Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 8 votes

911 Pentagon Video Footage


  • Please log in to reply
3292 replies to this topic

#2746    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 November 2012 - 06:27 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 11 November 2012 - 04:40 PM, said:

That cellphone records have been posted mean everything to you Sky, but to me they mean that there is a certain probability that, again, the federal government is making stuff up,...

Apparently, those references contained facts from experts who have no association with the government. Read the references again.

Quote

Fake evidence is an old tactic employed by those attempting to deceive, and deception is what the events of 11 September were all about.

Evidence please! No evidence, and you have no case. :no:

Quote

Deception and destruction of certain financial records evidence.

What financial records are you speaking of?

Quote

rather like you did in showing me that video of an F-18 hitting a building.

Why are you protesting??? After all, look what you have posted.

*  No Boeing struck the Pentagon despite the wreckage was that of a B-757, and then come back and say the aircraft passed north of the Pentagon despite the path of destruction leading to, and within the Pentagon, that depicted  a flight path south of the Pentagon. The video made available does not show the B-757 striking from an approach north of the gas station. :no:

* A P700 anti-ship missile struck the Pentagon despite wreckage of a B-757, and none from a P700 anti-ship missile.

* No Boeing crashed near Shanksville, despite the fact  recovery crews, investigators, coroner Wally MIller, United Airlines, and many others have confirmed the crash site as that of United 93

* Your claim that the airframe of a B-25 is stronger than the airframe of a B-757, despite the fact the B-757 is a much larger and heavier aircraft that cruise at airspeeds that would destroy a B-25

* An aircraft fuselage cannot penetrate buildings nor create craters in the ground despited photos of a huge crater created by a Caspian Airlines Tu-154 and the huge hole created on the side of the Empire State Building by a B-25.

* The maneuver of American 77 just prior to striking the Pentagon took extraordinary skill despite the fact the maneuver was nothing more than a simple lazy descending turn that did not require superhuman strength nor extraordinary skill

* Explosives took down the light poles near the Pentagon despited the fact the light poles depicted impact damage and nothing to do with explosives

* Nukes took out the WTC buildings despite the fact there was no nuclear explosion, nor explosion of any kind nor radioactive remains

* Explosion in WTC1 just prior to American 11 striking WTC1 despite the fact that no explosions were heard in the video just before the aircraft struck the building

* Molten steel flowing out of the building when in fact, the molten metal was not steel at all

* There were two United 175 at Boston airport. Don' you think that airport officials, ATC, and United Airlines would have noticed something wrong if that was the case?

The list goes on and on.

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 November 2012 - 06:28 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2747    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,778 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 11 November 2012 - 07:28 PM

Dont miss the Dive from Space tonight Sky ! on Nat-Geo !

This is a Work in Progress!

#2748    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:43 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 11 November 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

Dont miss the Dive from Space tonight Sky ! on Nat-Geo !

Thanks!!

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2749    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 55 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2010

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:53 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 10 November 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

It is all very simple. You have implied that cell phones could not have been used in flight, but facts and evidence have shown that it was not only possible in 2001, but that cell phones have been used in that time frame.

Read it, and understand what is being presented.

Now once again, where does i say that cell phone calls from aircraft were impossible? Once again, you've allowed yourself to become a victim of those conspiracy websites.

Once again Skyeagle you are misleading people where did I once say that making a cell phone call in an airplane was impossible?

Fact: Skyeagle is NOT on expert on cell phones nor has any understanding of how they actually worked in 2001. I have repeatedly asked him for his information on when he says cell phones worked for him while he was flying and he will not provide the answers I ask.  I asked him specifically if he tested his cell phone in 2001, along with the altitude, speed, cell phone used, air plane flown, cellular provider and to this date he has not responded to any of the above questions so to me he is avoiding questions put forth to him on purpose.

Fact:  Skyeagle keeps accusing me of saying that cell phones do not work in airplanes, and I explained to him in 2001 that cell phones after 2000ft had problems maintaining connections even though they might still be able to get a signal because the wave length of the signal begins to degrade as you go higher.  I provided case studies from other independent experts who agreed with what I said and he still refuses to acknowledge it.  I did NOT at anytime say that cell phones do not work in airplanes at all like he keeps ascertaining.  The fact is some cell phones in 2001 were able to gain a signal depending on location and altitude but if a call was made the call would drop within 1 minute or less I have said this countless times already.  Show me where I said cell phones did not work on airplanes at all Skyeagle please quote me I would like to see this stop spreading disinformation.

Fact:  You assume to much I know what I am talking about because I dealt with the technical side of phone signals on towers using iHLR in 2001.  The program could show you where the signal was stuck, and how to fix the problem which I dealt with numerous times.  Anywhere in the U.S and partnerships around the world like the Dominican Republic I could access any cell tower using this program and figure out how to fix someone’s signal, and if I was unable to I would put in a request to send out an engineer to the tower to fix the problem.   The technology used where I worked was being used by the same carriers across the U.S. and for the most part cell towers were shared amongst different carriers.  So yes I do know what I am talking about and I have proved it already what sources you keep bringing up are vague and not technical at all.  All they say that in 2001 that cell phones could work, yeah well I have been saying the same thing but not the way you are making them out to work.  If you want to keep misleading people time and again I can keep proving my point time and again we can do this forever if you want in this you are wrong.  Do not say that I said cell phones do not work on planes in 2001 because that is false and a lie.

Fact:  I myself provided a link in regards to airfones and how they were used during 9/11 and agreed that this was the most likely reason why the FBI could trace and verify these phone calls via credit card information.  I did NOT say that airfones were not used during 9/11.  My case was against the two calls that were made on flight 93 and was presented in court as evidence which your video shows that those calls were made below 2000ft and did not last more then 2 minutes because they got disconnected as per your video source which again proves my point that even if a connection is made the phone call can be dropped for the various reasons I outlined numerous times already.  This should show that I understand both sides of the story and I have no bias in regards to what I am writing.  Your statement of “Once again, you've allowed yourself to become a victim of those conspiracy websites.” Is false and misleading.  In post #2707 I prove this point and you can look it up again for yourself.   In addition, just because a conspiracy website puts out information does not automatically make it false it just shows that different people and experts have different opinions on the subject matter and it is up to the people that are reading this information to decide based on their experience in life on what is fact and fake and the problem is not everyone is educated enough nor objective enough to discern these distinctions.

Finally I am starting to see your bias; from this point on I will be taking everything you post with a grain of salt.  That is not to say that you are always lying but it is to say that you are not objective as you make yourself out to be and the above facts prove it.

Edited by Crumar, 12 November 2012 - 10:05 AM.


#2750    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,511 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:42 PM

You must take what Sky says with a fairly large grain of salt Crumar.  He tricked me last year with some fake video of an F-18 hitting a building.

He is very skilled with pictures and links, but is not exactly trustworthy in his claims.

The cellphone calls were staged, somehow or other, but it is through them that the Official Conspiracy Theory was born.  Hijackers and box cutters.  Close analysis of the transcripts of the supposed conversations reveals that they are unnatural and improbable.


#2751    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:13 PM

View PostCrumar, on 12 November 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Once again Skyeagle you are misleading people where did I once say that making a cell phone call in an airplane was impossible?

Question is: Were the cell phones in question, made?

Quote

Fact: Skyeagle is NOT on expert on cell phones nor has any understanding of how they actually worked in 2001.

That is moot by the fact that we are talking about the cell phone calls during the 9/11 attacks. It doesn't make any difference whether I am expert or not, because the argument surrounds whether the cell phone calls were made or not.

Quote

Fact:  Skyeagle keeps accusing me of saying that cell phones do not work in airplanes, and I explained to him in 2001 that cell phones after 2000ft had problems maintaining connections even though they might still be able to get a signal because the wave length of the signal begins to degrade as you go higher.

Another moot argument. My point was, that the cell phone calls in question occurred. Are  you denying that?

Quote

Fact:  You assume to much I know what I am talking about because I dealt with the technical side of phone signals on towers using iHLR in 2001.  The program could show you where the signal was stuck, and how to fix the problem which I dealt with numerous times.

Ring the moot bell again. Answer the question so Babe Ruth can read it loud and clear;

Were the cell phone calls in question, made?  Yes or no.

Edited by skyeagle409, 12 November 2012 - 06:55 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2752    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:21 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 November 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:


The cellphone calls were staged, somehow or other, but it is through them that the Official Conspiracy Theory was born.

Another false claim!   You have been asked to provide the evidence, so where is it?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2753    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 55 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2010

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:20 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 12 November 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Question is: Were the cell phones in question, made?



That is moot by the fact that we are talking about the cell phone calls during the 9/11 attacks. It doesn't make any difference whether I am expert or not, because the argument surrounds whether the cell phone calls were made or not.



Another moot argument. My point was, that the cell phone calls in question occurred. Are  you denying that?



Ring the moot bell again. Answer the question so Babe Ruth can read it loud and clear;

Were the cell phone calls in question, made?  Yes or no.

Thank you for proving my point again you answer my questions with questions and evading on purpose.  Your main argument was that I said that cell phones call could not be made on airplanes and now that I proved you wrong you are changing the subject.  Now your new argument is weather cell phone calls were made on planes in 9/11 which I already answered your question in post #2707 and numerous other posts including the post above you are being biased and selectively picking what I write in my posts.  I want people to notice that he is cherry picking quotes and not fully quoting people when they post it is evident in everything he posts just take a look at many of the above examples Skyeagle posted to date.  You are a lost cause you are completely biased and misleading people on purpose.  For those who want to read with an open mind I applaud you and for those like Skyeagle well nothing nice can be said so I will leave it at that.  Finally it makes a big difference when expert opinion is brought forth in arguments and you are not one yet you seem to think you have all the facts and try to pander your assumptions as expert facts by posting links and making it your view point that support only your claims.   But when other testimony contradicts what you presented you ignore it as CT falsehood even though independent tests were done outside of the CT field to confirm some of their findings.   If you refuse to answer my questions Skyeagle why should I answer yours?


#2754    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 55 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2010

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:23 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 12 November 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

Another false claim!   You have been asked to provide the evidence, so where is it?

And you have been asked numerous times for your claims that your own cell phone worked on the plane you were flying yet you have yet to provide the information I asked now 5 times regarding this issue so where is your response and why should he provide you with anything if you yourself will not do the same when asked.


#2755    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 13 November 2012 - 03:06 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 November 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

You must take what Sky says with a fairly large grain of salt Crumar.  He tricked me last year with some fake video of an F-18 hitting a building.

He is very skilled with pictures and links, but is not exactly trustworthy in his claims.

Babe Ruth, how many times do you intend to falsely accuse skyeagle regarding that video?  Have you not yet come to realize that you are only proving to everyone how incredibly unobservant and forgetful you are?  Forgotten about this already?



View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 November 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

The cellphone calls were staged, somehow or other, but it is through them that the Official Conspiracy Theory was born.  Hijackers and box cutters.  Close analysis of the transcripts of the supposed conversations reveals that they are unnatural and improbable.

You have some gall to accuse skyeagle and others of dishonesty and then immediately follow it up with this unsubstantiated codswallop which you've been corrected on so many times before.


#2756    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:25 PM

View PostCrumar, on 13 November 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Thank you for proving my point again you answer my questions with questions and evading on purpose.  Your main argument was that I said that cell phones call could not be made on airplanes and now that I proved you wrong you are changing the subject.

Now your new argument is weather cell phone calls were made on planes in 9/11 which I already answered your question in post #2707 and numerous other posts including the post above you are being biased and selectively picking what I write in my posts.


Let's take another look at what you have said in post #2404

Quote

I already explained to you why the possibility of the cell phones working on the planes were unlikely yet you still did not even read precisely what I wrote but instead cherry pick my posts to suit your own agenda.

Now, let's review statements stated by others.

Quote

Ted and Barbara Olson

Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Flight attendant made call on cell phone to mom in Las Vegas

"Renee May, a flight attendant who a source said made a call on a cell phone from the hijacked American Airlines plane that crashed into the Pentagon, left behind a mother in Las Vegas.

The mother, according to the source, received a phone call Tuesday from her daughter after 6 a.m. Renee May asked her mother to call American Airlines to let them know Flight 77 had been hijacked. Her mother called the airline, the source said.


"She told her mother they were all told to move to the back of the plane," said the source, who declined to share other personal details about the phone call."

http://www.reviewjou...s/16989631.html

______________________________________________________

'We Have Some Planes'

At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: "I think they've taken over the cockpit-An attendant has been stabbed- and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines-Tell them it's Flight 175, Boston to LA."
At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:


'It's getting bad, Dad-A stewardess was stabbed-They seem to have knives and Mace-They said they have a bomb-It's getting very bad on the plane-Passengers are throwing up and getting sick-The plane is making jerky movements-I don't think the pilot is flying the plane-I think we are going down-I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building-Don't worry, Dad- If it happens, it'll be very fast-My God, my God.'"

"Separately, a businessman, his wife and young child aboard a United flight that left Boston and crashed into the World Trade Center twice called his father in Connecticut as his plane was being hijacked, a law enforcement official told The Associated Press.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the victim's father told the FBI his son made two calls, and both times the phone cut off. In the first call, the businessman said a stewardess had been stabbed. In the second call, the son said his plane was going down.

The man was identified as former Easton, Conn., resident Peter Hanson. A minister confirmed the cell phone call to his father, Lee Hanson, an official in Easton, a small town near Bridgeport."

http://www.boston.co...st_words .shtml

Since it has been shown that the cekk phone calls were not faked and verified from other sources, would you care to clarify when you said this in post 2404?

Quote

I already explained to you why the possibility of the cell phones working on the planes were unlikely...


Edited by skyeagle409, 13 November 2012 - 04:29 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2757    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,511 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 13 November 2012 - 04:27 PM

Boo

Yessir, I know that Sky admitted it was fake.  I missed a few posts in there, but I did not realize it was fake until I challenged him on that point, having seen the identical footage at some other site.

The point is Boo, that he presented it as being true.  Why else even provide the video?  Is it really honest posting to put something up that is fake, and then after the post admit that it is fake?

No sir, it is not honest, and that is the point I was conveying to Crumar.  Once bitten twice shy.


#2758    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,696 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:18 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 13 November 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

  Is it really honest posting to put something up that is fake, and then after the post admit that it is fake?

No sir, it is not honest, and that is the point I was conveying to Crumar.  Once bitten twice shy.

One could also ask BR if it is honest to continually repeat the same assertions as if they had not already been rebutted to the point that you were no longer able to defend them.  Like Wally Miller.  Like 'hijackers and boxcutters'.  Like 'close analysis of the transcripts of the supposed conversations reveals that they are unnatural and improbable.'

The last two points I personally find, maybe 'dishonest' isn't exactly the correct word, maybe it's just best summarized as 'not cool'.  Both of those points implicitly carry with them uncomplimentary assertions about the victims and/or the victims' families, and the 'evidence' I've seen provided for these two points is pathetic and almost 100% opinion-based, and provides nowhere near the degree of certainty that I think should be required prior to even suggesting these points.  I'm of the opinion that short of you having a good scientific case for either of these, they shouldn't really be mentioned.  I'm not going to argue either point with you, I doubt that the 'case' for these assertions has changed since the last time they were brought up, and I had to be edited by the moderators as I went over the top a little in my responses the first time these obnoxious points were raised.  But I do hate to see you continue to mention them as I do honestly think those two points are beneath you, if not just from an evidentiary standpoint than from the negative implications it necessarily includes concerning the victims or their loved ones.  Just my opinion.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#2759    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,511 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 13 November 2012 - 07:05 PM

I'm certainly not happy about the negative implications either LG.  No sir, the negative implications are downright depressing.

Sadly, considering all of the evidence, it is rather difficult to avoid negative implications.  I'm not happy that my government has deceived the public, but I know that those cell phone calls were impossible.  Further, I did not write the conversations and I did not record them.  Read them yourself and you will see the unnatural character of some of them, Betty Ong's conversation with Ops, in particular.

From the aviation perspective and from other perspectives the story is a mass of deceptive statements.  The coverup is the icing on the cake.

Regarding the victims and families and such, an appeal to emotion is what you've just made.  You are suggesting that I should not be asking certain questions or making certain statements out of respect for the families.

Respect is one thing, but pointed questions and critical thinking are quite another.


#2760    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,121 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:16 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 13 November 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

I'm certainly not happy about the negative implications either LG.  No sir, the negative implications are downright depressing.

Then, why did add nukes to the argument  when there was no such evidence in the first place?

Quote

Sadly, considering all of the evidence, it is rather difficult to avoid negative implications.  I'm not happy that my government has deceived the public,...

But, many of the reports were from companies and individuals with no connections to the government.

Quote

... I know that those cell phone calls were impossible.

But, the overwhelming evidence and records have already trashed that claim.

Quote

From the aviation perspective and from other perspectives the story is a mass of deceptive statements.

Considering that recovery crews and investigators confirmed the crash sites of American 77 and United 93, the mass deceptions has been flowing from those conspiracy websites.

Quote

The coverup is the icing on the cake.

Once again, you have failed to provide evidence, and in fact, the evidence on hand dismissed conspiracy claims of a 9/11 government conspiracy.

Quote

Regarding the victims and families and such, an appeal to emotion is what you've just made.

Considering the families of the victims who have confirmed the loss of their family members, what more is there to say?  Simply, the truth is not with the 9/11 conspiracist nor does the evidence support them.

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 November 2012 - 08:17 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users