Ah well.
Note that I asked you: which is the evidence about AA77's serial numbers having been tracked that satisfied you.
I did not ask: come up with evidence that will satisfy me - as, evidently, you regard that to be mission impossible.
Your question, of course, presumes that unless
jt-3d is actually
interested in whether or not the serial numbers were tracked, he's just one of the mindless "sheeple" who meekly and unquestioningly accepts the "official government fairy tale" of what happened.
Evidently you can't accept that a reasonable person (btw,
jt-3d, you
are a reasonable person, aren't you?
) could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that based on a) the incontrovertible evidence that an airliner struck WTC 2, b) the numerous eyewitnesses who claim to have seen an airliner strike the Pentagon, c) the photographs of aircraft debris and the testimony of first responders at the Pentagon, d) the fact that four airliners are known to have been hijacked and only three of them can otherwise be accounted for, and e) the virtual impossibility of attempting, in the circumstances, to disguise a missile strike as an airliner impact, that American 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
In other words, the fact that most people here are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt is not good enough for you--you require that we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that an airliner struck the Pentagon. Why do you require such a standard of proof? I'll tell you why. Because conspiracists thrive on shadows of doubt. No proof of any real-world event can ever be totally exhaustive, and there will always be some anomalies in the evidence. Conspiracists delight in pointing out anomalies and describing how non-anomalous evidence might theoretically have been faked, in an attempt to poke holes in the "official story," while simultaneously ignoring or attempting to paper over the inevitable numerous gigantic holes in their own versions of events. In this way, you and your cohorts attempt to claim that because the official story may not appear absolutely, 100.00000000000000000000% consistent, that your "theories" are somehow viable alternatives, and are worthy of serious consideration. "Something is wrong--therefore, I am right."