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

#2626    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,043 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:13 AM

View PostCrumar, on 01 November 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

Please don't take my word for it, here is a link you can read on the subject.  I would post it all but then it would be to long.

http://www.911truth....040731213239607

That link does NOT say that less jets were available as you tried to say before.  Glad we've cleared that misconception up.

Thaks for confirming that you can't speak for yourself though.  I asked how long YOU think it should have taken them and you respond with a link with someone else's thoughts instead.  Still waiting for your thoughts.

View PostCrumar, on 01 November 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

This is a discussion forum open to anyone.  As you can see there are a number of posters who are bombarding my posts even though I am not talking to them at all.  This is exhausting and takes a lot of time to respond to each and everyone so please refrain from not allowing others to respond as it is not your job to police these forums.  If you don't like someone asking you a question then don't post it is as simple as that otherwise answer the people that respond.


Are you a moderator now?  I didn't say he couldn't respond nor was I stopping him from responding in any way.  I said I wasn't talking to him.  I asked for YOUR thoughts, not his.  My post was pretty clear that way.

Quote

How long do YOU think it should have taken them?
Notice the "YOU" in the post?  Most would agree I was looking for a specific person's reaction. Still waiting for your thoughts by the way.

Edited by frenat, 01 November 2012 - 01:15 AM.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#2627    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,147 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:19 AM

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks

Without having a specific target located, military commanders were uncertain where to send the fighters. Boston Center controllers were still tracking Flight 11 as a primary target but were unable to communicate its location to NEADS by phone.

The two fighter jets were unarmed and performing practice bombing runs over a section of the Pine Barrens in New Jersey that is designated for military drills. Pilots from the 177th routinely train for interception of hostile aircraft, and military pilots had anticipated having to use their unarmed planes as air-to-air missiles if unarmed. About an hour after the Sept. 11 attacks began, the 177th received orders to send up fully armed F-16s in response.

http://usatoday30.us...rol-usatcov.htm

At 9:21, NEADS received another call from Colin Scoggins, who reported erroneously that Flight 11 was not, in fact, the aircraft that hit the North Tower at 8:46, as had been previously believed, but that it was still in the air and heading towards Washington. NEADS responded to this report by giving a scramble order to three fighters from the 1st Fighter Wing on alert at Langley Air Force Base at 9:24, and by 9:30 they were in the air.

According to the 9/11 commission, the Langley pilots were never briefed by anyone at their base about why they were being scrambled, so, despite Langley officials' having been given the order from NEADS to fly to Washington, the unbriefed pilots ended up following their normal training flight plan, due east, out to sea. The fighters then flew north-west towards Washington, arriving around 10:00

Nothing there supporting claims of a government conspiracy.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 November 2012 - 01:26 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2628    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:56 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 31 October 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

So in other words, you can't provide any quotes where anyone here who believes the Official Story has said "The Government never lies", its just a straw man argument brought about by someone (you) who has no real way of defending or proving their position, other than to purposely misinterpret / fabricate the position of the other side of this debate . Ok... thanks.


A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I have given my position and given video evidence along with pictures when asked but since everyone thinks that said evidence is already fake they call it the straw man argument.  There is no fallacy in what I have shown you guys the FBI does have evidence they are not willing to release, there is no wreckage to indicate any identifying parts that it was a 757 that flew into the Pentagon even though people show pictures of parts of some plane with no identifying mark’s to indicate it came off a 757, and finally I have provided eyewitness testimony of people who were actually there, employed by the Pentagon, and have aviation backgrounds and contradicted what the NTSB has reported.  Some of you guys can think my evidence is a fallacy but I have yet to see you prove it otherwise.  People who respond to my posts cherry pick parts of my posts and leave other parts where I have made it clear to discredit what I wrote.  When asked for evidence I provide it and prove my point they go on another route to try to discredit what I wrote.  Case in point Skyeagle asking for Tu-154 and TWA 800 pictures and footage and now asking for another plane crashes as evidence after I have proved to him large pieces of debris and footage does exist of said plane crashes.  How much longer must I keep defending this position that there is enough evidence to indicate that there should be more of the plane crash at the crash site?  There should be a large skid mark in front of the building and that other experts who were there indicate it was not a 757 that flew into the Pentagon.  Something flew into that building but it was not flight 77.  They were there you guys were not.  You can continue to bring pictures and show your evidence all you want some of it is valid while others can be viewed as a fallacy in MY opinion you will not change my mind on this.  


Quote

Yes, I see what you did there. You avoided the point of my question altogether, and tried to look "smart" (and horribly failed, btw) by turning my "puff of logic" statement around on me, except that your version of it does not make any sense whatsoever, doesn't work, and only serves to make you look even more foolish.


Exactly thank you for posting that.  That is why I wrote your statement was ridiculous to begin with it made you try to look smart but you horribly failed as well.  Based on your opinion I look foolish I can live with that because you look foolish to me too.  I provide video evidence and argue my point with other posters I have never interacted with you before but you all of a sudden come on here to try to make me to look foolish in an attempt to discredit my assumptions and arguments.  

Quote

Given the level of ignorance and confirmation bias displayed in all your posts so far, its not surprising that you can't see just how illogical, unsupportable and intellectually dishonest your position and approach here is, though.

Cz


There is no dishonesty in my approach to provide evidence I merely show what others have reported I do not claim everything is factual because I was not there but no one has proved otherwise that what I have shown is fake other than Skyeagle using sound logic and deduction to come up with his reasoning on why flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and I respect him for that even though he avoids parts of evidence I provide via video and instead concentrates on his strong points which is just showing pictures of parts that may or may not belong to a large plane.  At least he is consistent.  So everyone that posts your viewpoint is right but those that post something contradictory is biased and is ignorant because it does not conform to what you think happened at the Pentagon.  A closed mind makes you illogical, ignorant and biased which you are proving with the last two posts you made against me.


#2629    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:58 AM

View Postfrenat, on 01 November 2012 - 01:13 AM, said:

That link does NOT say that less jets were available as you tried to say before.  Glad we've cleared that misconception up.

Thaks for confirming that you can't speak for yourself though.  I asked how long YOU think it should have taken them and you respond with a link with someone else's thoughts instead.  Still waiting for your thoughts.


Do you realize how many posts I have to respond to, I provided a link because I can only base my opinion on what I have read since I was not there when it took place.  Why are only my thoughts important in this discussion and not a Senator or those who were actually there?  Where you there at NORAD when the incident happened?  Where you flying one of the Jets to intercept the planes?  What makes you an expert and what are you basing your opinion on since it seems posting information that is not your own and can only come from you is your basis for me being ignorant.  To answer your first question the jets should respond to the incident as fast as possible based on the planes location, and highest speed of travel.  If planes are not stationed where they should be or are to slow in response that becomes problematic.  In this case I gave you a link to help both you and I along in this discussion if it is not satisfactory to you that is too bad the information is in that link if you refute it bring up evidence why it is wrong don’t worry about what I myself think.  I can think for myself but again since I was not there I have to rely on what is being reported I hope that clears that up.




Quote

Are you a moderator now?  I didn't say he couldn't respond nor was I stopping him from responding in any way.  I said I wasn't talking to him.  I asked for YOUR thoughts, not his.  My post was pretty clear that way.

Notice the "YOU" in the post?  Most would agree I was looking for a specific person's reaction. Still waiting for your thoughts by the way.


You make it seem that my opinion only matters and others are not allowed in this discussion. I am not a moderator but neither are you so stop acting like one.  Unlike you I allow everyone to respond to what I write and if you refuse to let others have input in our discussion we are done talking got it?  Good I hope I am pretty clear with what I just wrote.  You can wait all you want I will not rush my responses you can do other stuff I am not forcing you to be on these forums.  I have many posts to reply to I will try to respond in due time as best I can I have a life to live too you know.


#2630    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 01 November 2012 - 02:06 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 November 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks

Without having a specific target located, military commanders were uncertain where to send the fighters. Boston Center controllers were still tracking Flight 11 as a primary target but were unable to communicate its location to NEADS by phone.

The two fighter jets were unarmed and performing practice bombing runs over a section of the Pine Barrens in New Jersey that is designated for military drills. Pilots from the 177th routinely train for interception of hostile aircraft, and military pilots had anticipated having to use their unarmed planes as air-to-air missiles if unarmed. About an hour after the Sept. 11 attacks began, the 177th received orders to send up fully armed F-16s in response.

http://usatoday30.us...rol-usatcov.htm

At 9:21, NEADS received another call from Colin Scoggins, who reported erroneously that Flight 11 was not, in fact, the aircraft that hit the North Tower at 8:46, as had been previously believed, but that it was still in the air and heading towards Washington. NEADS responded to this report by giving a scramble order to three fighters from the 1st Fighter Wing on alert at Langley Air Force Base at 9:24, and by 9:30 they were in the air.

According to the 9/11 commission, the Langley pilots were never briefed by anyone at their base about why they were being scrambled, so, despite Langley officials' having been given the order from NEADS to fly to Washington, the unbriefed pilots ended up following their normal training flight plan, due east, out to sea. The fighters then flew north-west towards Washington, arriving around 10:00

Nothing there supporting claims of a government conspiracy.

So it was a failure of those higher up in the chain of command to inform these pilots of what was actually taking place and in their confusion they ended up going out to sea and this is acceptable how?  The CO in charge of these pilots should be removed from command if he or she can't properly do their job to brief these pilots.  They could have been briefed in the air or even before taking off while in the plain for that matter.  For them to go out to sea is unacceptable and why did it take so long for them to turn back and head to Washington?  Don't worry Skyeagle I will get to your other posts when I can I am just being bombarded by requests at the moment.


#2631    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 01 November 2012 - 02:38 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 31 October 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

Go right ahead.

Now, let's take another look at the facts.

American 77 was positioned 3.5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon at 09:34 and at the end of its turn, it accelertated to 530 mph until it  impacted the Pentagon.

http://www.gwu.edu/~...BB196/doc02.pdf


Yes let’s take a look at facts.  Again I will have to repost this so you understand why I write this.  The fact is the NTSB did not in their report include eyewitness testimony of Terry Morin who was at the Navy Annex at the time of the plane flying over and a professional aviator and program manager at the Sparta Inc. Navy Annex said:  "I say 13 seconds, uh as an aviator flying 500 knots, he wasn't flying 500 knots.  National Security Alert reports: "The NTSB reported the plane speed at this point at 460 knots, which equals to 530 miles per hour, or 781 feet per second.  At that air speed it would only take a mere 3.4 seconds to travel from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon in direct contrast to the approximately 10 seconds reported by aviation professionals Sean Boger and Terry Morin, as well as by William Middleton.  All who were in strategic potions to be able to tell this detail in accuracy."  (National Security video at 20:19 minutes) Terry Morin quoted as saying "he was flying 350-400 knots I say 13 seconds as an aviator flying 500 knots, he wasn't flying 500 knots..."   So to recap 1 (international) knot is equal to 1.150779 mile (statute) per hour (mph).  With this information according to eyewitness Terry Morin who was there at the time and a professional aviator is saying that the airplane is traveling at 350 to 400 knots which indicates the planes speed between 402.7725 mph and 460.3116 mph.  The NTSB is suggestion the plane went at 460 knots or 529.35834 mph.  According to eyewitness testimony it was going less then that speed and not at the location the NTSB claim flight 77 was.  

Quote

Well, we have video of American 77  and eyewitness accounts of American 77 crashing into the Pentagon and physical evidence at the scene proved that it was a B-757 and confirmation from American Airlines confirmed that it was American 77, which effectively slams the door on your argument.
  


Really?  Please show me where on that video evidence you can clearly see the full body of a 757 or identifying marks to show it was indeed flight 77 via its serial number?  Eyewitness testimony which you still have not brought up as going against what Terry Morin and others have said (notice I provide names and you still haven't) contradict your statement above.

Quote

We have video proof  of American 77 as well. Now, where's the video for the crash of PSA 1771? How was it determined that aircraft was PSA 1771? What was the size of the largest piece recovered?





I sure did and you didn't see an intact fuselage either.


Why do you keep bringing up other crashes after I already provided you countless evidence and disproved your claims about the Caspian Tu-154 and TWA 800 how many more are you going to bring up?  I can play that game too and we can go in circles all day if you want.  Helios airlines 737 crash with large section of tail wing and black boxes confirmed as recovered.  

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40688000/jpg/_40688410_apcrashscene203.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/4150312.stm


Quote

Well, photos are usually taken of an aircraft crash site in the aftermath of an airplane crash.

That is enough right there and we can tie the flight path with physical damage leading up to, and inside the Pentagon.


Yes photos are taken usually after a plane crash for evidence and sometimes videos are taken too.  There is no footage of what caused the physical damage leading up and inside the Pentagon except for a grainy clip that is obscured by a gate pillar and does not show the lamp poles or transformer being hit by a 757 plane.  Could a plane have caused that damage?  Of course I will not refute that, the reason I mentioned explosives as a possible scenario as well because the cab driver who was at the scene said that scene was staged.  I was not there, my guess is just a guess I am NOT stating it as fact.  It could of been a flying object, it could have been some other outside external force, the point is we have no proof as to what actually hit the Pentagon only vague video and aftermath wreckage that is claimed to be of a 757 but no identifying marks to definitively prove it came for a 757 or flight 77 for that matter.


Edited by Crumar, 01 November 2012 - 02:43 AM.


#2632    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,043 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 01 November 2012 - 02:51 AM

View PostCrumar, on 01 November 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

Do you realize how many posts I have to respond to, I provided a link because I can only base my opinion on what I have read since I was not there when it took place.  Why are only my thoughts important in this discussion and not a Senator or those who were actually there?  

Because that is what I asked about.  I didn't ask for the Senator's opinion, I asked for yours.  Not really as hard a concept as you're trying to make it out to be.

View PostCrumar, on 01 November 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:


Where you there at NORAD when the incident happened?  Where you flying one of the Jets to intercept the planes?  What makes you an expert and what are you basing your opinion on since it seems posting information that is not your own and can only come from you is your basis for me being ignorant.

I never said I was an expert Mr. Strawman.  I also never said you were ignorant.  Please try to avoid putting words in my mouth.

View PostCrumar, on 01 November 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:


  To answer your first question the jets should respond to the incident as fast as possible based on the planes location, and highest speed of travel.  If planes are not stationed where they should be or are to slow in response that becomes problematic.  In this case I gave you a link to help both you and I along in this discussion if it is not satisfactory to you that is too bad the information is in that link if you refute it bring up evidence why it is wrong don’t worry about what I myself think.  I can think for myself but again since I was not there I have to rely on what is being reported I hope that clears that up.

Finally you answer the question, sort of. Actually giving an opinion on how fast instead of your wishy-washy "as fast as possible" would have been better but I have doubts at this point you can actually do that.

View PostCrumar, on 01 November 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

You make it seem that my opinion only matters and others are not allowed in this discussion.

I didn't say that.  There you go again trying to put words in my mouth.

View PostCrumar, on 01 November 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:


I am not a moderator but neither are you so stop acting like one.  Unlike you I allow everyone to respond to what I write and if you refuse to let others have input in our discussion we are done talking got it?  Good I hope I am pretty clear with what I just wrote.  You can wait all you want I will not rush my responses you can do other stuff I am not forcing you to be on these forums.  I have many posts to reply to I will try to respond in due time as best I can I have a life to live too you know.
YOUR opinion matters because it was YOUR post I responded to and I wanted to know what YOU thought.  Why is that so hard for YOU to get?  I already know what Q thinks.  I've discussed with him before.  Frankly I respect him a lot more than you (mostly due to this recent exchange) and I doubt he was as put out by my brusqueness as you seem to be.  I was not acting like a moderator.  You were.  That is the difference here.  Again I never said he couldn't talk.  I did not refuse to let him have input.  My comments were simply to say I was not talking to him and he does not answer the question I asked about YOUR thoughts.  Also to let you know that his answer would not answer my question about YOUR thoughts.  If I'd known you were going to have a virtual hissy fit about it thought I probably wouldn't have bothered.

Edited by frenat, 01 November 2012 - 02:53 AM.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#2633    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,260 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 01 November 2012 - 03:00 AM

View PostCrumar, on 01 November 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I have given my position and given video evidence along with pictures when asked but since everyone thinks that said evidence is already fake they call it the straw man argument.  There is no fallacy in what I have shown you guys the FBI does have evidence they are not willing to release, there is no wreckage to indicate any identifying parts that it was a 757 that flew into the Pentagon even though people show pictures of parts of some plane with no identifying mark’s to indicate it came off a 757, and finally I have provided eyewitness testimony of people who were actually there, employed by the Pentagon, and have aviation backgrounds and contradicted what the NTSB has reported.  Some of you guys can think my evidence is a fallacy but I have yet to see you prove it otherwise.  People who respond to my posts cherry pick parts of my posts and leave other parts where I have made it clear to discredit what I wrote.  When asked for evidence I provide it and prove my point they go on another route to try to discredit what I wrote.  Case in point Skyeagle asking for Tu-154 and TWA 800 pictures and footage and now asking for another plane crashes as evidence after I have proved to him large pieces of debris and footage does exist of said plane crashes.  How much longer must I keep defending this position that there is enough evidence to indicate that there should be more of the plane crash at the crash site?  There should be a large skid mark in front of the building and that other experts who were there indicate it was not a 757 that flew into the Pentagon.  Something flew into that building but it was not flight 77.  They were there you guys were not.  You can continue to bring pictures and show your evidence all you want some of it is valid while others can be viewed as a fallacy in MY opinion you will not change my mind on this.  

Thank you for showing that you can cut and paste from whichever source you did (can't tell since you didn't cite your source... not that it matters much in this case) and yet you still do not understand how you expressing that those who don't agree with you or those who agree with the Official Version also agree that the "Government never lies" (a claim for which you were asked to provide proof, and since you were unable to do so you started posting crap and red herrings to try and distract from the fact that you still have no idea what you're talking about) is a Straw Man argument...

You quoting other sites and videos that are equally as ignorant of such things as physics (expecting to see large pieces of wreckage at the Pentagon) or that take people out of context and try to fit the evidence to their preconceived notions simply shows that you are no smarter than the ignorant fools making such videos and website. Indeed, it shows you are even more ignorant of the subject matter.

Quote

Exactly thank you for posting that.  That is why I wrote your statement was ridiculous to begin with it made you try to look smart but you horribly failed as well.  Based on your opinion I look foolish I can live with that because you look foolish to me too.  I provide video evidence and argue my point with other posters I have never interacted with you before but you all of a sudden come on here to try to make me to look foolish in an attempt to discredit my assumptions and arguments.  

Bottom line here is that my "puff of logic" comment was actually accurate to your position and the fact that you are still trying to use it back against me shows that you still don't understand the context in whi9ch it was used and why it doesn't work the way you think it should against me. Again... ignorance in action on your part.

Quote

There is no dishonesty in my approach to provide evidence I merely show what others have reported I do not claim everything is factual because I was not there but no one has proved otherwise that what I have shown is fake other than Skyeagle using sound logic and deduction to come up with his reasoning on why flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and I respect him for that even though he avoids parts of evidence I provide via video and instead concentrates on his strong points which is just showing pictures of parts that may or may not belong to a large plane.  At least he is consistent.  So everyone that posts your viewpoint is right but those that post something contradictory is biased and is ignorant because it does not conform to what you think happened at the Pentagon.  A closed mind makes you illogical, ignorant and biased which you are proving with the last two posts you made against me.

Look up the definition of Intellectual Honesty then come back when you understand why you are showing none (or at least very little) of it.

Here's a hint: it doesn't mean that I am calling you a liar.






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 01 November 2012 - 03:05 AM.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#2634    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 01 November 2012 - 03:40 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 31 October 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

I guess you didn't review the photos of the light poles because the impact damages are clearly  evident on the light poles, which once again, proves that you are vulnerable to disinformation from those websites.



We already know what knocked down the light poles, so your argument if moot at this point.



You did not show us an intact fuselage  nor wings from the Caspian Airliner.  



Posted Image


An RB211-535 powered Boeing 757 takes off or lands every 25 seconds

Product details
  • Powering over 500 Boeing 757 aircraft around the world
  • There are over 1100 RB211-535 engines in service today
  • 60 per cent of Boeing 757 operators have selected RB211-535 engines
  • RB211-535 engines have logged over 57 million flight hours and over 23 million cycles of highly reliable service by December 2011
  • In service with more than 40 operators
  • The world's most reliable large turbofan
  • High time on-wing engine has completed 42743 hours without a shop visit
  • Sole Western powerplant available on the Tupolev Tu-204 aircraft
http://www.rolls-roy...tcm92-11348.pdf

Engine parts from American 77

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image






The engine came only from  American 77. All investigators had to do was to make simple phone calls to the maintenance facility of American Airlines to obtain the serial numbers for those engines.

With over 40 years experience in the field of aviation, I saw all kinds of clues that you have overlooked because you are not in a position, nor have the knowledge and experience to notice the significance of what those photos depict, and based on what you have been posting, proves that you are very vulnerable to disinformation and misinformation.



I have a lot of experience in the field of aviation.

I am a pilot (43 years experience)  and an airframe technician (45 years experience). I have invented and developed components for Air Force aircraft as well as special tools, fixtures, and other equipment that are currently in use by Air Force maintenance personnel and defense contractors and I  have developed special fixtures for the U.S. Army for its helicopters at the Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD).

I have conducted safety briefings for airframe and jet engine maintenance personnel of L3 Communications, Vertex Aerospace, and Raytheon Aerospace and a safety briefing on the hazards of mountain flying for members of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA).

I have occupied positions within the Air Force and with defense contractors as supervisor/inspector for airframes and jet engine components. I have been sent on fact finding trips around the country by the USAF and defense contractors and to Pensacola, Florida by the USAF and Raytheon Aerospace to develop a new technical manual for the engine inlet used by the TF-39 jet engine that powers the Air Force's C-5 transport. In addition, I have conducted airframe inspections on NASA's Kuiper Airborne Observatory, tail number 714, at Travis AFB, CA. for many years. I have also flown as DCC crew member aboard the C-5 transport

I have led a chapter as president whose members consist of air force officers, enlisted members, military retirees, air force civil servants and non-military civilians, The chapter is part of Tuskegee Airmen, Inc., and In fact, an original Tuskegee Airman nominated me for president of the chapter, whereas, its members voted me in. I am also the current historian of the chapter.

So yes, I have a lot a experience in the field of aviation.

Thank you for your post I appreciate this.  It will give me something to think on, but there are some things that still bother me which I will post later, I was doing a long post on another post you posted and had two more replies so I will just try to condense as best I can what I can because I am getting tired.  As for what knocked down the lamp posts we will have to agree to disagree on that ;)


#2635    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,147 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 November 2012 - 03:41 AM

View PostCrumar, on 01 November 2012 - 02:06 AM, said:

So it was a failure of those higher up in the chain of command to inform these pilots of what was actually taking place and in their confusion they ended up going out to sea and this is acceptable how?  The CO in charge of these pilots should be removed from command if he or she can't properly do their job to brief these pilots.

Apparently, you do not know how things work in the real world, and another reason why I pointed out the interception Payne Steward's Learjet.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2636    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,147 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 November 2012 - 03:43 AM

View PostCrumar, on 01 November 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

Thank you for your post I appreciate this.  It will give me something to think on, but there are some things that still bother me which I will post later, I was doing a long post on another post you posted and had two more replies so I will just try to condense as best I can what I can because I am getting tired.  As for what knocked down the lamp posts we will have to agree to disagree on that ;)

You can look at the light poles and tell right away the bent light poles suffered from impact damage, and nothing to do with explosives.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2637    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 01 November 2012 - 04:05 AM

I am honestly drained at this point I was going to respond to another post made by Skyeagle when I got a notification that Frenant and Czero posted again.  I have 5 people if not more who are trying to ask me questions and my opinion and I realize I will be here all night responding and we will just be going in circles.  I have said from the start I am not an expert, I was not there when the Pentagon attack happened and I can only base my opinion off of what other people who were there and expert testimony as to what might have actually happened on that date.  The same applies for Skyeagle and other posters here because they were not there and they have to use the information provided by other sources to base their opinion on what took place.  Even posters here who have aviation engineering degree, pilots, were not at the crash site, were not investigators with the NTSB or FAA and are just making educated guesses as to what may have happened.  

Just like Skyeagle I used other sources to provide information and opinion based on eyewitness testimony, expert accounts, and any information that was asked of me was looked on for outside sources to base my opinion as an observant bystander from afar.  People here claim because they are experts and viewed certain aspects of the crash the same way I have (via video and pictures) that their opinion is fact.  The fact is it is just your opinion the NTSB neglected to include in their report eyewitness testimony of those who were there which I already stated their names as to what happened from their perspective which raises a red flag for me anyway.  Why is their testimony discounted?  I provided names of these people and their testimony via video you can see it and yet they are discredit even though 3 federal police officers, 2 aviation experts, refute what the NTSB claims occurred.  I have said time and again that something hit the Pentagon, and a grainy video along with aftermath photos that do not identify any part of a 757 is claimed to be flight 77 being the culprit to hit the Pentagon.  Skyeagle provides me pictures like this (a drawing and not real world picture keep that in mind).


Posted Image

Posted Image

Why is the stamp date on the picture above say September 7, 2001 is this a misprint?   Also again notice another drawing caused the following damage below:

Posted Image

Posted Image


And the final two pictures one a drawing again.


Posted Image

Which if you take a look where the red and yellow mark met and where the actual lower part of the tail section the red mark points to where the drawing does not even line up is supposed to be this damage:


Posted Image


Never knew drawings could cause damage.  I understand it is for illustration purposes since we do not have video or picture evidence to prove this is what actually happened but at the same time the drawings are making an assumption and helps investigators determine what could have actually caused that damage.  But the drawings themselves do not even support or line up to the physical evidence there.  Case in point the first drawing has the entire engine over the transformer yet the transformer itself is damaged to the side and a little bit on top at the same time?  So maybe the wing could have caused the upper part of the transformer damage and the side damage was caused by the engine itself I am no expert but it could be viewed that way I guess.  Still we cannot confirm without a shadow of a doubt that this is indeed what happened but people are basing this as fact.  Added to the eyewitness testimony I provided along with the FBI not releasing evidence is clear indication something may (not saying is but may) be a miss.  I will keep an open mind and like I have said before I think some flying object hit the Pentagon but it cannot be fully identified.  We can all go in circles every day on this issue fact of the matter is some will agree with flight 77 hitting the Pentagon and others will not and until further evidence is provided this will always be the case.

Edited by Crumar, 01 November 2012 - 04:10 AM.


#2638    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 01 November 2012 - 04:14 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 November 2012 - 03:43 AM, said:

You can look at the light poles and tell right away the bent light poles suffered from impact damage, and nothing to do with explosives.

Right but was it flight 77 as some claim and why would the cab driver lie about his cab and light pole being a staged event?  Again something bent those posts so people assume it is flight 77.


#2639    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,147 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 01 November 2012 - 04:24 AM

View PostCrumar, on 01 November 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

Yes let’s take a look at facts.  Again I will have to repost this so you understand why I write this.  The fact is the NTSB did not in their report include eyewitness testimony of Terry Morin who was at the Navy Annex at the time of the plane flying over and a professional aviator and program manager at the Sparta Inc. Navy Annex said:  "I say 13 seconds, uh as an aviator flying 500 knots, he wasn't flying 500 knots.  National Security Alert reports: "The NTSB reported the plane speed at this point at 460 knots, which equals to 530 miles per hour, or 781 feet per second.  At that air speed it would only take a mere 3.4 seconds to travel from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon in direct contrast to the approximately 10 seconds reported by aviation professionals Sean Boger and Terry Morin, as well as by William Middleton.


I don't think you understand. American 77 was not flying at 530 mph when it completed its turn, it accelerated to 530 mph afterward and his estimate is just that, an estimate and nothing to do accuracy, which was evident by his 50 knot margin.

Quote

Yes photos are taken usually after a plane crash for evidence and sometimes videos are taken too.


Were there videos of PSA 1771? Do you know why black boxes were eventually added to airliners?

Quote

There is no footage of what caused the physical damage leading up and inside the Pentagon except for a grainy clip that is obscured by a gate pillar and does not show the lamp poles or transformer being hit by a 757 plane.


On the contrary, the C-130 crew and ground-based observers watched as American 77 struck the Pentagon, and the announcement by American Airlines and B-757 wreckage outside and inside the Pentagon confirmed the aircraft as American 77. Remember, only a certain number of B-757-200 series were built and each of those aircraft are accountable so it is no problem in making a determination which B-757 crashed at the Pentagon and I might add that each Rolls Royce RB11-535 engine that powered American 77 are accountable as well. Think about it. Draw upon the process of elimination.

Quote

Could a plane have caused that damage?


Yes, and a bomb and a cruise missile could not have caused the kind of documented damage observed inside the Pentagon.

Quote

Of course I will not refute that, the reason I mentioned explosives as a possible scenario as well because the cab driver who was at the scene said that scene was staged.


There is absolutely no evidence that explosives knocked down and bent those light poles.

Quote

I was not there, my guess is just a guess I am NOT stating it as fact.  It could of been a flying object,...


I have indentified the vertical stabilizer of a B-757 in the background of the photo taken from the video.

Quote

it could have been some other outside external force, the point is we have no proof as to what actually hit the Pentagon only vague video and aftermath wreckage that is claimed to be of a 757 but no identifying marks to definitively prove it came for a 757 or flight 77 for that matter.

I have identified B-757 wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon. In fact, you can see some of the wing trailing edge ribs inside the Pentagon along with low density honeycomb core.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 November 2012 - 05:17 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2640    Crumar

Crumar

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 01 November 2012 - 04:44 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 01 November 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

Thank you for showing that you can cut and paste from whichever source you did (can't tell since you didn't cite your source... not that it matters much in this case) and yet you still do not understand how you expressing that those who don't agree with you or those who agree with the Official Version also agree that the "Government never lies" (a claim for which you were asked to provide proof, and since you were unable to do so you started posting crap and red herrings to try and distract from the fact that you still have no idea what you're talking about) is a Straw Man argument...



I will try to keep this short as I am too tired to continue.  Source for quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man  We can keep going in circles as I said to you previously the government is made up of people and people lie and tell the truth for their own agenda. I understand what you are saying, you are assuming that I was implying that the evidence people provided was fake because the government always lies is actually not accurate.  I made that blanket statement because the government does lie I did not make it because I am saying that the government continually lies and any evidence that is provided to posters to prove my account as false is in fact false.  I have given reasons as to why their account could be false based on opinions of people who were there on that day I never claimed that these opinions were in fact my own.


Quote

You quoting other sites and videos that are equally as ignorant of such things as physics (expecting to see large pieces of wreckage at the Pentagon) or that take people out of context and try to fit the evidence to their preconceived notions simply shows that you are no smarter than the ignorant fools making such videos and website. Indeed, it shows you are even more ignorant of the subject matter.


What proof do you have of this as all these sites being ignorant because the physical evidence does not add up to what some experts and not all experts agree as to what happened?  There are experts in the aviation field who discount other experts’ viewpoints and this is why we have a conflict to begin with.  Eyewitness testimony of Federal Pentagon Officers on record as disputing the fact of what the NTSB reported is people taking things out of context?  Yeah right.  The fact that you discount their testimony is showing ignorance on your part.  Not all people are honest, not all people who make videos base it on factual material, and that includes some of the information you base your opinion off of.  Please do not ask me proof as I have already done so and you are just ignoring it.  So show me why those officers testimony and other 9/11 truther video's you claim to be fake I would like to look out for them so I do not become an ignorant fool as you suggest I am.


Quote

Bottom line here is that my "puff of logic" comment was actually accurate to your position and the fact that you are still trying to use it back against me shows that you still don't understand the context in whi9ch it was used and why it doesn't work the way you think it should against me. Again... ignorance in action on your part.

Look up the definition of Intellectual Honesty then come back when you understand why you are showing none (or at least very little) of it.

Here's a hint: it doesn't mean that I am calling you a liar.
Cz


We will have to agree to disagree because you have already discredited all 9/11 truthers as ignorant misinformed people who are spreading disinformation.  That is your opinion which is based on?  You know I don't even care and I don't want to know.  The fact is if the FBI had Intellectual Honesty they would have released those surveillance tapes and hand held recordings of the event to show the public they were being truthful in their investigation but they are being secretive for whatever reason.  I was told you did an in-depth analysis of this very thing how did you account for the video footage of the bystanders that the FBI seized?  You want to pursue the truth without bias you should be asking the FBI why they are not releasing this evidence.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users