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

#2971    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:07 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 11 December 2012 - 11:21 PM, said:

Ask Warren Stutt yourself, if you want to know.


http://forums.randi....&postcount=4292

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

BTW, it's no wonder Warren Stutt was banned from P4T after releasing data that Balsamo and P4T was wrong about flight 77.  


Ahh, I see.  Great defense Raptor.  I guess I should expect a similar defense of Stutt's ARINC data interpretation?

Does this mean you will take a pass on my hypothetical regarding a midair between 2 of the same type aircraft?  How investigators might determine which FDR belongs to which aircraft?

Edited by Babe Ruth, 12 December 2012 - 02:09 PM.


#2972    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:14 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Ahh, I see.  Great defense Raptor.  I guess I should expect a similar defense of Stutt's ARINC data interpretation?

Does this mean you will take a pass on my hypothetical regarding a midair between 2 of the same type aircraft?  How investigators might determine which FDR belongs to which aircraft?

Why would I take a pass on your hypothetical?  Like in my other post, identification of any aircraft on the FDR can also be gained by the history of its flight.  

Yes or No?

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

#2973    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,005 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:37 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

Just curious if you might say which parts of the government story regarding the events of 11 September you do not believe?  Assuming I'm understandiing your position correctly that there are parts you question.

Regarding 9/11, the thing that comes immediately to mind is the idea that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, I don't believe that based on what I know currently.  I'm not sure if that counts in the category of 'events of 9/11' though.  I've gone the most in-depth on 9/11 concerning the possible demolition with my discussion with Q, but based on what I know so far, I don't find demolition at this point to be the best and most parsimonious explanation for the WTC collapses.  I'm not sure my position is accurately translated as I think the government lies about every topic, which is part of the reason I keep bringing up the space shuttle example.  I just don't find arguments of the type for example,  'the government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin so that is evidence they lied about 9/11' to be that valid or convincing.

One of the issues is that there are some things, but not IMO as many as some CTs assert, that we have almost no information on outside of government sources.  We have very little to go on outside of the govt as far as evaluating the performance of intelligence agencies, and their explanation that, despite there being some warnings that something like 9/11 was going to occur, the conflicts and lack of cooperation between the discrete agencies allowed things to fall through the cracks isn't something we can easily validate independently.  But 'the government lies' meme is on equal standing in my mind with 'the government is inept and inefficient' meme, so it's no surprise that they made mistakes.  

Maybe if you or someone could provide an example of what you consider the most questionable specific piece of the official story I could give you my feedback on that.  Specific to you BR, I would be looking for something that is a little more mainstream than some of the arguments you champion here.  You of course can believe anything you'd like, but I think you realize that the notions of no plane in Shanksville for instance is an extreme position and is controversial even amongst CTs, so things like that are probably not the best examples.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#2974    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,104 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:47 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Ahh, I see.  Great defense Raptor.  I guess I should expect a similar defense of Stutt's ARINC data interpretation?

Does this mean you will take a pass on my hypothetical regarding a midair between 2 of the same type aircraft?  How investigators might determine which FDR belongs to which aircraft?
Would both FDRs be exactly the same model?  and completely detached from any identifying pieces of fuselage?  Or have the exact same flight time, route and controls recorded on them?  I have trouble believing it is a serious question.  That, or you just didn't put much thought into it.

-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

#2975    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:50 PM

View Postfrenat, on 12 December 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

Would both FDRs be exactly the same model?  and completely detached from any identifying pieces of fuselage?  Or have the exact same flight time, route and controls recorded on them?  I have trouble believing it is a serious question.  That, or you just didn't put much thought into it.

Exactly.  

However, to answer his hypothetical question, it really would only take identifying the flight history on either FDR to find out the point of origin where the plane took off prior to the mid-air collision.  

I am sure that information will also be stored in the FDR data.

The question itself really has no meaning as there is other data to support the identification on which aircraft the FDR belongs to.

In the case of flight 77, there was an additional 24-25 hours of flight record on the decoded data which matches exactly to the seconds of Flight 77's previous flight plans and radar data.

Why would PffT at some point in time banned Stutt soon after the release of his co-authored paper with Legge stating the FDR data agrees with the official story.  Stutt was also able to decode the final "missing" 4 seconds of the FDR data, which technically was not missing but corrupted on the initial decoding software.

Edited by RaptorBites, 12 December 2012 - 06:56 PM.

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

#2976    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:07 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

Ahh, I see.  Great defense Raptor.  I guess I should expect a similar defense of Stutt's ARINC data interpretation?

Does this mean you will take a pass on my hypothetical regarding a midair between 2 of the same type aircraft?  How investigators might determine which FDR belongs to which aircraft?

What have I said before about conversion formulas obtained from the Boeing Company and American Airlines that applied ONLY to the FDR of American 77 and no other aircraft?

On another note, I wished you had the opportunity to watch the documentary last night on 9/11 where it was shown that even as the transponder was turned off, the image of the aircraft remained on the  radar screen. Only the aircraft information disappeared from the radar screen, not the aircraft itself, which is in direct conflict of what 9/11 conspiracist have claimed.

Edited by skyeagle409, 12 December 2012 - 07:15 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#2977    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 09:54 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 12 December 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Why would I take a pass on your hypothetical?  Like in my other post, identification of any aircraft on the FDR can also be gained by the history of its flight.  

Yes or No?

Not necessarily.  The FDR records flight data.  I'm no expert, and don't know about the newer digital units, but the older units only recorded the last 30 minutes of flight and did not record geographical position.  I would not be surprised if the newer digital units did record such information, assuming the airplane was equipped with GPS and that data was also recorded on the FDR.  Don't know.

You are dodging, old buddy, old pal.  You are very capable of straight answers--I've seen many of them.  This is not a straight answer and we both know it.

But you bring up another interesting point to discuss and speculate about--whether or not the various 4 aircraft involved had the newer digital FDR or the older analog version.  I have read discussion elsewhere that suggest that by serial number of the aircraft, making certain assumptions, 1 or 2 of these aircraft might have been too old to have the digital FDR and would have had the analog versions.

And, as I recall, it seems that 1 or 2 had another (imagine that!) anomaly.  It seems one had a digital FDR, but an analog CVR, raising the question of why would an airline switch out one but not the other?  Good question, and I don't know the answer, but if true, it goes on the pile of "weird irregularities associated with the events of 11 September."


#2978    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:09 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 12 December 2012 - 04:37 PM, said:

Regarding 9/11, the thing that comes immediately to mind is the idea that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, I don't believe that based on what I know currently.  I'm not sure if that counts in the category of 'events of 9/11' though.  I've gone the most in-depth on 9/11 concerning the possible demolition with my discussion with Q, but based on what I know so far, I don't find demolition at this point to be the best and most parsimonious explanation for the WTC collapses.  I'm not sure my position is accurately translated as I think the government lies about every topic, which is part of the reason I keep bringing up the space shuttle example.  I just don't find arguments of the type for example,  'the government lied about the Gulf of Tonkin so that is evidence they lied about 9/11' to be that valid or convincing.

One of the issues is that there are some things, but not IMO as many as some CTs assert, that we have almost no information on outside of government sources.  We have very little to go on outside of the govt as far as evaluating the performance of intelligence agencies, and their explanation that, despite there being some warnings that something like 9/11 was going to occur, the conflicts and lack of cooperation between the discrete agencies allowed things to fall through the cracks isn't something we can easily validate independently.  But 'the government lies' meme is on equal standing in my mind with 'the government is inept and inefficient' meme, so it's no surprise that they made mistakes.  

Maybe if you or someone could provide an example of what you consider the most questionable specific piece of the official story I could give you my feedback on that.  Specific to you BR, I would be looking for something that is a little more mainstream than some of the arguments you champion here.  You of course can believe anything you'd like, but I think you realize that the notions of no plane in Shanksville for instance is an extreme position and is controversial even amongst CTs, so things like that are probably not the best examples.

Thanks for the straight answer.

Actually, we DO HAVE information "outside of government sources," and that is rather the heart of the matter, 11 years after the fact, and in the age of the internet.  Simply put, because the Bush administration refused to conduct a proper investigation for the better part of 2 years, and made so many inconsistent and strange statements during that time, (statements of Ms Rice for example), many ordinary citizens were thrown into the 'private investigator' role.  That situation was made even greater by the sham reports of NIST and the Zelikow Commission.  Many citizen investigators have uncovered all sorts of rather incestuous relationships between the many players.

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.  But let that one go for the moment.

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.


#2979    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:15 PM

View Postfrenat, on 12 December 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

Would both FDRs be exactly the same model?  and completely detached from any identifying pieces of fuselage?  Or have the exact same flight time, route and controls recorded on them?  I have trouble believing it is a serious question.  That, or you just didn't put much thought into it.

They may or may not be the same model, but that is certainly a good question.  In the hypothetical, if both airplanes belonged to the same airline, it would seem likely they would be identical FDR units.

It is a serious question, if one understands the requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations and NTSB procedures.

As I've already mentioned, older FDR recorded only the last 30 minutes of flight, and they recorded things such as control surface positions and movement, throttle and engine positions and settings, and of course bank, pitch and yaw values.

As to all the data recorded on the newer units, and exactly when those units went into service, when they might have been replaced, and things like that, I don't know.

But I do know that no other part of the entire story is true, so I'm quite skeptical of what 'data' might be offered up by a government up to its eyeballs in coverup mode.


#2980    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:16 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Not necessarily.  The FDR records flight data.  I'm no expert, and don't know about the newer digital units, but the older units only recorded the last 30 minutes of flight and did not record geographical position.  I would not be surprised if the newer digital units did record such information, assuming the airplane was equipped with GPS and that data was also recorded on the FDR.  Don't know.

You completely dodged the point BR.  Was completely typical of you though.

Warren Stutt decoded up to 25 hours of data off the Flight 77 FDR.  Which BTW, was the same data file Cimino used in his analysis.  So using your "possibly newer FDR's are able to record more but not the old ones I am used to" argument won't work in hand-waving away the FACT that 25 hours of flight data was decoded from the AA77 FDR.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

You are dodging, old buddy, old pal.  You are very capable of straight answers--I've seen many of them.  This is not a straight answer and we both know it.

How is it not a straight answer?  Could the fleet id and tail id be used to identify a FDR's origin?  Yes.  Is that a straight enough answer for you?

Good.  

Then answer this....is fleet id and tail number the only way to tie a FDR to its origin?

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

But you bring up another interesting point to discuss and speculate about--whether or not the various 4 aircraft involved had the newer digital FDR or the older analog version.  I have read discussion elsewhere that suggest that by serial number of the aircraft, making certain assumptions, 1 or 2 of these aircraft might have been too old to have the digital FDR and would have had the analog versions.

And, as I recall, it seems that 1 or 2 had another (imagine that!) anomaly.  It seems one had a digital FDR, but an analog CVR, raising the question of why would an airline switch out one but not the other?  Good question, and I don't know the answer, but if true, it goes on the pile of "weird irregularities associated with the events of 11 September."

Can you produce evidence showing the FDR used in flight 77 was an older version?  Remember BR, you claim the old versions of FDR's were able to only record 30 minutes.  

Flight 77's had around 25 hours of data.  If the 25 hours of data in flight 77's FDR shows that it was a newer version of an FDR with larger recording capabilities, why is  Cimino not pandering on about that anomoly.  

Again, your argument is going no where.

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

#2981    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:17 PM

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


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.

I hardly think 14 seconds and 21 seconds are near free fall speeds.

That right there is conclusive proof that you have no clue about basic physics.

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

#2982    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:20 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 December 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

But I do know that no other part of the entire story is true, so I'm quite skeptical of what 'data' might be offered up by a government up to its eyeballs in coverup mode.
]

In other words, if it supports your theory it must be the truth, if it doesn't its all government lies.

Gotcha

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

#2983    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:31 PM

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

The pulverization of all concrete.

That is quite the claim BR.  Seeing as though not all concrete was considered pulverized.  

However this does make me think of what you believe the WTC was constructed of.  Just concrete and steel?

Office buildings have dry walls.  does crushing dry wall also create dust?

Think about that for a moment.......ok?

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

The presence of molten metal for many weeks afterwards.

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?

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

All these things make the 'jetfuel & gravity' theory impossible.

This has been discussed with you more times than needed.

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

#2984    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:42 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 12 December 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

You completely dodged the point BR.  Was completely typical of you though.

Warren Stutt decoded up to 25 hours of data off the Flight 77 FDR.  Which BTW, was the same data file Cimino used in his analysis.  So using your "possibly newer FDR's are able to record more but not the old ones I am used to" argument won't work in hand-waving away the FACT that 25 hours of flight data was decoded from the AA77 FDR.



How is it not a straight answer?  Could the fleet id and tail id be used to identify a FDR's origin?  Yes.  Is that a straight enough answer for you?

Good.  

Then answer this....is fleet id and tail number the only way to tie a FDR to its origin?



Can you produce evidence showing the FDR used in flight 77 was an older version?  Remember BR, you claim the old versions of FDR's were able to only record 30 minutes.  

Flight 77's had around 25 hours of data.  If the 25 hours of data in flight 77's FDR shows that it was a newer version of an FDR with larger recording capabilities, why is  Cimino not pandering on about that anomoly.  

Again, your argument is going no where.

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?

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

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.

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


#2985    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,469 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 12 December 2012 - 10:43 PM

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

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.  But let that one go for the moment.

You are definitely mistaken because recovery teams and coroners confirmed the crash site of United 93 and the recovery of wreckage from United 93. Remember, United Airlines confirmed the crash site as well, but, you knew that.

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....

What explosions at the bowels of the building? No one heard heard any bomb explosions at the base of any WTC building, which is why seismic monitors did not detect bomb explosions. They collected data as the buildings collapsed, but no bomb explosions.

Quote

The time of collapse--very near to freefall, makes it impossible.

Anyone can look at the videos and instantly note that the WTC buildings are not falling at free fall speeds nor even close. You will notice falling debris is outpacing the collapse of the buildings themselves, so where did you get the idea the buildings were falling at free fall speeds?

Quote

The insufficient temperatures of the fires.

And yet, you have said that molten metal was found in the rubble.

Quote

The pulverization of all concrete.

Why do you consider that a mystery?

Quote

The presence of molten metal for many weeks afterwards.

Time for a recap to review what you have just said.

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


The insufficient temperatures of the fires

And yet, to mentioned 'molten metal.' At some point, you are going to have to make up your mind concerning temperatures within the WTC buildings. Should we review the massive fire that collapsed the steel structure of the Windsor building fire in Spain? No jet fuel ignited the fire in the Windsor building, yet the fire was hot  enough to weaken the steel structure to failure.

Quote

All these things make the 'jetfuel & gravity' theory impossible.

Only in your mind, BR, which does not reflect reality by any means, and we have you own comments as proof when compared to actual facts and evidence surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409, 12 December 2012 - 11:08 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users