3292 replies to this topic

[Kludge808]

skyeagle409, on 13 August 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Now, you are contraditing yourself in front of us all. You have said that United 93 did not crash while on the other hand, you post this: "93 CVR was played for the surviving family members years ago."

This is the same UAL093* that is or isn't at Iron Mountain.  Or is again.  Or something.

* I was informed that United's flights are all 3 digit when put in this format.  I asked about American's but haven't gotten a reply yet.  Anyway, I changed how I represent Flt 93 'cuz we all know I like to be correct about such things.  

[Babe Ruth]

skyeagle409, on 13 August 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Of course United 93 crashed, and that was confirmed by those at the crash site of United 93 and by United Airlines, operator of United 93.



Now, you are contradicting yourself in front of us all. You have said that United 93 did not crash while on the other hand, you post this: "93 CVR was played for the surviving family members years ago."

OMG, no wonder your posts are so strange.

For the record, I don't know what happened to 93, but I do know that it did not crash at Shanksville.

Further, the OCT is a lie from start to finish.  Therefore, it would be perfectly in character for the Bush Administration to present a fake or doctored CVR from 93 to the public, including the "family members".  Just as they have presented a falsified FDR from 77, presenting a falsified CVR would be the proverbial 'cake walk.'

I really am sorry if this line of reasoning is too complicated for you Sky, but when I speak of any "evidence" presented by the government regarding virtually anything about 11 September, MY understanding is that the evidence is bogus and artificial.  But my thoughts that way do not prevent me from discussing such bogus evidence with others.  For me, it is more like a discussion of hypothetical scenarios.

[MID]

Babe Ruth, on 13 August 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

OMG, no wonder your posts are so strange.

eally?

Quote

For the record, I don't know what happened to 93, but I do know that it did not crash at Shanksville.

You do...do ya?!

Quote

Further, the OCT is a lie from start to finish. Therefore, it would be perfectly in character for the Bush Administration to present a fake or doctored CVR from 93 to the public, including the "family members". Just as they have presented a falsified FDR from 77, presenting a falsified CVR would be the proverbial 'cake walk.'

I really am sorry if this line of reasoning is too complicated for you Sky, but when I speak of any "evidence" presented by the government regarding virtually anything about 11 September, MY understanding is that the evidence is bogus and artificial. But my thoughts that way do not prevent me from discussing such bogus evidence with others. For me, it is more like a discussion of hypothetical scenarios.

Well, then, there is always that small issue (other than the fact that you're completely wrong):


We are still waiting for your proof...
Hate to keep bringing it up, but if you attempt to prove your contention, it'll be fun.
Listening to you babble on with the same tired declarations of "fact" (sic) about that which you understand nothing is boring in extremis.

[RaptorBites]

Babe Ruth, on 13 August 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

OMG, no wonder your posts are so strange.

For the record, I don't know what happened to 93, but I do know that it did not crash at Shanksville.

So basically you can't sit there and tell me that your explanation is based on fact.

Here is a hypothetical question for you BR.  Since you cannot explain to us where flight 93 is, but the US GUBMINT and United Airlines, including the teams doing the recovery eoffrts say A PLANE crashed in shanksville, then wouldn't common sense tell you flight 93 is there?

Babe Ruth, on 13 August 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

Further, the OCT is a lie from start to finish.  Therefore, it would be perfectly in character for the Bush Administration to present a fake or doctored CVR from 93 to the public, including the "family members".  Just as they have presented a falsified FDR from 77, presenting a falsified CVR would be the proverbial 'cake walk.'

Since you went ahead and stated that it was in character of the bush administration.  Already you show bias in your opinoion.  So how can we take you seriously?

Babe Ruth, on 13 August 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

I really am sorry if this line of reasoning is too complicated for you Sky, but when I speak of any "evidence" presented by the government regarding virtually anything about 11 September, MY understanding is that the evidence is bogus and artificial.  But my thoughts that way do not prevent me from discussing such bogus evidence with others.  For me, it is more like a discussion of hypothetical scenarios.

/facepalm

[Professor Buzzkill]

Kludge808, on 13 August 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

Or I make it more challenging ...



See?  Like that.  

The way I see it is as follows;

1) you can see the Pentagon
2) you can see the explosion (including the "point of impact")
3) you cannot see a commercial airliner (but you can see much smaller vehicles (like trucks etc) close to the Pentagon)

Now, its that simple to me. But i am sure you are going to make me sound like an idiot with a convoluted and complicated answer.

[Czero 101]

Professor Buzzkill, on 13 August 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

The way I see it is as follows;

1) you can see the Pentagon
2) you can see the explosion (including the "point of impact")
3) you cannot see a commercial airliner (but you can see much smaller vehicles (like trucks etc) close to the Pentagon)

1) No you can't.
2) Explosion, yes. Point of impact, no
3) Right. You cannot see an aircraft, but you can see trucks etc. because they are traveling along the raised section of Highway 395 that sits between the Doubletree Hotel and the Pentagon, thereby blocking the camera's view of the Pentagon.

Quote

Now, its that simple to me.

Simple, sure... but wrong nonetheless.

Quote

But i am sure you are going to make me sound like an idiot

Nope... You've done a bang-up job of that on your own...

Quote

with a convoluted and complicated answer.

No, actually my answer was and is very simple and easily provable by anyone who knows how to use Google Maps.







Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 13 August 2012 - 10:25 PM.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Czero 101, on 13 August 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

2) Explosion, yes. Point of impact, no


Nope... You've done a bang-up job of that on your own...


Cz

I can definitely see the point of impact. BTW, good job on keeping up your condescending attitude   It must be hard always being right (not for you obviously, just for anyone who has to talk to you)

[RaptorBites]

Professor Buzzkill, on 13 August 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

I can definitely see the point of impact. BTW, good job on keeping up your condescending attitude   It must be hard always being right (not for you obviously, just for anyone who has to talk to you)

I also fail to see the point of impact.

Maybe its just me, but hwy 395 seems to cover most of the view.

[Czero 101]

Professor Buzzkill, on 13 August 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

I can definitely see the point of impact.

No, actually you can't. You are only seeing what you want to see, or what you have been told you can see, not what is actually there.

It is physically impossible for the point of impact to be seen in that video.


"A" indactes the location of the Doubletree Inn, approx
Blue Arrow indicates approximate flightpath of Flt. 77
Black Lines indicate approximate boundaries of the field of view (light yellow area) of the Doubletree security camera.

The Doubletree is located at 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. which is about 1/2 mile southeast of the Pentagon, and south of Highway 395. Look it up on Google Maps.

Highway 395 passes over S. Fern St., S. Eads St. and the Jefferson Davis Highway, all in proximity to the Doubletree.

Go the the Street View of the intersection of Army Navy Drive and S. Eads Street and face North. You'll see the overpass and by comparing it to the known or knowable heights of the vehicles there, you can estimate the height of the overpass at roughly 30 feet.


Street View of the intersection of Army Navy Drive and S. Eads Street, facing north.
Blue Line indicates the location of the S. Eads street underpass.
Yellow Line indicates the position of the "Hwy 395 North - Washington" sign
Red Line indicates the position of the overhead street signs on the Hwy. 395 overpass

Look at the video footage. You'll notice that the camera is roughly 10 feet off the ground (the camera also has a wide-angle lens which distorts the image, but we can ignore that for now).


Screen Cap of the Doubletree Security Camera extended video paused approximately 1 second before the fireball of the impact explosion becomes visible.
Blue Line indicates the location of the S. Eads street underpass.
Yellow Line indicates the position of the "Hwy 395 North - Washington" sign
Red Line indicates the position of the overhead street signs on the Hwy. 395 overpass

The Pentagon is less than 80 feet high, so the absolute very most you might be able to see would be just the very top of the roof of the building if the video were of sufficient quality (which it isn't).

The approach flightpath of Flt. 77 would similarly be hidden by the overpass

Given that we know that the aircraft (or whatever you personally believe it was that hit the Pentagon) hit the building around the second floor, there is no way whatsoever that the impact point is visible in that video, unless you are going to contend that the Doubletree's camera was able to see through a highway overpass and through the Pentagon itself since the impact point is on the other side of the building in relation to the Doubletree Inn.

But you don't have to believe me. You can do the work and prove it to yourself... I highly recommend you prove it to yourself, actually, since it is the only way that you can be sure.

Quote

BTW, good job on keeping up your condescending attitude   It must be hard always being right (not for you obviously, just for anyone who has to talk to you)

If I'm wrong, show me how. Do the work. Look up the locations I've given you and that are freely available.

Don't hate just because you haven't done the work yourself...


ETA...

This also shows why the "Flyover Theory" is not possible, since an aircraft flying over the Pentagon would almost certainly have been seen in this video.

I guess some thanks should go to lliqerty for bringing this video to our attention again so that we could use it as proof against yet another conspiracy theory...






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 13 August 2012 - 11:30 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 13 August 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

For the record, I don't know what happened to 93, but I do know that it did not crash at Shanksville.

I think you do know what happened! After all, you've presented Coroner Wally Miller to us and and what did he confirm?

Quote

Further, the OCT is a lie from start to finish

Evidence please! No evidence, no case.

Quote

Therefore, it would be perfectly in character for the Bush Administration to present a fake or doctored CVR from 93 to the public, including the "family members".

Evidence please! No evidence, no case.

Quote

Just as they have presented a falsified FDR from 77, presenting a falsified CVR would be the proverbial 'cake walk.'

Evidence please! No evidence, no case.

Quote

I really am sorry if this line of reasoning is too complicated for you Sky, but when I speak of any "evidence" presented by the government regarding virtually anything about 11 September, MY understanding is that the evidence is bogus and artificial.

Evidence please! No evidence, no case.

Quote

But my thoughts that way do not prevent me from discussing such bogus evidence with others.  For me, it is more like a discussion of hypothetical scenarios.

Let's take a look at the reasons why I am asking for evidence from you.

1. You've claimed that no aircraft crashed into the Pentagon despite the fact that aircraft wreckage was recovered from inside and outside the Pentgagon.

2. You've claimed that no Boeing crashed into the Pentagon despite wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon, which has been visually identified as wreckage from a B-757.

3. You've suggested that the explosives were used knock down the light poles leading to the Pentagon when it was very clear the light poles suffered impact damage.

4, You've clamed that molten steel was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings when in fact, there was no such discovery, and the molten metal flowing from WTC 2 did not depict the characteristics of molten steel.

5. You've claimed that a nuclear device was used to collapse the WTC Towers and yet, experts on the scene have said there was no evidence of explosives, either on video, audio, or detected by monitors in the area nor seen be demolition experts in the area.

6. You've claimed that thermite was used despite the fact that thermite is not widely used by demolition companies. Do you know why?

7. You've claimed that no aircraft could have made the crater found at the crash site near  Shanksville despite the fact that photos of other aircraft crash sites depict similar craters as well

8. You've claimed that American 77 descended at 4000 fpm from 7,000 feet despite the fact no such thing occurred.  You've also claimed that American 77 pulled high Gs, which wasn't true either.

9. You've claimed that it took superhuman strength to do what Hani had done, which was untrue.

10. You've threw in the P700 anti-ship missile as a missile that struck the Pentagon attack, which was amusing because it has shown that you do not know the difference between a land attack missile and an anti-ship missile and simple common sense should have told you there were a number of reasons why that missile could not have been responsible for the attack on the Pentagon.

11. You/ve claimed that the aircraft, which struck the WTC Towers, were flown under remote control. Have you even given thought as to how anyone could have modifiied the B-767s under the nose of the mechanics and inspectors of American Airlnes and United Airlines and FAA inspectors for several months? Have you even thought of how anyone could have imodified the airframes and ntegrated remote control systems with the flight systems of the B-767 and B-757? Remember, we are not talking about the old B-707 and B-720.

12. You've made claims the aircraft were switched without accounting for the passengers, crew, and airframes of those flights. Did ACARS show that those aircraft landed anywhere else? No!!

13. You've made claims that the governement lied about the 9/11 attacks and did not understand that American Airlines and United Airlines are not government agencies and yet, they also confirmed the loss of their aircraft on 9/11/2001.

14. You've made a claim that there were two radio calls of two different flights of United 175, despite the fact that the ground control transcript shows no such thing.

The list goes on and on and those are just a few of your ridicules claims and reasons why you have been challenged to provide evidence, and remember, if you can't provide the evidence to backup what you say, you have no case.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 August 2012 - 12:06 AM.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Czero 101, on 13 August 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Cz

So what you are saying is that the Pentagon is not visible in the footage at all?

How low must the plane have been flying to be blocked by the overpass and for how long? It appears that the plane would have had to pass over a spaghetti junction of some kind as well.

[mrbusdriver]

Nice work CZ

...but the pfffttttt crowd seems to endorse the flyover scenario...they say the plane never hit the Pentagon based on their interpretation of the reconstructed FDR data...
We know something big hit the thing, all that orange flame implies fuel...lots of it. And something massive punched through several walls of the structure, but didn't explode anywhere along the way...just lots of structural damage and fire. Left a lot of 757 parts along the way.

Occam's Razor is looming large...wonder if the Tower controllers who watched the Hani Maneuver saw a 757 fly out the other side? Or anyone?

[Czero 101]

Professor Buzzkill, on 13 August 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

So what you are saying is that the Pentagon is not visible in the footage at all?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Even being generous, at the very most you'd maybe see just the top few feet of the roof of the Pentagon, if the video was of high enough quality to allow you to see that distinction between the roof and the overpass.

Quote

How low must the plane have been flying to be blocked by the overpass and for how long? It appears that the plane would have had to pass over a spaghetti junction of some kind as well.

Yes, the plane did pass over that cloverleaf (I don't know the name of the exchange) and it is also on the other side of the Hwy. 395 overpass, and just at the edge of the approximate field of view of the Doubletree camera. That Hwy. 395 overpass is also higher than the cloverleaf and Hwy. 27, which can be seen again by using Street View.

Flt. 77 was flying at about 750 feet per second so it would only have been "in frame" for about 1.5 to 2 seconds maximum.

Flt.77 would have had to have been at or near 20 feet in altitude (maybe even a little less) when it would have entered the theoretical frame (if the camera could have seen it) which would make the highest point of the aircraft - the tail - only about 65 feet high at that moment, which is lower than the overall height of the Pentagon itself.

This is also about the altitude the aircraft would have had to have been to account for it having hit and damaged / destroyed the light poles along Hwy. 27, immediately to the west of the Pentagon, which would also be just on the "edge of frame" of the Doubletree camera.

I haven't done the math to figure out the angles, but my guess is that the aircraft would have had to have been at over 100 feet in altitude to have had any chance of being seen over the overpass in this video.






Cz

EDITED a bit for clarity...

Edited by Czero 101, 14 August 2012 - 12:34 AM.

[lliqerty]

MID, on 13 August 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

We are still waiting for your proof...
Hate to keep bringing it up, but ...
Listening to you babble...

That is where you got it all wrong. People do not need to prove their innocence.

The government needs to prove its case before convicting a person - much less whole countries - and before sending its own people to kill and be killed.

The government is in control of ALL evidence and only allows small bits and pieces for independent scrutiny. Why?

[lliqerty]

Kludge808, on 13 August 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

The ones from Flts AAL11 and UAL175 I believe were completely destroyed.  The one from AAL77 was recovered but the contents only partially recoverable. I think new attempts are being made on it but I can't be certain.  UAL93 has already been answered.

"partially recoverable"? They are designed to withstand worse than a crash.