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

#2956    Insaniac

Insaniac

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:13 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 December 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

Slight correction, nobody trusts them except for you apparently.  As soon as you find something Bush said that you can (mis-) construe as supporting your belief, it's amazing how trustworthy he becomes all of a sudden.  For reference, see, well, you:  "Yet, George Bush admits explosives were used to keep people from escaping."

I believe he speaks truth mixed with lies. Sometimes he just flatout lies.

Either way, it appears to me I'm wasting my time on people who have already made up their minds on this matter, choosing to believe the words of a corrupt government. But hey, you do have freedom of choice in America.

Take care & peace.

"He is wise in heart and mighty in strength. Who has hardened their heart against Him, and succeeded"? ~ Job 9:4

#2957    Left-Field

Left-Field

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined:15 Aug 2009

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:17 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 December 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

it's amazing how trustworthy he becomes all of a sudden.

It's about as equally as amazing as the debunkers who fully believe everything they are told is the truth by numerous government agencies, etc all the way until a former CIA/FBI agent (or something of the like) comes forth and speaks of crimes and cover-ups the government commits and partakes in.

Whenever someone like that steps forward they are suddenly deemed as an unreliable source. Whenever someone like that speaks in favor of the "official" version of history however, the debunkers believe everything they have to say.


#2958    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,721 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:32 PM

View PostInsaniac, on 10 December 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

But you, yourself said those sounds coming from the detonations were "falling elevators." So what is it, Sky?

I said no such thing. They mistaken the sound of falling elevators as explosions, which they later admitted was incorrect. In other words, they said they heard explosions, but later cleared that up when they said the sounds they heard were attributed to the falling elevators.

In this case, you missed the boat concerning my remarks about the falling elevators.

Quote

"Explosives planted high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping." ~ Bush

Didn't you even read what I have posted? The remarks were attributed to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. not to  President Bush. Let's do a recap.

President Bush said:

Quote

"For an example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

He (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

In other words, President Bush was repeating what was told by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Quote

If Middle-Eastern terrorists are in the process of detonating their planted explosives, they're going to stand well out of harms way. Common sense 101, so who does that leave "trapt above?"

It would have been impossible for terrorist to plant enough explosives in the WTC buildings and not draw attention, much less do so in less than a year. It takes many months of planning and preparation by highly experience demolition experts to bring down a building the size of the WTC towers. You can't just plant explosives in a steel frame building and expect the  building to collapse. In Iraq, buildings took multiple hits by JDAM bombs yet they remained standing. Do you know why the buildings remained standing despite multiple bomb strikes? There are those who think that you can set off explosives in a building and it will instantly collapse, but that is not the case and another good example was the 1993 bombing of WTC1.

Posted Image


Quote

The innocent civillians & workers of the World Trade Center, of course, and we all know many innocents lost their lives that day. Were there any dead terrorists?

Yes, in the two airliners they flew into WTC1 and WTC2.

Quote

The Government doesn't disclose it's true strategies and secrets with civillians, afraid. Particularly not when it can expose a coverup. Thats a large part of why nobody trusts them.

If you claim a 911  government coverup, you have to provide the evidence, otherwise, your remarks hold as much water as a bottomless bucket.

Quote

When the US Gov insists on blocking ivestigations, covering up the evidence,...

What evidence? If you can't provide the evidence, you have no case. :no:

Quote

A "guessing game" is precisely what it is at this point.

It is clearly evident that you have no evidence to refute the official story.

Quote

Who didn't hear bomb explosions?

No one heard bomb explosions nor felt the blast waves from bomb explosions.

Quote

Yet, George Bush admits explosives were used to keep people from escaping.

Let's do another recap because you missed the boat again.

President Bush said:

Quote

"For an example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

He (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

He was referring to a plan put forth by the terrorist, and nothing what occurred on 9/11/2001.

Quote

Perhaps some shadow-player working for Bush turned them off, that they may not pick up the detonation shockwaves? It's a possibility.

That doesn't work either because the monitors detected the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no bomb explosions, so in that respect, the monitors were working. As I have said, you can't guess at these things and evidence is what counts, which 911 conspiracist do not have in order to refute the official story. :no:

Quote

Like I said, bomb experts exist on both sides of the fence.

Bomb experts in the area have said there was no  evidence of explosives.

Quote

Bush knew terrorists, or operatives as Bush likes to call them, had knowledge on how to blow the World Trade Center and Bush did nothing but sit on his ass as they did it. Conveniently, any fighter jets that could have protected the WTC were diverted the other way.

It would have been simply impossible for the terrorist to plant enough explosives to bring down the WTC buildings. After all, they tried and failed to bring down WTC1 in 1993 with over 1000 pounds of explosive at ground level.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 December 2012 - 09:34 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2959    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,980 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:44 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 10 December 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

Care to show us the mountains of evidence that a anti-ship cruise missile hit the Pentagon?  Or better yet, where flight 93 landed including evidence of the exsistence of the passengers after 9/11?

Oh wait....forgot who I was responding to....carry on BR, carry on.

I SPECULATED that perhaps a Russian missle struck the Pentagon.  Never claimed it was factual, but I understand how you are forced to operate.

Why don't YOU present the mountains of evidence that prove 93 was in that field?  I cannot prove a negative, but the pictures and statements of people there give it a pretty good shot.

And now that you're back on duty, perhaps you can answer my hypothetical regarding how FDRs are given unique identification marks?  Hope you don't pass on that, but I won't be holding my breath.  :gun:


#2960    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,980 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:50 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 December 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

But you just said, "Nothing is a "fact" that comes from wicked Government. It's truth mixed with lies."  So I guess this is evidence that it wasn't an inside job, Bush is a liar, right?  Except when he says something that agrees with you, then of course he's truthful?

LG

I'm a bit surprised you are not familiar with Freudian Slips.  The proverbial "slip of the tongue" that all of us humans commit from time to time.  You know, like Silverstein's and Miller's and.....


#2961    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,721 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 December 2012 - 09:51 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 10 December 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

I SPECULATED that perhaps a Russian missle struck the Pentagon.

Problem is, you speculate too often.

Quote

Why don't YOU present the mountains of evidence that prove 93 was in that field?

It has been proven that United 93 crashed in that field.

Quote

And now that you're back on duty, perhaps you can answer my hypothetical regarding how FDRs are given unique identification marks?  

The Boeing Co. and American Airlines provided information needed to read the FDR data, which simply means they provided information that pertained ONLY to American 77 and no other aircraft, but it seems you were unaware of that fact. :w00t:

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 December 2012 - 10:02 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2962    Insaniac

Insaniac

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 857 posts
  • Joined:11 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:01 PM

http://divinecosmos....nancial-tyranny

Just come across this. I'll save it to read later.

"He is wise in heart and mighty in strength. Who has hardened their heart against Him, and succeeded"? ~ Job 9:4

#2963    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,721 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:03 PM

View PostInsaniac, on 10 December 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

http://divinecosmos....nancial-tyranny

Just come across this. I'll save it to read later.

You tend to visit the wrong places.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2964    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,980 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:09 PM

Yeah, the RIGHT places are necessarily Government Approved! :whistle:


#2965    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,485 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 10 December 2012 - 10:21 PM

View PostInsaniac, on 10 December 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

I believe he speaks truth mixed with lies. Sometimes he just flatout lies.\

Which to a greater or lesser extent describes everyone on earth.  I think the assumption that you are working into your argument, without evidence, is that you can tell the difference when he is lying or telling the truth.  I don't see how you can do that concerning the specifics of what you are discussing here, and thus it seems odd to me to simultaneously hold him up as a liar when he says one thing but then turn around and use him as a truthful source for another.

Quote

Either way, it appears to me I'm wasting my time on people who have already made up their minds on this matter, choosing to believe the words of a corrupt government. But hey, you do have freedom of choice in America.

That also is quite an evidence-free leap if you are referring to me in your group of 'people who have already made up their minds'; I've made two posts to you on which you are coming to this conclusion.  Do you believe that the Space Shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry?  Almost all of the information you have on that comes from the corrupt government, certainly a much greater percentage than the information we have on 9/11.  Are you choosing to believe their corrupt words in that case?  What part of the government story concerning Columbia is the truth and what part is the lies they are mixed with?  And by the way, the only options are not just 'believe you' or 'believe the corrupt government', there are many more positions that people can and do take besides those two.

Quote

Take care & peace.

You also!

"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

#2966    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,721 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 December 2012 - 01:29 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 10 December 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

Yeah, the RIGHT places are necessarily Government Approved! :whistle:

Apparently, American Airlines, United Airlines, Air Line Pilots Association, Allied Pilots Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Institute of Architects, Protec Services, Inc. and other demolition companies, are not government agencies yet they support the official story, not the fantasies of 911  conspiracist. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2967    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,485 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

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

Posted 11 December 2012 - 05:34 PM

View PostLeft-Field, on 10 December 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

It's about as equally as amazing as the debunkers who fully believe everything they are told is the truth by numerous government agencies, etc all the way until a former CIA/FBI agent (or something of the like) comes forth and speaks of crimes and cover-ups the government commits and partakes in.


I don't know which 'debunkers' you are referring to, I haven't seen anyone around here who fully believes everything they are told by the government, quite the contrary.  


Quote

Whenever someone like that steps forward they are suddenly deemed as an unreliable source. Whenever someone like that speaks in favor of the "official" version of history however, the debunkers believe everything they have to say.

They are suddenly deemed an unreliable source by whom?  Are you going to just attribute the qualities of some or a few debunkers/skeptics to all debunkers/skeptics?  There are CTs participating on this very thread who deem all kinds of people, whether they work for the government or not, to be unreliable sources, but when the same tactic is used against their position we're going to cry foul?

"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

#2968    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:21 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 10 December 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

And now that you're back on duty, perhaps you can answer my hypothetical regarding how FDRs are given unique identification marks?  Hope you don't pass on that, but I won't be holding my breath.  :gun:

Ask Warren Stutt yourself, if you want to know.


http://forums.randi....&postcount=4292

Quote

The two fields are not zeroed out in the plain text preamble. They do not appear at all.

It would be possible for someone to remove them from the preamble by modifying the FDR file, but I have no evidence that anyone did this.

I have four FDR files from another source and they also have no AC ID or FLEET ID fields. Rob Balsamo asked me to share the other files, but my source has has denied permission since they were from a client and that client had not given permission for my source to share the files with me. My source shared the files with me so that I could help him decode them.

I think that the AC ID and FLEET ID fields never appear in the text preamble contrary to Dennis Cimino's claim that they always do.

Warren.


BTW, it's no wonder Warren Stutt was banned from P4T after releasing data that Balsamo and P4T was wrong about flight 77.  

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#2969    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:01 AM

Plus, to add on top of that BR, the FDR data contained 25 full hours of flight time for flight 77 prior to the impact at the Pentagon which matches flight records from AA.

Also, when matched with RADAR data from take off to impact, the FDR matches the information down to the second.

Can it get anymore Ironclad than that or are you still at a disagreement?  

I still think that based on the amount of ignorance resistance to facts you have shown so far, I am thinking the latter.  :cry:

Edited by RaptorBites, 12 December 2012 - 07:12 AM.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#2970    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,980 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:05 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 December 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

Which to a greater or lesser extent describes everyone on earth.  I think the assumption that you are working into your argument, without evidence, is that you can tell the difference when he is lying or telling the truth.  I don't see how you can do that concerning the specifics of what you are discussing here, and thus it seems odd to me to simultaneously hold him up as a liar when he says one thing but then turn around and use him as a truthful source for another.



That also is quite an evidence-free leap if you are referring to me in your group of 'people who have already made up their minds'; I've made two posts to you on which you are coming to this conclusion.  Do you believe that the Space Shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry?  Almost all of the information you have on that comes from the corrupt government, certainly a much greater percentage than the information we have on 9/11.  Are you choosing to believe their corrupt words in that case?  What part of the government story concerning Columbia is the truth and what part is the lies they are mixed with?  And by the way, the only options are not just 'believe you' or 'believe the corrupt government', there are many more positions that people can and do take besides those two.



You also!

Just curious if you might say which parts of the government story regarding the events of 11 September you do not believe?  Assuming I'm understandiing your position correctly that there are parts you question.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users