2521 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 December 2011 - 04:18 PM, said:

Q & Skyeagle

You are certainly entitled to your opinions, and I am entitled to mine.

I have seen my share of aircraft accidents, and I'm perfectly comfortable knowing that there was no 757 at either the Pentagon or at Shanksville.

I have seen my share of aircraft accidents as well, and yes, debris taken from the Pentagon and from Shanksville have been identified as wreckage from B-757's.

In addition, debris from United 93 have been recovered at Shanksville as well.










And, other items collected at the crash site in Shanksville.












And, now this:

Quote

I have seen an example of a supersonic fighter jet penetrate soft Florida sand to a depth of 15 or 20 feet.  It was traveling perpendicular to the surface at the time of impact.  I have seen another fighter which was traveling horizontal when it struck the ground, probably around 300 knots, and the engine and landing gear were visible on the surface 2 days later.

While a supersonic jet may penetrate soft sand, the rather delicate nose of a passenger jet will not penetrate the bedrock of Pennsylvania coal country.  That is not a profound statement, but it is true.

I respectfully disagree. The crash sites at the Pentagon and Shanksville contained debris consistent with a 757.  

Quote

You can produce all the photos you wish, but it does not change the laws of physics--craft designed to fly through the air and unable to penetrate the sound barrier are NOT capable of penetrating Pennsylvania coal country.

The photos speak for themselves. You'd claimed that aluminum-bodied aircraft could not penetrate ground, but there are historical photos that show otherwise.

Quote

.....
how many video cameras there are at the Pentagon.  IF any of those videos proved the official story, the Pentagon would have published them years ago.

In one segment of a video, you can see the vertical stabilizer of a B-757 just before it struck the Pentagon as it trails smoke from its right engine. Look at the logo on the vertical stabilizer just before the aircraft strikes the Pentagon.




Now, look at the logo on the vertical stabilizer of this American 757.




  

Quote

Because they contradict the official story, they are kept hidden or have already been destroyed.  If you served in the military, you know what I mean.

I have served in the military and I am now retired from the United States Air Force (civil service and military) with a total of  more than 43 years within the aviation community, which includes employment with defense contractors. I am a pilot of 42 years and an aircraft structural technician.  I have developed equipment and components for Air Force aircraft, including a new type of flapper valve used on all Air Force C-5B, and some C-5A and C-5C Transports. Several years ago, I was sent to Pensacola, FL, by the Air Force and Raytheon to develope a new repair manual for the engine inlet of the TF-39C jet engine, which is used on the C-5. I was also an aircraft structural inspector in addition to supervising aircraft structural personnel.

Quote

lemen, the official story is a lie.

On the contrary, all of the evidence points to the fact that United 93 crashed in Shanksville, and that United 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 December 2011 - 08:38 PM.

[bubs49]

Czero 101, on 27 December 2011 - 05:29 PM, said:

Yes I am what...?

I don't recall asking a YES / NO question...

Perhaps you can explain to me what the question you seem to think I asked and that you are apparently answering actually was....?

Hi Czero,
I guess you did not understand my objection properly. This is what you wrote at post #1956:

Czero 101, on 27 December 2011 - 06:39 AM, said:

Winter was seemingly only provided with the ULMSG "message source", formatted as it arrived to the DSP / CPS from the message originator - in other words, before being formatted for uplink - which would explain why Winter is only taking about the indicated "Target Stn" RGS location, rather than the actual RGS location used to transmit the message. This would also explain why he wouldn't have seen or referenced any of ULBLK / DLBLK acknowledgements or NAK messages, except in the case of the last series of messages that were rejected outright by the DSP / CPS.

Part of the 24 messages commented by Winter are messages sent by the aircraft, that is downlinks. Right? So, if Winter were "only provided with the ULMSG message source", without "any ULBLK / DLBLK acknowledgements or NAK messages", as you speculate, how could he refer to such downlinks? As you know, ULMSG blocks only refer to the uplinks sent by the airline. In the best option, your formulation is wrong. Maybe you meant "Winter was only provided with the ULMSG and the DLMSG blocks", right?

Anyway, this error is negligible. While nobody can be 100% sure, as we don't have the sanitized list commented by Winter available for our analysis, everything leads to conclude that Winter commented a list containing 24 messages related to United 93 with the complete logs coming from ARINC. I see no plausible explanation as to why DLBLK and ULBLK blocks should have been removed from his list. What for? And the fact that Knerr refers to such blocks in his interview, is an additional hint that Winter was commenting the same list.

Can I prove it? No I can't. I recognize that no conclusive evidence can exist until we see the original list commented by Winter or a genuine copy/scan of it. But it appears to me that this is the most logical conclusion.

Edited by bubs49, 27 December 2011 - 08:22 PM.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 27 December 2011 - 04:55 PM, said:

The official story said the airplane penetrated the bedrock, by innuendo and perhaps by direct statement.

Where?

Babe Ruth, on 27 December 2011 - 04:55 PM, said:

I have seen the videos and I've heard the testimony of Mr. Miller.  There was nothing there.

Mr. Miller commented on finding both plane parts and human remains.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 December 2011 - 04:18 PM, said:

You can produce all the photos you wish, but it does not change the laws of physics--craft designed to fly through the air and unable to penetrate the sound barrier are NOT capable of penetrating Pennsylvania coal country.

We already have proof that such aircraft can penetrate the ground at Shanksville, and another thing, were you aware that there have been cases where large airliners and an Air Force C-141 have penetrated the sound barrier?

Quote

Supersonic DC-8

After climbing to an altitude of 52,090 feet, the DC-8-42 series aircraft attained a maximum speed of Mach 1.012 or 660 mph while in a controlled dive through 41,088 feet. The purpose of the flight was to collect data on a new leading-edge design for the wing.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 December 2011 - 08:29 PM.

[Czero 101]

bubs49, on 27 December 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

Hi Czero,
I guess you did not understand my objection properly. This is what you wrote at post #1956:

Actually, what I didn't understand was how I could end off a post with this question:

Czero 101, on 27 December 2011 - 06:39 AM, said:

How am I doin' so far...?  

and get this answer:

bubs49, on 27 December 2011 - 03:01 PM, said:

Yes you are.

Do you see what I mean...? (btw... this IS a yes / no question)

Its kind of like asking someone what time it is and getting "Fish swim in the water" as an answer.

The two aren't related at all, just as your "Yes you are" answer / statement isn't related at all to my question of "How am I doin' so far...?".

Do you understand...? (yes / no question once again)

Quote

Part of the 24 messages commented by Winter are messages sent by the aircraft, that is downlinks. Right? So, if Winter were "only provided with the ULMSG message source", without "any ULBLK / DLBLK acknowledgements or NAK messages", as you speculate, how could he refer to such downlinks? As you know, ULMSG blocks only refer to the uplinks sent by the airline. In the best option, your formulation is wrong. Maybe you meant "Winter was only provided with the ULMSG and the DLMSG blocks", right?

Yes, you are correct. I realized that I'd left out the DLMSG portion after it was too late to edit the post. But really, it makes little difference, since the person I was addressing the post to - booNyzarc - understood what I meant and knew that I now understood what his point had been.

Quote

Anyway, this error is negligible.

Yes, you are again correct. It is negligible and in no way diminishes the fact that the "ACARS CONFIRMS" story has been, at the very least, shown to be a misrepresentation / misinterpretation (deliberate or not, that's another question altogether, and probably requiring more than a yes / no answer) of the available evidence.

Quote

While nobody can be 100% sure, as we don't have the sanitized list commented by Winter available for our analysis, everything leads to conclude that Winter commented a list containing 24 messages related to United 93 with the complete logs coming from ARINC.

Yes, on this we can agree.

Quote

I see no plausible explanation as to why DLBLK and ULBLK blocks should have been removed from his list. What for? And the fact that Knerr refers to such blocks in his interview, is an additional hint that Winter was commenting the same list.

Well, there's the fact that the Knerr and Winter interviews took place over two weeks apart with, presumably, different investigators (impossible to tell for certain due to the redaction on the FBI 302's). And there's also the fact that Winter's interview was specifically about the "time and text" of those 24 specific messages, while Knerr's interview appears to be more generally focused on "the text of the messages to / from UA93" and about the general workings of the ACARS system.

Of course, there is still a lot of ambiguity in the 302's, and that could account for our differing interpretations.

Quote

Can I prove it? No I can't. I recognize that no conclusive evidence can exist until we see the original list commented by Winter or a genuine copy/scan of it.

Agreed

Quote

But it appears to me that this is the most logical conclusion.

On this we will have to agree to disagree.



Cz

[Babe Ruth]

Q

I hate to do it again, but I must also address Mr. Skyeagle with this post.  

The US Government is notorious for lying to courts all over the country, including the USSC.  Put US v. Reynolds in some search engine and you will eventually find that case.

That was the first case in which the government asserted "National Security" to hide its mendacity.  Eventually and by accident, the facts regarding that case were declassified, and lo & behold, the government was lying through its teeth back in October 1948 regarding the crash of a B-29.

Mary Tillman and many others know first hand how the government deceives.  Maybe you 2 gentlemen do not know this fundamental fact of life, or maybe you simply like to tell yourself that the government is a source of truth and accuracy.  If so, take off the rose-colored glasses.

The point here is that all those pictures they used in the Moussai trial were staged.

The point is that Mr. Miller the coroner announced to the media that they found nothing.

Eventually Mr. Miller retracted his statement after Pentagon brass leaned on him.  But how can that field hide a 757 and 50 some odd pax?  By magic?

No sir, there WAS no 757 there, and anybody with normal vision could see that through the videos.  I did, and so did all the video operators.

So you two guys now want to pretend that some government pictures from a high profile federal trial are meaningful?

Please gents, I'm not a child, and I've seen my share of accidents.


Simply put, we do not share the same illusions.  You may find comfort in believing known liars that are the government, but I do not.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 27 December 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

The point here is that all those pictures they used in the Moussai trial were staged.

The point is that Mr. Miller the coroner announced to the media that they found nothing.

Eventually Mr. Miller retracted his statement after Pentagon brass leaned on him.  But how can that field hide a 757 and 50 some odd pax?  By magic?

Evidence that pictures of the Flight 93 crash site were staged?
Evidence that the Pentagon leaned on Mr. Miller?
Evidence of the government claim that Flight 93 penetrated the bedrock?
Evidence that eyewitnesses, the FBI and ATC are all covering-up?

All I’m seeing is a fantasy with nothing to support it.

Give me something real.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 December 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

Q

I hate to do it again, but I must also address Mr. Skyeagle with this post.   The US Government is notorious for lying to courts all over the country, including the USSC.  Put US v. Reynolds in some search engine and you will eventually find that case.

But, that is irrelevant because I have also supplied the registration and serial numbers for those aircraft and I even invited you to contact the owners of those aircraft, which were lost in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Since you've worked in the aviation field, the question I have for you is, why didn't you place significance to the reports of American and United Airlines when they announced the loss of American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175?

Quote

That was the first case in which the government asserted "National Security" to hide its mendacity.  Eventually and by accident, the facts regarding that case were declassified, and lo & behold, the government was lying through its teeth back in October 1948 regarding the crash of a B-29.

May I remind you that United and American airlines have confirmed the loss of their aircraft and that neither airline is a government agency, not to mention that the Airline Pilots Association, International, and Allied Pilots Association have blamed the terrorist for hijacking and for the destruction those aircraft.

Quote

No sir, there WAS no 757 there, and anybody with normal vision could see that through the videos.  I did, and so did all the video operators.

Fact of the matter is, there are those who are blind to the fact the photos that recovered crash debris from B-767's and B-757's, passenger remains and their personal effects, and in addition, videos  that proved beyond any doubt those aircraft were B-767's and B-757's of United 77, United 93, American 11. and American 175, which are backed by radar tracking data and many witnesses, and testimony from ATC personnel..

Quote

So you two guys now want to pretend that some government pictures from a high profile federal trial are meaningful?

May I also remind you that many of those photos had nothing to do with the government, but were those of private citizens?

Quote

Please gents, I'm not a child, and I've seen my share of accidents.

So have I. You have made a statement to the effect that aluminum aircraft could not have made craters in the ground and yet, I have posted photos of craters made by aircraft at crash sites, which simply proved you wrong.

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 December 2011 - 10:37 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

Do your own research to discover how many times the Pentagon, NOT the NTSB, investigates civilian airliner crashes, so that you will believe it.

The only time I'm aware of it was 93.  Even with TWA800 the Pentagon was not involved.

Years ago, I read the local and area newspapers regarding the Shanksville incident.  They reported that while the locals (including Coroner Miller) were first on the scene, sometime later in the day Pentagon teams arrived and essentially ran off the locals.  Days later Miller recanted his earlier statements.

I hope you are able to "read between the lines".

Years ago there were several stories printed that lo & behold they had found the 757 and passengers that Miller could not see--the airplane had buried itself, automagically.  Now, you might not believe this without my providing a link or something, but that is what was in the local papers, including the Post-Gazette as I recall.

I have heard the recording of Mr. Miller's discussion of his conflicting reports, and it is most interesting.  Again, I hope you are able to "read between the lines"

Sky

Thanks for the info, but I've been aware of the serial numbers on those aircraft for several years.  I don't keep them written down, because they don't really prove anything.  I know that maybe 2 years back, 1 of those airplanes involved was actually for sale.  Thus it still existed a few years ago, and was on the FAA registry.

Some people are blind to photos?

Egads, all I can answer is that some people are gullible enough to believe any old picture the government presents at first blush.

I never said an airplane cannot make a crater in the ground.

No sir.  I said a Boeing cannot bury itself in Pennsylvania bedrock.  I'm sure you see the difference.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 December 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:

Q

Do your own research to discover how many times the Pentagon, NOT the NTSB, investigates civilian airliner crashes, so that you will believe it.

And, how many times have I mentioned that the owner of the B-757, a.k.a., United 93, announced the loss of that aircraft and United 175?

Quote

Years ago, I read the local and area newspapers regarding the Shanksville incident.  They reported that while the locals (including Coroner Miller) were first on the scene, sometime later in the day Pentagon teams arrived and essentially ran off the locals.  Days later Miller recanted his earlier statements.

I don't know about that, but I do know that the wreckage at the Pentagon was that of a B-757. You can see the vertical fin of a B-757 in the video.

Quote

Thanks for the info, but I've been aware of the serial numbers on those aircraft for several years.  I don't keep them written down, because they don't really prove anything.  I know that maybe 2 years back, 1 of those airplanes involved was actually for sale.  Thus it still existed a few years ago, and was on the FAA registry.

Those numbers are not active on the registry now! There have been cases where aircraft registration numbers have remained on the registry years after the aircraft was destroyed.

Quote

Some people are blind to photos? Egads, all I can answer is that some people are gullible enough to believe any old picture the government presents at first blush.

But, the reality of the matter is, aircraft crash debris at the Pentagon were those of a B-757.

Quote

I never said an airplane cannot make a crater in the ground. No sir.  I said a Boeing cannot bury itself in Pennsylvania bedrock.  I'm sure you see the difference.

Well, we have an B-757 that buried itself at Shanksville.

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 December 2011 - 11:41 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 December 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:

Sky

Thanks for the info, but I've been aware of the serial numbers on those aircraft for several years.  I don't keep them written down, because they don't really prove anything.  I know that maybe 2 years back, 1 of those airplanes involved was actually for sale.  Thus it still existed a few years ago, and was on the FAA registry.

That would have been impossible because all four aircraft were destroyed on 9/11/2001.

United 175

United 93

American 11

American 77


However, look at the expiration date of an aircraft that crashed on November 15, 1987. It had an expiration date of 6/30/2011.

My link

And, the specifics covering the crash of Continental 1713.

Continental 1713

Edited by skyeagle409, 28 December 2011 - 12:08 AM.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 27 December 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:

Q

Do your own research to discover how many times the Pentagon, NOT the NTSB, investigates civilian airliner crashes, so that you will believe it.

The only time I'm aware of it was 93.  Even with TWA800 the Pentagon was not involved.

I have not denied this to begin with – it’s a new point you have introduced.  One that I do not see leads to the conclusion there was no aircraft.  And you have not provided any of the previous evidence I requested to back your ‘no plane’ assertions either.

I may as well throw the truth in the pot here:  Flight 93 was shot down.

Now it is certain that some will say, “out with one wacko theory, in with another”.

Though the difference between my theory and the ‘no plane’ theory of Babe Ruth, is that I can provide evidence in support of all the following: -

• That the military wanted to intercept that aircraft.
  
• That the military were prepared to stop that aircraft.
  
• That fighters were within range to do just that.
  
• That to all appearances the military did shoot it down.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this, is that it is not necessarily any indication of a 9/11 inside job; it can fit with the official narrative as the USAF doing what they are there to do (and then followed by avoidance of a public relations disaster).

This was the widely held theory until certain PfffT members poisoned the well with ‘no plane’ stupidity.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 28 December 2011 - 12:39 AM, said:

I have not denied this to begin with – it’s a new point you have introduced.  One that I do not see leads to the conclusion there was no aircraft.  And you have not provided any of the previous evidence I requested to back your ‘no plane’ assertions either.

I may as well throw the truth in the pot here:  Flight 93 was shot down.

Now it is certain that some will say, “out with one wacko theory, in with another”.

Though the difference between my theory and the ‘no plane’ theory of Babe Ruth, is that I can provide evidence in support of all the following: -

• That the military wanted to intercept that aircraft.
  
• That the military were prepared to stop that aircraft.
  
• That fighters were within range to do just that.
  
• That to all appearances the military did shoot it down.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this, is that it is not necessarily any indication of a 9/11 inside job; it can fit with the official narrative as the USAF doing what they are there to do (and then followed by avoidance of a public relations disaster).

This was the widely held theory until certain PfffT members poisoned the well with ‘no plane’ stupidity.

I find this quite curious on many levels, but alright I'll bite.  Can you share the evidence alluded to above?

In particular I'd like to see the evidence of the final bullet point.  I don't personally doubt the first bullet point, the second I find plausible, and the third I still question; but the fourth...  That's the one I really want to see some evidence for.

Cheers.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 27 December 2011 - 10:56 PM, said:

Do your own research to discover how many times the Pentagon, NOT the NTSB, investigates civilian airliner crashes, so that you will believe it.

Let's take a look in another way.

Quote

Flight Safety Foundation

11-SEP-2001    Boeing 767-223ER  N334AA American Airlines  New York, NY

11-SEP-2001    Boeing 767-222       N612UA United Airlines  New York, NY

11-SEP-2001    Boeing 757-222       N591UA United Airlines near Shanksville, PA

11-SEP-2001   Boeing 757-223       N644AA American Airlines  Washington, DC

Flight Safety Data Base

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

AirDisaster Data Base

My link

Edited by skyeagle409, 28 December 2011 - 02:43 AM.

[booNyzarC]

wstutt, on 26 December 2011 - 01:36 PM, said:

This post is in response to two points raised by Sergio at P4T


*snipped the full content for brevity, but go back and read the full post if you haven't already*

Another point raised by Sergio is also now explained:

The CLEA2 (at Cleveland) transceiver was operating at a frequency of 130.025MHz and was able to receive a DLBLK from UA93 at 13:03:06 UTC since the transceiver on UA93 was tuned to that frequency at that time. The transceiver on UA93 was then tuned to 136.800MHz and remained on this frequency for the remainder of the flight and therefore the CLEA2 transceiver was unable to communicate with UA93 even when it was flying much closer to the transceiver. The PITC6 (Pittsburgh) transceiver was however operating at 136.800MHz and could therefore communicate with UA93 for the remainder of the flight.

Warren.

Hey Warren, I took another look at this post of yours today and I think it is highly likely that you're right.

Have you had a chance to look through the logs for AAL11 and AAL77 for corroboration?  After a quick look through the PDF I noted 5 CLE hits for AAL77:
FLoc 300150938 on page 177 CLEB2
FLoc 300169679 on page 177 CLEA2
FLoc 302721532 on page 178 CLEB2
FLoc 302748300 on page 178 CLEA2
FLoc 304749926 on page 179 CLEB2

I didn't see any uplinks with :; auto-tune labels for AAL77, but I didn't spend a great deal of time searching through the PDF either.  Given what you presented in the quoted post, it would appear to indicate that AAL77 was operating at a frequency of 130.025 MHz as well.  I'll wait for the full OCR of AAL77 and AAL11 before commenting further, but so far I'd say that what you've presented is well substantiated and very likely to be accurate.

You may have noticed that Woody Box decided to protect his supposedly good reputation by not giving our discussions any more reaction over on the PffffT forum...    I find that quite funny myself.  He hasn't even bothered to read my blog in full and he's now burying his head in the sand from any additional information which could prove him wrong.  His choice I guess, but if he really thinks that avoiding the issue makes him look good then I guess that's his problem.

You probably also noticed Rob's particularly vitriolic stance...  LOL, what a hypocrite.  He comes here under a pseudonym (ValkyrieWings) and then accuses people like myself and Cz of being cowards because we don't use our real names on a forum...


Rob...  from me to you:

I don't care that you've put your name behind your claims; in fact I pity you for embarrassing yourself so publicly.  You've been proven wrong with documented facts and you still refuse to take down your falsified articles.  If that is something that you're proud to have your name associated with it isn't my problem.

As far as non-real names on forums go, I'd say that is pretty normal.  Or didn't you realize that?  Most people who participate on forums use a name that isn't their actual name.  Is it because they are cowards?  No, it's because it is normal to do so; and wise.  After all, when you've got maniacal whack jobs such as yourself who are willing to expose peoples' IP addresses just because they've expressed disagreement with you ON ANOTHER FORUM ALTOGETHER, and publish trace routes to people that you've MUZZLED BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DEAL WITH THEIR INFORMATION, what do you expect?

The name isn't important Rob; the information is.  And the information we've provided proves you wrong.  It isn't speculation, it isn't hypothesis, it isn't theory; IT IS FACT.  YOU ARE WRONG and your ACARS CONFIRMS mythology is debunked.  You can avoid this reality as much as you want with your mudslinging and other garbage, but it doesn't change the reality.

Maybe you should have listened to your own advice before publishing those nonsensical articles:

Rob Balsamo the Hypocritical Wonder said:

Someone may want to inform the 'duhbunkers" that "beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt" is required.

I guess you screwed the pooch on that one with your articles didn't you?

You want me to join your forum and expose myself to the kind of tyrannical BS that you've put so many others through?  Forget it.  I'm perfectly content pointing out how ridiculously stupid you look with your falsified claims from afar and outside of your abusive reach.

G'head...  throw another tantrum and call me some more names.

Cheers.