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

#3001    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,742 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 13 December 2012 - 09:09 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 13 December 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:


25 hours of data is silly and irrelevant.  What, are you suggesting that the previous 25 hours of flight time is relevant to what happened in the last 30 minutes? :whistle:

I guess you were not aware that ATC radar was tracking American 77 just prior to the B-757 striking the Pentagon?

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 December 2012 - 09:13 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3002    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 14 December 2012 - 01:20 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 13 December 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

But to manipulate the entire 25 hours of data recorded and confirmed by radar tracking data of Flight 77 in its entirety down to the second?

That would entail receiving the actual data off the "actual" plane's FDR which would need to be removed at some point before the crash to provide continuity.

Yes, actual data off the actual planes (that commandeered and the drone) combined to produce one data series.  Of course this would be required to take place after the crash (not sure why you say “before the crash” above).  The FDR was found at approximately 3:40am on Friday, 14th September and delivered to the NTSB sometime later that day.  Who was responsible for the FDR in transit and how long for?  It is not unprecedented for the black box to be tampered or exchanged during transit.  Please see the case of Airbus A320: -

Evidence, including photographs, has now been exposed that an Airbus official at the scene switched the Digital Flight Data Recorder before the court hearing.


Since May 1998, it is proven that the Flight Data Recorder was switched after the accident. The Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology (IPSC) comes to the conclusion that the recorder presented to the Court is NOT the one taken from the aircraft after the accident.


http://www.airdisast...296/af296.shtml


There are even numerous alternatives to this method and timeframe I can think of, though I don’t need to speculate further at this point.  In all, the current lack of audit trail and serial number is not proof of the FDR nor aircraft identity.


View PostRaptorBites, on 13 December 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

When it comes to the s/n are we talking about the information contained off the preamble showing assignment of the FDR raw data file or the s/n off the actual equipment?

I don’t believe the FDR data is useful in identifying the aircraft given the previously mentioned issues.  I was referring to physical serial number off the actual equipment.


View PostRaptorBites, on 13 December 2012 - 07:14 PM, said:

At least we can agree on this bit that a plane impacted the pentagon.  

Yes it did.  And for anyone wondering, here are the ten best reasons why: -

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

Edited by Q24, 14 December 2012 - 01:28 PM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#3003    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,437 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:14 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 13 December 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

I never stated that there was not a period in time where molten metals were not identified.  Heck, even fire fighters during the recovery efforts stated "looks like molten steel was running in the channels".

What I have stated many times before, firemen are not trained to identify molten metal, and molten steel is the most common statement to associate what they saw under the rubble.  

Regardless, since the firefighters are not trained in molten metal identification or testing the components in molten metal, we cannot take their statement that it was molten steel at face value.

MOST unpersuasive, and a dodge of the question regarding how long the "molten metal" was observed.

Untrained in molten metal identification?  ROFLMAO


#3004    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,437 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 14 December 2012 - 02:31 PM

LG

Let's consider that piece of evidence--the fuselage section with windows that Sky shows above.

You and the government want me to believe that it is from an airplane that, depending upon which story is told, impacted the ground more or less vertically at a high rate of speed.  Depending upon which version of the story we use, we are told that the airplane either buried itself in the ground, or was vaporized or melted somehow.  This piece survived as we see it, yet the corresponding piece on the other side of the aircraft, and the similar pieces forward and aft of the given piece, were vaporized or melted.  For an object travelling at a high rate of speed, this surviving piece shows no signs of compression from front to rear.  The window frames are still intact, even though the piece impacted the ground at a high rate of speed.  That is not consistent with such an accident.

The piece we see amounts to a small percentage of the whole fuselage, maybe 5% or less.  So while 95% of the fuselage was rendered invisible, this piece survived with no compression damage at all.  And this piece too was rendered invisible, because if it HAD been visible that day, there would have been many pictures taken of it, and from overhead, that piece would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Like so many other details of the events of the day, it is impossible.  No steel engines, no steel landing gear, no rubber tires, no suitcases, no bodies, but a neat piece of fuselage section with no compression damage.  :no:


#3005    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,742 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:15 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Untrained in molten metal identification?  ROFLMAO

Apparently, you are not trained in molten metal indentification nor have you seen molten aluminum, which I have, otherwise, you would have known why the molten metal flowing out of WTC2 was NOT steel.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3006    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:31 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

MOST unpersuasive, and a dodge of the question regarding how long the "molten metal" was observed.
I sure as hell hope that your not using the NASA Ariel photos showing heat under the rubble as proof of molten metal weeks after the collapse.  

Not sure if you skirted around the possibility that those photos showed the heat generated under the rubble due to the "furnace" type environment created by the debris. Or you cherry picked that evidence as proof of molten metal sitting underground.

But then again, based on your undying faith for the latter, you wouldn't even consider other possibilities.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Untrained in molten metal identification?  ROFLMAO

I personally know firefighters both retired and current volunteers.  Both groups have stated they are not trained to identify molten metals.
The fact that you will take an untrained person's statements at face value shows how far you are willing to go to twist one's statements to confirm your own theories is very telling.

Edited by RaptorBites, 14 December 2012 - 05:50 PM.

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

#3007    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:42 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

LG

Let's consider that piece of evidence--the fuselage section with windows that Sky shows above.

You and the government want me to believe that it is from an airplane that, depending upon which story is told, impacted the ground more or less vertically at a high rate of speed.  Depending upon which version of the story we use, we are told that the airplane either buried itself in the ground, or was vaporized or melted somehow.  This piece survived as we see it, yet the corresponding piece on the other side of the aircraft, and the similar pieces forward and aft of the given piece, were vaporized or melted.  For an object travelling at a high rate of speed, this surviving piece shows no signs of compression from front to rear.  The window frames are still intact, even though the piece impacted the ground at a high rate of speed.  That is not consistent with such an accident.

Can you tell me the rate of speed Flight 93 experienced on its descent?

Can you also tell me the structural tolerance the airframe is able to withstand before breaking up in mid-air?

Are you assuming that the entire structure of the plane stayed intact right on impact without pieces being broken off on the way down?

Shows how much you know about airplane crashes.....

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

The piece we see amounts to a small percentage of the whole fuselage, maybe 5% or less.  So while 95% of the fuselage was rendered invisible, this piece survived with no compression damage at all.  And this piece too was rendered invisible, because if it HAD been visible that day, there would have been many pictures taken of it, and from overhead, that piece would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Your basis of assumption starts off with "flight 93 never took off so it cannot be there in Shanksville".  So no matter how many photos of wreckage shown to you of crash debris in Shanksville, you will always come up with the conclusion that it was never there.

Are you ever going to answer Sky's question regarding the TU-154 crash photo?  Or are you dead set in dodging that?  He has asked you multiple times, and yet you still failed to answer his question.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

Like so many other details of the events of the day, it is impossible.  No steel engines, no steel landing gear, no rubber tires, no suitcases, no bodies, but a neat piece of fuselage section with no compression damage.  :no:

Photos of engine parts dug out of that crater has been shown to you many times.

Posted Image

Also photos of the crash debris.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Edited by RaptorBites, 14 December 2012 - 05:47 PM.

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

#3008    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,742 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 December 2012 - 05:54 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

LG

Let's consider that piece of evidence--the fuselage section with windows that Sky shows above.

You and the government want me to believe that it is from an airplane that, depending upon which story is told, impacted the ground more or less vertically at a high rate of speed.  Depending upon which version of the story we use, we are told that the airplane either buried itself in the ground, or was vaporized or melted somehow.  This piece survived as we see it, yet the corresponding piece on the other side of the aircraft, and the similar pieces forward and aft of the given piece, were vaporized or melted.  For an object travelling at a high rate of speed, this surviving piece shows no signs of compression from front to rear.  The window frames are still intact, even though the piece impacted the ground at a high rate of speed.  That is not consistent with such an accident... but a neat piece of fuselage section with no compression damage.  :no:

Windows from United 175.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


Posted Image




Now, let's do another recap on United 93 and compare the windows from United 175 with those from United 93.

Posted Image



Quote

Like so many other details of the events of the day, it is impossible.  No steel engines, no steel landing gear, no rubber tires,...

Rubber tires from United 93.
Posted Image

Quote

...no suitcases, no bodies,...

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image



Posted Image

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 December 2012 - 06:09 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#3009    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 14 December 2012 - 06:02 PM

View PostQ24, on 14 December 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:

Yes, actual data off the actual planes (that commandeered and the drone) combined to produce one data series.  Of course this would be required to take place after the crash (not sure why you say “before the crash” above).  

Will get to your other responses in due time Q.

I want to take this statement to see your thought process on how this was even possible.

Considering that 25 hours of flight record was datamined off the FDR found at the Pentagon, and within those 25 hours of data, the final flight of AA77 was recorded from take off to the crash at the Pentagon.

How was it possible to match exactly Flight 77's FDR record from take off to crash based on Radar data.

That is all 88 difference parameters of flight would need to be "manipulated" in order to appease experts that might eventually read the data into thinking it was "real".

Can't get those parameters of flight off radar data, so how can they even be manipulated?

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

#3010    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,437 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:34 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 14 December 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

I sure as hell hope that your not using the NASA Ariel photos showing heat under the rubble as proof of molten metal weeks after the collapse.  

Not sure if you skirted around the possibility that those photos showed the heat generated under the rubble due to the "furnace" type environment created by the debris. Or you cherry picked that evidence as proof of molten metal sitting underground.

But then again, based on your undying faith for the latter, you wouldn't even consider other possibilities.



I personally know firefighters both retired and current volunteers.  Both groups have stated they are not trained to identify molten metals.
The fact that you will take an untrained person's statements at face value shows how far you are willing to go to twist one's statements to confirm your own theories is very telling.

Well they are probably not trained to identify eggs and sausage either, but that does not mean they don't know it when they see it.

Your lack of common sense is still pretty darn amazing Raptor.

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.

Like the explosions that some folks like to pretend did not happen, there are many comments from many different people regarding molten metal, and that they remained for about 6 weeks and cooked off so many metals and chemicals is likely explanation for all the respiratory ailments experienced by many on the pile.

Jetfuel & gravity can't do that.


#3011    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:41 PM

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

Well they are probably not trained to identify eggs and sausage either, but that does not mean they don't know it when they see it.

Your lack of common sense is still pretty darn amazing Raptor.\

Comparing eggs and sausages to make up of molten metal is hilarious.

Does common sense allow a person to differentiate the difference between molten steel and molten metals?

No it does not, and for you to inject the notion that anyone can tell the difference is ridiculous.

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.

How many of those areas were confirmed by sight that the heat radiated was completely molten metal?  Or is that YOUR assumption that all of it was?

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

Like the explosions that some folks like to pretend did not happen, there are many comments from many different people regarding molten metal, and that they remained for about 6 weeks and cooked off so many metals and chemicals is likely explanation for all the respiratory ailments experienced by many on the pile.

Jetfuel & gravity can't do that.

Sounds of explosions can be produced by a lot of things.  The fact that your taking into account that what sounds like explosions as being caused by an explosive without looking into other alternatives shows that you are displaying ignorance in real research when it comes to producing evidence.

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

#3012    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,437 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:43 PM

Claiming that a person needs formal training to recognize molten metal is even more hilarious, and dodging questions provides much insight.


#3013    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:47 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

Claiming that a person needs formal training to recognize molten metal is even more hilarious, and dodging questions provides much insight.

Posted Image

What metal is being poured here?

Edited by RaptorBites, 14 December 2012 - 07:50 PM.

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

#3014    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,437 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:51 PM

Don't know Raptor, but I recognize it as molten.

And I have no formal training!!! :gun:


#3015    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:53 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 December 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Don't know Raptor, but I recognize it as molten.

And I have no formal training!!! :gun:

Nice dodge on my question.

Are you going to answer it or not?

This just shows that by sight, you are not able to identify the make up of any molten substance.  Which proves my point.

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




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users