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

#1591    ADDIS77

ADDIS77

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri

Posted 23 August 2012 - 02:20 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 August 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

I'll be surprised if Gofer 06 isn't implicated as a government shill of some kind...  Perhaps something about how you can't trust the government and military because there have been documented cases where people involved with the government and military were less than honest.  Just wait.  :rolleyes:

The only pushback I've ever received about that recording was from Aldo at CIT. He claims all evidence that originated from the government has been faked. And we all know why he says that.

No other conspiracy theorist has really commented one way or the other. We'll see how it goes here.


#1592    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,208 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 23 August 2012 - 02:22 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 August 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

I'll be surprised if Gofer 06 isn't implicated as a government shill of some kind...  Perhaps something about how you can't trust the government and military because there have been documented cases where people involved with the government and military were less than honest.  Just wait.  :rolleyes:

Im still waiting for the "liar liar pants on fire" argument.

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

#1593    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 August 2012 - 02:29 AM

View PostADDIS77, on 23 August 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

The only pushback I've ever received about that recording was from Aldo at CIT. He claims all evidence that originated from the government has been faked. And we all know why he says that.

No other conspiracy theorist has really commented one way or the other. We'll see how it goes here.
Now that we've talked about it, perhaps the accusation won't come.  But I guarantee you that at least one ( and probably more than that ) will certainly think it.

View PostRaptorBites, on 23 August 2012 - 02:22 AM, said:

Im still waiting for the "liar liar pants on fire" argument.
Yep, me too :P

Posted Image


#1594    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 23 August 2012 - 06:01 AM

View PostWandering, on 23 August 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

Some of the pictures you bring up make me laugh Sky. This is your evidence?

That's right!!

Quote

A red arrow with a "?" next to it? I can see the high quality investigation paid for itself! :lol:

Considering that I KNOW it is part of a B-757,  and you didn't, makes it is obvious you don't get the last laugh in this case, you didn't recognize the part. Now, what do you see in the fan section aft of the fan blades in the lower diagram?


Posted Image
Cut-away of the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan

What part is the arrow pointing that you will find in the diagram above?

Posted Image

Here is a closer  look.

Posted Image

It was rather silly of you to make such comments, not knowing the significance of what that picture represented, because you didn't know that the part came from the engine model used by American 77!!    

Now, look at the imagery of the Rolls-Royce RB211-535 turbofan engine behind the fan blades and tell us what do you see. Sometimes you crack my side!

I've got your picture and know that you are just here to 'clown around' and nothing else! :lol: :w00t:

Posted Image

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 August 2012 - 07:00 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1595    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 23 August 2012 - 08:39 AM

View PostWandering, on 23 August 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

Some of the pictures you bring up make me laugh Sky. This is your evidence? A red arrow with a "?" next to it? I can see the high quality investigation paid for itself! :lol:

I think its time for you to learn a little lesson since it is very clear you do not have knowledge of jet engines as noted by your silly remarks. I recognized the part as a stator, which you made very clear that you lacked the knowledge, so I am willing to spend a little time to educate you a bit on some facts since my shop was involved in maintenance and repair of jet engine components and other things, and in fact, I am adding an attachment of a photo I took in my shop of a stator we repaired from a General Electric TF-39C engine that powers the Air Force's C-5 transport. I regularly took photos for record purposes in my files.

First of all, examine the following diagram of a typical fan jet engine and take notes on the fan section.

Posted Image

Now,  let's take a look at the next diagram. Can you tell us where the fan stator is located? Could it be behind the N1 compressor fan blades and surrounding the N2 compressor?

Posted Image


Now, review the following to understand basically what a stator looks like.

Posted Image

There are stators located within the compression section as well.

Posted Image

Posted Image

However, I am talking about the fan stator.



Posted Image

TF39 engine


So let's do another review of the Pentagon photo.

Posted Image


Now, what can you tell us about that stator in the Pentagon photo with the question mark? Apparently, the person who placed the question mark was unaware of what it was, and so did you until now!!

Attached Thumbnails

  • STATOR2.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 August 2012 - 09:13 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1596    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,735 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 23 August 2012 - 12:34 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 23 August 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

I have to say that a video is not required to prove that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

Under the circumstances......ie.millions of people believing the US government committed mass murder and high treason
against it's own citizens...

I think it is required....


Quote

There is no way to plant debris and play it off as the airframe of American 77. Many of those parts lying around the Pentagon have part numbers on them, and certain part and stock numbers can reveal the service history of a particular part, the mechanic who installed the part, the location of installation, the installation date, manufacturer, and the name and number of the inspectors.


Sky....are there any bits of debris you can show that has been 100% identified as being flight 77...with the numbers on them?

and I mean 100%


cheers


.


#1597    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,735 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 23 August 2012 - 12:55 PM

View PostADDIS77, on 22 August 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

I always thought this image from the security shack camera was fairly compelling:


Posted Image

View PostADDIS77, on 22 August 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

Here's what I came up with today:

Posted Image
Posted Image

Hope they help.


ETA: I should've read through the thread first, others have beat me to it.

Thanks for the welcomes everyone.


ADDIS.....the second picture you posted has the same problem as the first...in that the 'engine'.....in front of the 'white trail'

is not in the right position.


It is much too close to the 'tail'......and should be more central.


picture of 757-223 for comparison (provided by booN on first page of thread)

http://www.airliners...b83c6bd81834d78


Did you get your two later pics, above, from booNs post on the first page....?

I'm asking because when you right click 'properties on your images the address actually contains the word boon.... :mellow:

If you did then you should give booN some credit....:)


#1598    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 23 August 2012 - 02:28 PM

View Postbee, on 23 August 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

ADDIS.....the second picture you posted has the same problem as the first...in that the 'engine'.....in front of the 'white trail'

is not in the right position.


It is much too close to the 'tail'......and should be more central.


picture of 757-223 for comparison (provided by booN on first page of thread)

http://www.airliners...b83c6bd81834d78
Actually bee, the plane is coming in at an angle, not directly side on, as frenat mentioned to you before.

Last week I did some hunting around on airliners.net to try to find a closer match to a 757-223 at the correct angle, and I came up with a list of some at varying degrees for comparison.  Haven't had the time to pull in the best fit yet, but here is a sampling of a few I looked at:

2121593
2103650
2082427
2043179
1980103
1966517
1935813
1910624
1799553
1744954
1720844
1720541

Some of these are at too sharp of an angle, and some at not enough of an angle, and several are facing the wrong direction so would need to be horizontally flipped for comparison.

I went for some with a slightly raised perspective to try to find something representative of the left wing being lower than the right wing, as it was for 77 on approach to impact.



View Postbee, on 23 August 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

Did you get your two later pics, above, from booNs post on the first page....?

I'm asking because when you right click 'properties on your images the address actually contains the word boon.... :mellow:

If you did then you should give booN some credit.... :)
That's funny, but I'm sure it is just a coincidence.  :tu:


#1599    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,735 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 23 August 2012 - 02:32 PM

View PostADDIS77, on 23 August 2012 - 01:14 AM, said:

bolded for emphasis


Yes, the pilot of the C-130 (GOFER 06) did report that the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon was a 757. Below is a you tube video that contains the actual recording if anyone is interested, it's runtime is 3 min. and 18 seconds.



The recording is actually two separate channels spliced together. They are Washington Departure and Reagan Tower. It needs to be pointed out that the guy saying "it went into the Pentagon, it looks like it went into the Pentagon" is a controller in the tower. The actual impact point at the Pentagon is not visible from the tower. However, the eastern half of the Pentagon is visible from that location and anyone who is a proponent of the flyover theory will have to explain how he missed a 757 from 1.2 miles away.


just had a look at this video on YT site and I see the uploader is boone870....the same name as on the address for your pentagon 'plane' images...

so maybe you should have given YOURSELF credit for being the uploader of this vid..... :P

http://www.youtube.com/user/boone870

popular name....boon


:yes:


;)


.


#1600    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,735 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 23 August 2012 - 03:11 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 23 August 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Actually bee, the plane is coming in at an angle, not directly side on, as frenat mentioned to you before.

yes I know that according to the Official Flight Path....the plane is said to come in at an angle...

but it is clear that on the Traffic Cams the 'plane' is more or less horizontal....and the angle is not enough to push the
engine back that far.

Look at the blue line on the alleged fuselage....and the position of the 'nose'

Also on the images that you have kindly provided of all the 757-223s...it looks like the top line of the fuselage would also be angled
for the plane to rotate to the required angle for the engine to be so far back?.
And on the Traffic Cam one there isn't any angle to the top of the fuselage.

but thanks for the 757-223 pics... :)


Quote

That's funny, but I'm sure it is just a coincidence.  :tu:

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


:tu:


:D


.


#1601    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    A complete moral vacuum

  • Member
  • 30,157 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Garmisch-Partenkirchen

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 23 August 2012 - 03:48 PM

View Postbee, on 23 August 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

yes I know that according to the Official Flight Path....the plane is said to come in at an angle...

but it is clear that on the Traffic Cams the 'plane' is more or less horizontal....and the angle is not enough to push the
engine back that far.

Look at the blue line on the alleged fuselage....and the position of the 'nose'

Also on the images that you have kindly provided of all the 757-223s...it looks like the top line of the fuselage would also be angled
for the plane to rotate to the required angle for the engine to be so far back?.
And on the Traffic Cam one there isn't any angle to the top of the fuselage.



:tu:


:D


.
How do you mean, angled? the 757 has a notably straight fuselage.

If, as it seems, we are in the process of becoming a totalitarian society in which the state apparatus is all-powerful, the ethics most important for the survival of the true, free, human individual would be: cheat, lie, evade, fake it, be elsewhere, forge documents, build improved electronic gadgets in your garage that’ll outwit the gadgets used by the authorities.

- Philip K. Dick.


#1602    ADDIS77

ADDIS77

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Missouri

Posted 23 August 2012 - 04:35 PM

View Postbee, on 23 August 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

ADDIS.....the second picture you posted has the same problem as the first...in that the 'engine'.....in front of the 'white trail'

is not in the right position.

It is much too close to the 'tail'......and should be more central.

I have to disagree with you on this point. Like others have said, the aircraft is not approaching the camera perpendicularly, it is coming in at an angle which would make the left engine appear closer to the rear of the fuselage.


View Postbee, on 23 August 2012 - 02:32 PM, said:

so maybe you should have given YOURSELF credit for being the uploader of this vid..... :P

Actually, I should give credit to YouTube user and JREF poster cjnewson88, he provided me with the images. Thanks, CJ!


Quote

popular name....boon.

Ah, yes. I usually post as "Boone 870" or "Boonedoggled" on 9/11 forums. A Boone and boonY on the same forum may cause confusion so I went within an obscure reference to the "9/11 mystery plane" instead.


Any thoughts on the video I posted?


#1603    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,620 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 23 August 2012 - 04:43 PM

Wow.... I weep for Britain's education system.... :no:








Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." - H. L. Mencken

#1604    bee

bee

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,735 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England

Posted 23 August 2012 - 05:21 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 23 August 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Wow.... I weep for Britain's education system.... :no:


awwwww cheer up....wipe away those tears..... :yes:

and have a little shoulder massage ^_^



Posted Image


.


#1605    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 23 August 2012 - 05:27 PM

View Postbee, on 23 August 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

Under the circumstances......ie.millions of people believing the US government committed mass murder and high treason
against it's own citizens...

I think it is required....





Sky....are there any bits of debris you can show that has been 100% identified as being flight 77...with the numbers on them?

and I mean 100%


cheers


.

Because the NTSB was not allowed to conduct a proper investigation, and because the Pentagon did its "investigation" instead, NOBODY got to see any identifying parts or serial numbers.  THAT is rather the problem.  No accountability, just "take my word for it", typical military.

A bunch of pictures out of context proves nothing, and keeping the evidence away from proper investigators strongly suggests subterfuge, involving an agency notorious for its subterfuge. :innocent:





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users