastic write-up of this over at the old forum, so here it is:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=4371

The main point, at least the reason I'm posting this, is:
(no, I'm not "flight 77 hugging" here or whatever, I'm using the tail numbers just as reference)

N644AA
Crashed at: Pentagon
Time: 9:38

N644AW
Landed at: Reagan Airport
Time: 9:39

My main contention with this...why have we heard from none of the witnesses aboard N644AW? Unless this BTS registry is somehow inaccurate, which is always possible...

I don't mean to sound conspiratorial. Obviously, just because we haven't heard from someone doesn't mean they don't exist. But numerous stories popped up online in the aftermath of 9/11 from passengers aboard Delta 1989 and their experiences in Cleveland.

I sure would like to talk to or hear from someone on-board that America West plane, who either saw the impact or immediate aftermath. If a flyover occurred, they would have seen it.

Thoughts?

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...9&cmndfind.y=16

N644AW is Assigned

Aircraft Description

Serial Number 317

Type Registration Corporation

Manufacturer Name AIRBUS INDUSTRIE

Certificate Issue Date 02/10/2003

So there was an arrival...oh well.

it certainly is a slamdunk against a flyover™.

Tx, IVXX tells me you said Reagan was closed all day on Reagan. Is that true?

Yup, I was under the impression that those incoming flights at midnight were the last on 9/11.

People haven't even bothered to contact the known eyewitnesses!


I'd definitely like to talk with someone who was on this plane but my belief is that they wouldn't have seen much.

A minute later is enough to completely miss everything.

Just ask Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien!

I have flown into Reagan and it's hard to get a clear view of the Pentagon for very long from the little airplane window as the jet scoots by it real fast while landing.

No doubt some views are better than others.

Even if someone from this plane saw a plane flying away a minute later they would think nothing of it since they were landing at an airport.

This is definitely another one of those curious coincidences though.

Craig, Dylans post....maybe now.

Just the similarity of two tail numbers alone sends the digits of the probability into the millionths.

I reckon. :lol:

Dylan,

Can you please do something about this jrefer's constant immature attacks and antagonistic image posting?

I would really appreciate it.

Thanks for your consideration.

Craig

Do you have to whine? It really does nothing for your image.

Yeah it's mos def a strange one.


But, evidence shows it was not AA77 that flew over Arlington and I don't think it's very feasible to suggest the flyover landed at Reagan so I can't fathom a reason for this.

He was simply antagonizing me as usual when he made this ludicrous claim.

He does not contribute research or evidence.

He simply states the opposite of whatever I say along with insults and jref style images as harassment.

Craig, I was speaking to Tx. Unless you have any proof that Reagan 1) was or 2) wasn't closed, please wait for him to answer the question and provide a source.

Tx, out of curiosity, where'd you get that information?

It was? Didn't I just explain to Dylan that I thought the incoming flights at midnight were the last traffic? You really should learn to read posts Craig. Tell you what, my offer to stop saying things like flyover™ (although that isn't an attack) stands...you know all you have to do is stop slinging around Jrefer as an insult.

I've been thinking about this a lot. If the north-side theory is to hold water, then the plane does have to go somewhere. What better place for it than to land at Reagan. Once you're over the pentagon and on the river, it's easy to disappear into a holding pattern. (one could assume)

However, if there was a flyover, then the plane had to go somewhere. Did no one working at the pentagon see something fly overhead so close? Did no one on the bridge on the Potomac not see a plane? I can understand being fixated on the building from the smoke, but someone is bound to see the plane near the explosion if they were looking at that exact time.

Getting unaltered video is the key.

Then maybe we'll punch out God.

:lol:

I saw a listing of the flights that came in at midnight on the myspace truth group. Apparently it was incomplete as it only had 3 flights at midnight instead of 4.

SDPreston I think also says one took off.

How do you make an approximately 90 degree turn on a dime at the speed the plane was going?

I want to see video :)

You honestly don't know how fast the plane was going. If you are to believe the official reports, it was going 530ish, however, if we are to hypothesize an alternative, then everything must be questioned, including the speed.

Something to ponder. First, is it possible to turn left, climb, circle around then land from a northern approach? Second, which runways at Reagan could take a 757 landing? Third, if something was out of the ordinary, would controllers there know about it?

Of Flight 77?

Or me punching out God?

Excuse me?

Isn't this thread about N644AW landing at Reagan at 9:39 on 9/11?

Official reports say 530. Witness say what? I mean one witness said it was like a missile with wings...that is safe to assume he meant it was fast. And yes, if ATC are looking at secondary radar they would know if something is out of the ordinary.

Punching out god. It would be like the episode of Tripping The Rift where they ran god over with a plane...oh damn. Now somebody is gonna say that was a prediction by the writers :)

I went through this with him already when he was antagonizing me about this Dylan.

He refused to provide a source.

Perhaps he'll respond to you now and prove me (and BTS) wrong.

Do you read posts or just type? The answer is above in the thread or as Fox Mulder would say...the truth is out there. Now please stop whining.

ETA - Here is the post from this thread...

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...post&p=14397259

Sorry but stating that you "thought" so is not a source.

It's proof you were merely antagonizing me as usual.

Myspace group is not a source either and you didn't even say that you heard they "closed".

You can't read either? Didn't I say I saw it on the myspace truth group? When are you going to learn?

Myspace group is not a source either and you didn't even say that you heard they "closed".

Craig do you really have a problem with comprehension? Did you or Aldo post on the myspace forums ever? I suppose if anybody ever quoted what you said there they would be wrong because it isn't a source? The list I saw was on the 9/11 truth group on myspace, if that isn't a valid source to you...tough. You are being an immature brat about it. Would you like to start a thread in the lounge and post the definition of a source please. This way, you can stop derailing the thread because you don't like the topic.

You were mistaken, were you not? The control tower was shutting the airport down after the FAA order at 9:26 AM, and they apparently had a lot of activity in the morning, even landing at least one aircraft at 9:39 and perhaps more later. There were still a lot of aircraft in the air and they had to land somewhere.
9:26 AM FAA issues a national "ground stop," preventing all civilian flights from taking off FAA Orders on 9-11

The proximity of Reagan National to the Pentagon and
the radii of turns to line up with different runways

Yes and if I am correct, I did admit that. What is your problem?

Am I the only one who has a problem reading SPreston's post's?

I always have to scroll so far to the right that it makes them almost unreadable.

Change your settings.

Sorry. I must have overlooked you admitting you were mistaken. You seemed to be in denial all the way down the thread. If the airport was shutdown since midnight, then why were the controllers stopping flights to Boston and New York after the FAA ground stop at 9:26 AM and why did American tellephone and state "We don't want any of our airplanes going airborne," the caller said. "Send them back to the gate." Why would the controllers continue shutting the airport down if it was already closed? How many other aircraft landed after N644aw at 9:39 AM?
Airbus N644AW N644AW Profile Certainly looks like a 757 doesn't it? 757-200 seats 200 Airbus seats 182

I never said it looked the same. Craig was saying the numbers were similar. Look up in the post, I admitted i was wrong in the third post or somewhere near that.

What do you mean? How can I make it better? I am using a 19" monitor at 1600 x 1200 resolution. It comes out just fine on my screen and I have no trouble with anybody else's posts. Sorry.

I am 1440x900 and I see these fine. I think there was one I had to scroll but I forget where it was.

That is an admission of a mistake? :rolleyes:

Do you read or are you an immature brat like Craig?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...post&p=14397259