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

#3016    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:14 PM

Raptor

Your question was "What metal is being poured here?"

I answered "Don't know".

How is that not an answer to your question sir?  Do you actually speak English, or is somebody translating my posts for you?

I know you're in  a desperate position, attempting to defend the indefensible, but that was a straight answer to a straight question.

For your consideration, I would like to ask you what conclusions YOU reach, understanding that molten metal was in the bowels of the basement for many many weeks?  Or, does that mean nothing to you?


#3017    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,971 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 14 December 2012 - 09:29 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Raptor

Your question was "What metal is being poured here?"

I answered "Don't know".

How is that not an answer to your question sir?  Do you actually speak English, or is somebody translating my posts for you?

The premise of my question is regarding those firefighters you have always stated SAW molten steel under the rubble.

Reason why I asked you to answer my question is because I specifically stated that Firemen or anybody else that is not trained to identify the makeup of a molten substance can tell the difference between molten steel, molten aluminum, heck even molten glass.

The fact that you are dodging around that point is telling at the fact that you are more liable to take statements at face value as long as it conforms with your own fantasy conclusions.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

I know you're in  a desperate position, attempting to defend the indefensible, but that was a straight answer to a straight question.

You are in the desperate position to defend the indefensible.  

Are you ready to defend your arguments about nuclear destruction at WTC?
Are you ready to defend your arguments that United 93 was in flight after the crash?
Are you ready to defend your arguments that a plane did not strike the Pentagon?
Are you ready to defend your arguments that a cruise missle hit the Pentagon?
Are you ready to defend your arguments at all?

Seriously BR......
'
'

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

For your consideration, I would like to ask you what conclusions YOU reach, understanding that molten metal was in the bowels of the basement for many many weeks?  Or, does that mean nothing to you?

I already stated, the rubble caused a furnace like environment.

What is your conclusion?  Lets not forget that thermite does not burn for weeks.

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

#3018    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 15 December 2012 - 02:43 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 07:34 PM, said:



I'm not familiar with NASA Ariel photos, but I am aware of certain NASA satellite thermal imaging type photos, if that's what you mean.  Those recorded numerous 'hot spots' in the area, and those support the statements of various individuals, including Mark Loizeaux and photos taken.

What have I told you about exothermic reactions of iron? Thermite does not leave behind molten steel for weeks, but exothermic reactions of iron can and such reactions can produce temperatues high enough to cause fires. You can conduct a simple experiment using rusty steel wool to produce heat to understand what I am mean.

Quote

Like the explosions that some folks like to pretend did not happen,...

Considering no explosions are evident in video nor detected on seismic monitors nor have explosives been recovered from the rubble of the WTC buildngs nor found at the Fresh Kills landfill simply means you have been a victim of disinformation.

Quote

Jetfuel & gravity can't do that.

Why of course jet fuel can. Look what a simple building fire did to this steel beam.

Posted Image

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3019    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:02 PM

Raptor

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us have had no formal training in sex, yet somehow we all manage to do it.  We have no formal training in walking, yet we learn to do it before we can even speak the language.  So, you point is silly, that the firemen have no formal training in recognizing molten metal.  I know your chosen position attempting to defend an indefensible story is most frustrating, but I think you've reached a new level with this absurd statement.

Seriously sir, I never claimed an airplane did not hit the Pentagon.  Actually, I got into hot water over at PFT because I thought that some sort of flying object DID hit the Pentagon.  While I do not know what it was that hit the Pentagon, I do know what it WAS NOT.  It was NOT a Boeing 757 carrying passengers and baggage.  That has been my position all along, both at PFT and here at UM.  That you insist upon attributing things to me that I did not say is a very strong indicator of the weakness of your chosen position, and your tendency to misrepresent what I said.

In the same vein, I did not categorically state that nuclear devices were employed at WTC.  I speculated, I entertained the idea, that nuclear devices MIGHT have been employed there.  Consider what Socrates said Raptor--learn to ENTERTAIN an idea, CONSIDER an idea, without necessarily embracing it.  Such a practice is part of what is known as "critical thinking."

Considering that the evidence shows 93 was not in that Shanksville field, and that ARINC data shows the airplane to have still been airborne AND in phase coherence with the ground stations, critical thinking requires one to conclude that, from what is known so far, 11 years later, the part of the OCT regarding Shanksville is not valid or true.

What you hold in your mind is no threat to me sir.  It neither breaks my leg nor threatens my family.  I must say it does provide insight, but that is harmless to me.  I'm not "defending my arguments" except to repeat some of the vast amount of evidence that contradicts the story you tell here in public.

Peace, Raptor. :gun:


#3020    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:10 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us have had no formal training in sex, yet somehow we all manage to do it.  We have no formal training in walking, yet we learn to do it before we can even speak the language.  So, you point is silly, that the firemen have no formal training in recognizing molten metal.  I know your chosen position attempting to defend an indefensible story is most frustrating, but I think you've reached a new level with this absurd statement.

I have seen molten aluminum flowing after an aircraft accident and another reason why I have said the flowing molten metal was not steel.

Quote

Seriously sir, I never claimed an airplane did not hit the Pentagon.  Actually, I got into hot water over at PFT because I thought that some sort of flying object DID hit the Pentagon.

That was obvious, and PFT cannot be considered a reliable source of information anyway. :no:

Quote

While I do not know what it was that hit the Pentagon, I do know what it WAS NOT.  It was NOT a Boeing 757 carrying passengers and baggage.

That is false, considering that witnesses described a large aircraft, some in the markings of American Airlines and evidence collected  outside and inside the Pentagon are consistent with wreckage from an American Airlines B-757. In addition, the black box proved the aircraft was American 77 and remains of passengers and crew from American 77 were recovered from the Pentagon. Additionally, the FAA deregistered the tail number for the airframe of American 77 and American Airlines has confirmed that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

In other words, you threw out the evidence of an American Airlines B-757 and added that P700 anti-ship missile. In other words, you cannot be taken seriously.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3021    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,971 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:19 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Raptor

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us have had no formal training in sex, yet somehow we all manage to do it.  We have no formal training in walking, yet we learn to do it before we can even speak the language.  

Irrelevant comparisons, as being able to determine the make up of a molten substance is hardly human instinct.  But bravo for bringing up such a silly comparison, I haven't laughed like this in days.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

So, you point is silly, that the firemen have no formal training in recognizing molten metal.  I know your chosen position attempting to defend an indefensible story is most frustrating, but I think you've reached a new level with this absurd statement.

No sir, firemen are not trained in recognizing the make up of a molten substance.

I have asked retired and currently serving volunteer firemen before, and neither of them had formal training in molten metal substance identification.

Now you are just being dishonest in a lousey attempt to defend your molten steel theory.

Here is a question for you to answer. What metal was used to clad the outside of the buildings.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Seriously sir, I never claimed an airplane did not hit the Pentagon.

But you had also skirted around the idea of a anti-ship cruise missile?  

Dear god man, pick something already!

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Actually, I got into hot water over at PFT because I thought that some sort of flying object DID hit the Pentagon.

Which is funny why you still follow a group that believes of a Pentagon fly-over theory (Rob Balsamo, Cimino, Fetzer)

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

  While I do not know what it was that hit the Pentagon, I do know what it WAS NOT.  It was NOT a Boeing 757 carrying passengers and baggage.  That has been my position all along, both at PFT and here at UM.  That you insist upon attributing things to me that I did not say is a very strong indicator of the weakness of your chosen position, and your tendency to misrepresent what I said.

You did not state a anti-ship cruise missile hit the Pentagon?

I may have to do some digging up to find that quote.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

In the same vein, I did not categorically state that nuclear devices were employed at WTC.  I speculated, I entertained the idea, that nuclear devices MIGHT have been employed there.  Consider what Socrates said Raptor--learn to ENTERTAIN an idea, CONSIDER an idea, without necessarily embracing it.  Such a practice is part of what is known as "critical thinking."

The entire reason why your theories are considered bunk in my opinion.

You think you know the Official story is not true, yet you cannot come up with any solid answers to why your theory is more correct.

:no:

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Considering that the evidence shows 93 was not in that Shanksville field, and that ARINC data shows the airplane to have still been airborne AND in phase coherence with the ground stations, critical thinking requires one to conclude that, from what is known so far, 11 years later, the part of the OCT regarding Shanksville is not valid or true.

And what has been stated to you so many times before by several posters, your theory on the ARINC data is incorrect, yet you still manage to ignore all that and continue harping the same tired old BS?

Carry on.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

What you hold in your mind is no threat to me sir.  It neither breaks my leg nor threatens my family.  I must say it does provide insight, but that is harmless to me.  I'm not "defending my arguments" except to repeat some of the vast amount of evidence that contradicts the story you tell here in public.

Peace, Raptor. :gun:

Show us this evidence then?

So far everything you have brought up has not been holding up to any kind of scruitney what-so-ever.

Where is your smoking gun?

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

#3022    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 15 December 2012 - 04:39 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Considering that the evidence shows 93 was not in that Shanksville field,...

What evidence? There is no evidence that supports your claim. On the contrary, recovery crews, coroner Wally Miller, investigators and United Airlines have confirmed the crash site as that of United 93.

Quote

...and that ARINC data shows the airplane to have still been airborne AND in phase coherence with the ground stations,...

ARINC data depicted no such thing and I have challenged you to call the folks at ARINC as I have done so they can set you straight because you are deliberately spreading false and misleading bits of trash. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 December 2012 - 04:46 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3023    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:28 PM

You will never get it Raptor, and that's OK.

You argue for trivial and meaningless details, assuming one is able to view the proverbial Big Picture.  The forest, not the trees.

And the Big Picture is that so many lies and misrepresentations have been foisted upon the american people and the world, that clearly YES it was a conspiracy, and it has been covered up so well for 11 years that they even are still making movies about it, as Katheryn Bigelow's latest movie is but a propaganda piece.

So please have it your way....every man is entitled to that.


#3024    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,399 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 15 December 2012 - 07:31 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

You will never get it Raptor, and that's OK.

We have asked you to present evidence and you come up empty-handed.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3025    Sundew

Sundew

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,631 posts
  • Joined:12 Dec 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:An island by the sea.

  • Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectos Nunc

Posted 15 December 2012 - 09:15 PM

While I can't dispute the official explanation, something just does not seem quite right about it all.

I saw clips of the newscasts taken in front of the Pentagon after impact, there was a gaping hole and a small fire, which eventually got worse. What was absent from the clips as far as I could tell was plane wreckage; no fuselage, jet engines, landing gear, wing or tail sections, seats, bodies, luggage, nothing. It seems to me with a hole only the size of the one in the building the wings would have sheared off on the outside of the Pentagon, the wings I believe BTW, are filled with jet fuel which should have led to a massive fireball, inside and especially outside the building. You saw such a fireball as the planes impacted the Twin Towers and the wings themselves went through the building, since it was mostly glass and steel frame. But shortly after the Pentagon was hit, news crews were on the scene outside the building and you would expect a lot more flames given the terrorists used fully fuel-laden aircraft. Early on the fire, even inside the building, seemed a lot smaller then what one might expect from an impact with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Also, is it not the usual practice of the FAA to gather up wreckage of any plane crash, find the black boxes and attempt to "put the pieces back together" in a hanger somewhere to determine what happened, how it happened, how to prevent future happenings, etcetera? Does anyone have knowledge that this was done? It may have I am just not aware of it.  Unlike the Twin Towers where the plane wreckage were mixed with thousands of tons of building debris, this was near ground level and brought under control fairly quickly. A plane does not just disintegrate into nothing, some pieces should have survived. No plane wreckage suggests no plane, if indeed there was no salvaged wreckage, yet something hit the building and a plane is presumably missing in any case.

There are (or were) clips from several news organizations local (and I believe national like CNN) that were on scene immediately after the explosion you may still be able to find them online and judge for yourself if you can see any plane wreckage.

Anyway, I'm not much for most conspiracy theories, and certainly no expert on airline disasters but the official explanation has always seemed a bit odd to me.


#3026    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,956 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 15 December 2012 - 09:31 PM

View PostSundew, on 15 December 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Also, is it not the usual practice of the FAA to gather up wreckage of any plane crash, find the black boxes and attempt to "put the pieces back together" in a hanger somewhere to determine what happened, how it happened, how to prevent future happenings, etcetera? Does anyone have knowledge that this was done? It may have I am just not aware of it.  Unlike the Twin Towers where the plane wreckage were mixed with thousands of tons of building debris, this was near ground level and brought under control fairly quickly. A plane does not just disintegrate into nothing, some pieces should have survived. No plane wreckage suggests no plane, if indeed there was no salvaged wreckage, yet something hit the building and a plane is presumably missing in any case.
No.  That would be the NTSB.  And that is only done in the case of accidents.

-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

#3027    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,971 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:08 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

You will never get it Raptor, and that's OK.

Of course I get it.  Its to no surprise that you are acting very reluctant to view it from the other side of the table.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

You argue for trivial and meaningless details, assuming one is able to view the proverbial Big Picture.  The forest, not the trees.

What was trivial and meaningless about my Ross and Furlong analysis? (Remember, your the one that brought up that subject)
What was trivial about my perspective pictures regarding the low-resolution parking lot video at the Pentagon?
What was trivial about my statements regarding not taking a non-trained expert's opinion on visual recollection of a molten substance?
What was trivial about my statements regarding flight 77's FDR?  (remember, your the one that brought up that subject)
What was trivial about my statements explaining the Radio Altimeter reading both Cimino and Fetzer got wrong regarding a Pentagon Fly-over?  

Honestly BR, you can sit there and type out the same drivel you been spewing for the better part of this year, yet you cannot come up with any conclusive evidence to support your theory other than "you feel that something was wrong" and "cant trust the ebil gubmint".

The big picture is supported by the details.  The fact that you are not willing to discuss the details and continue on your rampage of spewing the same BS over and over again is telling that you are not here to have a debate, but to troll this thread.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

And the Big Picture is that so many lies and misrepresentations have been foisted upon the american people and the world, that clearly YES it was a conspiracy, and it has been covered up so well for 11 years that they even are still making movies about it, as Katheryn Bigelow's latest movie is but a propaganda piece.

Yet you have presented many of those so called lies without evidence to back up your claim.

From the past months I have tried to have a decent debate with you regarding questions you have about the Official Report when it comes down to you having to provide an explanation to your own claims, you move into another tangent about how other parts of the story do not make sense.

Dodging BR, thats what its called....Dodging.

It is no wonder you decide to change topics as soon as your backed into a corner.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 December 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

So please have it your way....every man is entitled to that.

You can keep your "twoof" BR, as it so happens, your "twoof" is made up of convoluted facts and utter nonsense.

Edited by RaptorBites, 15 December 2012 - 11:20 PM.

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

#3028    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,971 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:17 PM

View PostSundew, on 15 December 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Also, is it not the usual practice of the FAA to gather up wreckage of any plane crash, find the black boxes and attempt to "put the pieces back together" in a hanger somewhere to determine what happened, how it happened, how to prevent future happenings, etcetera? Does anyone have knowledge that this was done? It may have I am just not aware of it.  Unlike the Twin Towers where the plane wreckage were mixed with thousands of tons of building debris, this was near ground level and brought under control fairly quickly. A plane does not just disintegrate into nothing, some pieces should have survived. No plane wreckage suggests no plane, if indeed there was no salvaged wreckage, yet something hit the building and a plane is presumably missing in any case.

As frenat noted earlier.  The NTSB is the organization that handles investigation on "accidents".

However, due to the twin towers being hit by planes before the Pentagon, the crash at the Pentagon at that point would not be considered as a "coincidental accident" but would be considered a "crime scene" to which the FBI would have been dispatched as the primary investigator with support by the NTSB.

View PostSundew, on 15 December 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

There are (or were) clips from several news organizations local (and I believe national like CNN) that were on scene immediately after the explosion you may still be able to find them online and judge for yourself if you can see any plane wreckage.

Anyway, I'm not much for most conspiracy theories, and certainly no expert on airline disasters but the official explanation has always seemed a bit odd to me.

It is okay to ask questions, especially when things do not make any sense to you.  At least it seems, that you have not come to a full conclusion based on the information you are able to read and decipher.

At this point, you are not in a position to let your bias decide what to believe and what not to believe.

Q24...a poster that believes that a plane did hit the Pentagon is also a proponent of the False Flag Theory.  Here is a post he made a long while back explaining his reasons why a plane most certainly hit the Pentagon.

http://www.unexplain...45#entry4057924

Pretty solid information from him.

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

#3029    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,404 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 16 December 2012 - 05:57 AM

I cant wait until the 21st ! This will all be over ! :no:
Or at least maybe a few of us will be called back to Nirvana !

This is a Work in Progress!

#3030    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,373 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 16 December 2012 - 03:46 PM

Sundew

Regarding the 4 crashes on 11 September, there was never a normal NTSB investigation.  That agency was relegated to the sidelines, as the Pentagon and other federal agencies took over.  The NTSB did file  final reports, but they were not up to usual standards, and amounted to little more than a whitewash.  They were merely NTSB contributions to the federal suppression of evidence and coverup of crimes.

Just as happened at the crime scene at WTC, the forensic processes were nonexistent.  The evidence was whisked away without analysis.  Nobody has been allowed to examine any of the supposed parts hidden away.  Probably because there ain't no parts to be seen, at least at Shanksville and the Pentagon.

Suppression and destruction of evidence is the hallmark of the coverup conducted by the federal government.  Good heavens, back in July and November of 2002, the 2 houses of Congress passed legislation granting immunity from lawsuits to ICTS and its subsidiary Huntleigh USA.  They just happened to provide security at both Boston and Newark.

So, as bad as the crimes were, the coverup is even worse.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users