3292 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

And now you want to deny that molten metal existed Raptor?  Really?  Are you that desperate?

Stoopid question on my part.

On the morrow sir!

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

Regarding the FDR data, one issue that comes up quickly is whether the files analyzed were CSV or raw data.  I could be wrong, but I think Stutt decoded the former and Cimino decoded the latter.  Comment?

I'm not worried about my argument Raptor--I know that the whole story is a pack of lies.

No you don't!

Quote

I know that no 350 hour pilot first time in a Boeing could have done what Hani had to do.

I guess you didn't watch that 9/11 documentary last night where it was revealed the terrorist used flight simulators to practice their attack plans. BTW, it doesn't take a highly experience pilot to maneuver a  B-757 in the sky. Any normal child with no flight experience can be taught to conduct a simple 360 degree turn in a B-757 in less than 30 minutes.

BTW, the terrorist didn't have to train to takeoff or land a B-757 and there have been cases where people with very little flying experience in small aircraft have flown a Lear Jet, a C-130, and even a F-86 jet fighter.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

The presence of molten metal for many weeks afterwards.

Understand that thermite does not leave behind molten metal for weeks, so what you need to do is to review what I have said about exothermic reaction of iron.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

And now you want to deny that molten metal existed Raptor?  Really?  Are you that desperate?

Stoopid question on my part.

On the morrow sir!

At what point did I deny the presence of molten metal?

In case you read wrong here was my exact quote:

Quote

Molten metal?  sure, seeing as though WTC 1 & 2 was not completely comprised of just steel.  Are you privy to the fact that there were other metals in those buildings, or are you hand-waving that fact?

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Yes there was molten metal.  Considering that the make up of WTC was not just steel so the existence of other metals in molten state other than steel is likely.

Again BR, at what point did i deny the existence of molten METAL?

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

Regarding the FDR data, one issue that comes up quickly is whether the files analyzed were CSV or raw data.  I could be wrong, but I think Stutt decoded the former and Cimino decoded the latter.  Comment?

So where is your evidence that Stutt and Cimino analyzed different CSV files?

Quite a claim there considering that Cimino had used the same data decoded by Stutts software to analyze.

Babe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

And the question quickly becomes is the data real, or generated?  With so many peculiar little anomalies, it seeems likely to be the latter.

Of course you would lean towards the data being generated.  It is your one trick pony.  Had the FDR data been shown to be completely accurate and real, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on now would you?

Of course considering the fact that the FDR data contained 25 hours of flight history recorded, is a pretty tough fact to dismiss.  Other than using the standard "data was falsified" accusation.  Which, based on your posting history was not really a surprise that you would throw that in there.

Babe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

No, I've already told you that the matter of whether the FDR was digital or analog was my memory from having read it somewhere else.  I have no opinion on that matter, but consider it an interesting point. IF the recorder was analog, then 25 hours strongly suggests the data Warren Stutt decoded was generated just for his perusal.  Considering that there was no Boeing at the Pentagon, that is highly likely. But it cuts both ways--the data analyzed by Cimino was also generated for his perusal, and that is the larger point.  And details discovered by Cimino strongly suggest it was just for public consumption.  The most amusing point regarding that is that both these Islamic Radicals, rookie pilots never in a Boeing in their life before, SIMULTANEOUSLY set their altimeters to the local setting.  Very cute.

What is cute here is the fact that you want to discount the evidence Stutt present in his Co-Authored peer reviewed paper.  A bit of hand-waving to discredit any attempt to rebutt Cimino.  

However, I see the reason why of course.  

If Cimino is found wrong, then ultimately your theory is wrong as well, and you can't digest that.

Call it confirmation bias.

FYI, if you didn't bother reading Stutt's paper, then you may have missed the fact that the FDR data conclusively shows that Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon down to the final "missing 4 seconds".

Babe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

I'm not worried about my argument Raptor--I know that the whole story is a pack of lies.

I would be, seeing as though you cannot properly explain where if not at their final inevitable destinations flight 93 and 77 ended up.

Babe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

I know that no 350 hour pilot first time in a Boeing could have done what Hani had to do.  Would the same government that told Mary Tillman a pack of lies tell Warren Stutt or Dennis Cimino a pack of false data?  No doubt in my military mind, sir.

Still no evidence that can hold up to scruitny?  

I have given you information and answered your questions BR.  

Are you going to man up, stop presenting hypotheticals, and show us the mountains of evidence to support your theory?

Nevermind, I think I am asking too much of you.

[Liquid Gardens]

Babe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

Thanks for the straight answer.

I think I always give you straight answers, BR.

Quote

Yes, I understand that my views are radical in the Orwellian sense, especially as far as Shanksville goes, but the truth is everybody there, including the photos, could not find a Boeing.  

No, your views are radical in the definitional sense as far as Shanksville.  The vast majority of people, and of CTs as far as I can tell, do not dispute that there was a plane that crashed with humans on board at Shanksville, thus your very minority position here is by definition an extreme one, and 'radical' is a synonym of 'extreme'.  Your continued invocation of Orwell just comes across to me as conceited and silly, it implies that almost everyone, especially here, are under the thumb of the government and gullible.  Except for you of course, who is just a brave patriot with superior intellect and perception struggling courageously against 'the establishment', freed from the mental chains of oppression by the words of George.  As far as Shanksville, your 'truth' only requires you to call the people who say they did find a Boeing and human remains liars, and to pretend that pictures showing the plane parts are fake.  You can keep that kind of 'truth', no thanks.

Quote

For the sake of brevity, I will list only the towers as being completely impossible, as for the official story.  Right off the bat, massive explosions in the bowels of the building, mere seconds before the impact, make the official story impossible.  The time of collapse--very near to freefall, makes it impossible.  The insufficient temperatures of the fires.  The pulverization of all concrete.  The presence of molten metal for many weeks afterwards.  All these things make the 'jetfuel & gravity' theory impossible.

Then you just don't understand what 'impossible' means and I don't really want to wade through a bunch of your hyperbole to get at whatever points you are trying to make.  I asked for the most questionable part of the official story in response to your question of what I doubt of the official story.  I wasn't really looking for a rehash of short general statements that you've made countless times before, I was hoping for one particular point and some evidence of why it is the most questionable piece of the official story.  There's all kinds of possible middle ground that could be reached on that question which is why I responded to it; I may not find that whatever you think to be the most questionable piece of the official story convinces me that the official story in general is incorrect, but I may agree that it is indeed the most or a questionable point.

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 12 December 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

At what point did I deny the presence of molten metal?

In case you read wrong here was my exact quote:

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Yes there was molten metal.  Considering that the make up of WTC was not just steel so the existence of other metals in molten state other than steel is likely.

Again BR, at what point did i deny the existence of molten METAL?

My apologies sir, I had thought you had denied the existence of molten metals, but I was wrong.

Now, do you also acknowledge the period of time that the molten metal was observed there?

[Babe Ruth]

RaptorBites, on 12 December 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

So where is your evidence that Stutt and Cimino analyzed different CSV files?

Quite a claim there considering that Cimino had used the same data decoded by Stutts software to analyze.




Of course you would lean towards the data being generated.  It is your one trick pony.  Had the FDR data been shown to be completely accurate and real, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on now would you?

Of course considering the fact that the FDR data contained 25 hours of flight history recorded, is a pretty tough fact to dismiss.  Other than using the standard "data was falsified" accusation.  Which, based on your posting history was not really a surprise that you would throw that in there.



What is cute here is the fact that you want to discount the evidence Stutt present in his Co-Authored peer reviewed paper.  A bit of hand-waving to discredit any attempt to rebutt Cimino.  

However, I see the reason why of course.  

If Cimino is found wrong, then ultimately your theory is wrong as well, and you can't digest that.

Call it confirmation bias.

FYI, if you didn't bother reading Stutt's paper, then you may have missed the fact that the FDR data conclusively shows that Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon down to the final "missing 4 seconds".



I would be, seeing as though you cannot properly explain where if not at their final inevitable destinations flight 93 and 77 ended up.



Still no evidence that can hold up to scruitny?  

I have given you information and answered your questions BR.  

Are you going to man up, stop presenting hypotheticals, and show us the mountains of evidence to support your theory?

Nevermind, I think I am asking too much of you.

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that one of the points of contention was CSV files, as provided to some applicants under FOIA, versus raw data as provided to other applicants.

Yes, it appears that whatever data provided by the government, in either CSV or raw data, is manipulated or created out of whole cloth.  That is, both Cimino and STutt were provided fictitious data.  Whereas Cimino recognized that he had been provided fluff and false information, it appears that Stutt believes that what he had been provided was The Real Deal.

I say that the government is well practiced at the art of deception.  Considering that one of the fundamental tenets of military strategy is deception, it's no surprise that the Pentagon would attempt to deceive those civilians analyzing data regarding the events of the day.  If the Pentagon had its druthers, there would be NO data released.  As it was, it took years for the data to be provided in accordance with FOIA law.

Yessir, my One Trick Pony might be the truth, and the odds are it IS the truth, all things considered.

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?

No Raptor, you misunderstand where I'm coming from.  I don't really care who is right--Cimino or Stutt--because there is SO MUCH OTHER material that works against the official story.  Close analysis of government provided information reveals all manner of irregularities, besides even the simultaneous setting of the altimeters.  From suspicious and irregular gate locations, irregular INS procedures, claims that GPS equipment was onboard when it could not have been, cell phone calls that could not have been, aerodynamic maneuvers that could not have been.  Good Lord man, it's almost impossible to count all the contradictions and impossibilities in the OCT.

[Babe Ruth]

Liquid Gardens, on 12 December 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

I think I always give you straight answers, BR.



No, your views are radical in the definitional sense as far as Shanksville.  The vast majority of people, and of CTs as far as I can tell, do not dispute that there was a plane that crashed with humans on board at Shanksville, thus your very minority position here is by definition an extreme one, and 'radical' is a synonym of 'extreme'.  Your continued invocation of Orwell just comes across to me as conceited and silly, it implies that almost everyone, especially here, are under the thumb of the government and gullible.  Except for you of course, who is just a brave patriot with superior intellect and perception struggling courageously against 'the establishment', freed from the mental chains of oppression by the words of George.  As far as Shanksville, your 'truth' only requires you to call the people who say they did find a Boeing and human remains liars, and to pretend that pictures showing the plane parts are fake.  You can keep that kind of 'truth', no thanks.



Then you just don't understand what 'impossible' means and I don't really want to wade through a bunch of your hyperbole to get at whatever points you are trying to make.  I asked for the most questionable part of the official story in response to your question of what I doubt of the official story.  I wasn't really looking for a rehash of short general statements that you've made countless times before, I was hoping for one particular point and some evidence of why it is the most questionable piece of the official story.  There's all kinds of possible middle ground that could be reached on that question which is why I responded to it; I may not find that whatever you think to be the most questionable piece of the official story convinces me that the official story in general is incorrect, but I may agree that it is indeed the most or a questionable point.

Let's keep it real LG.  Neither yourself nor anybody else is able to provide any photos at all of Boeing wreckage at Shanksville, IN CONTEXT.  That is, aside from some photos in a trial of very questionable provenance and completely out of context, you are unable to prove, or to even demonstrate, that there was a 757 in the field that day.  And that is only in the vacuum of suppressed and scrubbed photos and testimony that works against your position.

Oh gosh, I'm sorry.  You asked for the MOST questionable part, and I provided too many questionable parts.

Are you serious LG?

You're somehow missing the notion of the legal term "preponderance of the evidence".  There is so MUCH evidence that works against the official story, 11 years after the fact in the age of the internet, that I erred in giving you too much.

Sorry dude!

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 13 December 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

My apologies sir, I had thought you had denied the existence of molten metals, but I was wrong.

Now, do you also acknowledge the period of time that the molten metal was observed there?

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.

[RaptorBites]

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

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that one of the points of contention was CSV files, as provided to some applicants under FOIA, versus raw data as provided to other applicants.

You are very wrong and I will prove to you why.

The FDR contains raw data which, when using Stutt's decoder, outputs into a CSV file readable by Microsoft Excel or Microsoft access.  

As stated on Warren Stutt's page:

http://www.warrenstu...AL77FDRDecoder/

Quote

This program decodes the raw Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") file for American Airlines Flight 77 (AAL77) included by the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) on CDROMs provided in response to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for information regarding the events of September 11th 2001.

The program allows you to selectively decode parts of the FDR file and generate a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file containing the selected information. The first line of the CSV file contains the parameter names and it can be opened by various programs including Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access.

So basically, the data that both Cimino and Stutt analyzed are one and the same.

Stutt also confirms on his webpage that the CSV does not alter any part of the raw data on decoding.  

Found here:

Quote

In the interests of transparency in showing that the program is really generating its output from the raw FDR file, you can download the C# source code. I used Microsoft Visual C# 2010 Express Edition to create it. You can look at the .cs source files using any text editor, and you can download the Microsoft Visual C# 2010 Express Edition from Microsoft to compile it. Alternatively, you may be able to get a DVD with the Visual Studio Express Editions from your local Microsoft sales office.

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

Yes, it appears that whatever data provided by the government, in either CSV or raw data, is manipulated or created out of whole cloth.  That is, both Cimino and STutt were provided fictitious data.  Whereas Cimino recognized that he had been provided fluff and false information, it appears that Stutt believes that what he had been provided was The Real Deal.

Let us put the whole "created out of whole cloth" statement into perspective.

Was Flight 77 active 25 hours prior to the crash at the Pentagon?   Answer: Yes
Did Flight 77 undergo any type of major maintainence 25 hours prior to the crash?  Answer: No
Is it possible to pull an active FDR off a plane during the boarding process?  Answer: No

So at what point in time was anyone able to pull the FDR off Flight 77, keeping 24-25 hours of flight record in tact and manipulating the final 30 minutes?

You have to remember, the black box is not accessible by any means without taking the plane out for maintainence.

So at what point in time was anyone able to process 25 hours of data matching exactly what flight 77 did within the last 25 hours of flight?  

So, pointing out the fact that all that data was manipulated is a pretty far stretch of imagination.

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

I say that the government is well practiced at the art of deception.  Considering that one of the fundamental tenets of military strategy is deception, it's no surprise that the Pentagon would attempt to deceive those civilians analyzing data regarding the events of the day.  If the Pentagon had its druthers, there would be NO data released.  As it was, it took years for the data to be provided in accordance with FOIA law.

Read above.

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

Yessir, my One Trick Pony might be the truth, and the odds are it IS the truth, all things considered.

Which so far, your "twoof" is not holding up to any kind of scruitny what-so-ever.  

Cimino was not able to decode properly the final 4 seconds on that FDR, Stutts was, and the final 4 seconds confirmed impact.  Heck it showed the nose of flight 77 was 4 ft off the ground right at impact.  Is Cimino still touting that a plane did not hit the Pentagon and still supporting Fetzer's fly-over theory?

My god...../facepalm.

Babe 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?

It is only silly and irrelevant to you.  What ever happened to looking at the big picture?  What ever happened to looking at evidence in its entirety.  

25 hours of flight record matches the last 25 hours of radar data on flight 77...DOWN TO THE SECOND.  I'm, sure that is irrelevant to you, but to most investigators, it tells a whole lot more.

Those 25 hours of data you want to hand wave conclusively shows that the FDR data came from flight 77.  The fact that you scoff at the idea that i even mentioned it shows a level of ignorance on your part.

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

No Raptor, you misunderstand where I'm coming from.  I don't really care who is right--Cimino or Stutt--because there is SO MUCH OTHER material that works against the official story.  Close analysis of government provided information reveals all manner of irregularities, besides even the simultaneous setting of the altimeters.  From suspicious and irregular gate locations, irregular INS procedures, claims that GPS equipment was onboard when it could not have been, cell phone calls that could not have been, aerodynamic maneuvers that could not have been.  Good Lord man, it's almost impossible to count all the contradictions and impossibilities in the OCT.

Keep telling yourself that BR.

[Q24]

RaptorBites, on 13 December 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Let us put the whole "created out of whole cloth" statement into perspective.

Was Flight 77 active 25 hours prior to the crash at the Pentagon?   Answer: Yes
Did Flight 77 undergo any type of major maintainence 25 hours prior to the crash?  Answer: No
Is it possible to pull an active FDR off a plane during the boarding process?  Answer: No

So at what point in time was anyone able to pull the FDR off Flight 77, keeping 24-25 hours of flight record in tact and manipulating the final 30 minutes?

You have to remember, the black box is not accessible by any means without taking the plane out for maintainence.

So at what point in time was anyone able to process 25 hours of data matching exactly what flight 77 did within the last 25 hours of flight?  

So, pointing out the fact that all that data was manipulated is a pretty far stretch of imagination.

It is not a stretch of the imagination but all rather simple.

In context of a switch, there was a period where both FDRs of the repossessed Flight 77 and the crashed drone flight were ‘out of service’/available for manipulation prior to NTSB receipt.  Then, after contradictory reports of where the FDR was found, it turns up with no identifying serial number, which is unprecedented.  It’s not difficult to combine two FDR data series, which I believe ultimately consist of a sequence of 0s and 1s, and place them in a single unit.

In all, what we do have on record is not evidence of the aircraft identity, i.e. without the process of collection, audit trail and at least a serial number, it is worthless in this regard.  Though it does indicate that ‘a’ plane departed and ‘a’ plane impacted the Pentagon.  The same plane?  Well, that's were the lack of physical investigation let everyone down.

[RaptorBites]

Q24, on 13 December 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

It is not a stretch of the imagination but all rather simple.

In context of a switch, there was a period where both FDRs of the repossessed Flight 77 and the crashed drone flight were ‘out of service’/available for manipulation prior to NTSB receipt.  Then, after contradictory reports of where the FDR was found, it turns up with no identifying serial number, which is unprecedented.  It’s not difficult to combine two FDR data series, which I believe ultimately consist of a sequence of 0s and 1s, and place them in a single unit.

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.

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?

Q24, on 13 December 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

In all, what we do have on record is not evidence of the aircraft identity, i.e. without the process of collection, audit trail and at least a serial number, it is worthless in this regard.  Though it does indicate that ‘a’ plane departed and ‘a’ plane impacted the Pentagon.  The same plane?  Well, that's were the lack of physical investigation let everyone down.

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

Although the previous 25 hours of FDR raw data matches the last 25 hours of flight of AA77 down to the second.

Edited by RaptorBites, 13 December 2012 - 07:15 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 13 December 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Let's keep it real LG.  Neither yourself nor anybody else is able to provide any photos at all of Boeing wreckage at Shanksville, IN CONTEXT.

Please show us a Tu-154 in this photo.



In case you don't  know what a Tu-154 looks like, here it is.



Photos taken of the wreckage of United 93 have been presented here many times.

Quote

That is, aside from some photos in a trial of very questionable provenance and completely out of context, you are unable to prove, or to even demonstrate, that there was a 757 in the field that day.

Of course it was proven that United 93 crashed near shanksville and you were made aware of the facts. Any pilot would have known that there would be nothing left of an aircraft striking the ground from a steep angle at over 500 mph as was the case with United 93. Just the other day, a Lear jet carrying a famous singer crashed in Mexico and all that was left were bits and pieces and  nothing that resembled an intact Lear jet.

Quote

And that is only in the vacuum of suppressed and scrubbed photos and testimony that works against your position.

Now wait a minute!! You were the person who first brought coroner Wally Miller into the argument and now look what you are posting! You didn't like his remark  when he slammed people like you for distorting his initial statements.

That doesn't work in your case since you have admitted to having fun from time to time and this is just another case where you continue to distort the facts.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 13 December 2012 - 07:05 PM, said:

In context of a switch, there was a period where both FDRs of the repossessed Flight 77 and the crashed drone flight were ‘out of service’/available for manipulation prior to NTSB receipt.

The Boeing Co. and American Airlines sent information needed to facilitate the investigation involving FDR data of American 77 and that information pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77, and no other aircraft.

Quote

In all, what we do have on record is not evidence of the aircraft identity, i.e. without the process of collection, audit trail and at least a serial number, it is worthless in this regard.

Each part of an aircraft have part and/or serial numbers stamped for indentification purposes.



We already  know that a B-757 was involved in the incident at the Pentagon and B-757 parts have been identified as well. In addition, American Airlines, operator of American 77, confirmed the loss of American 77 and remains of passengers and crew of American 77 were recovered from the  Pentagon and have been identified and those facts leave no room for 9/11 conspiracist to claim the aircraft cannot be identified.

Quote

Though it does indicate that ‘a’ plane departed...

What do you mean, "departed?" Do you mean that Air Force C-130, which was asked by air traffic controllers to follow American 77, which came close to colliding with that C-130? Did you watch the interview of that C-130 pilot on the 9/11 documentary the other day? He mentioned that the B-757 came so close to his aircraft that it filled his windscreen.

I might add that a C-130 does not resemble a B-757.



C-130



B-757

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 December 2012 - 07:57 PM.