Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Still Waters

Bin Laden was not buried at sea,

781 posts in this topic

Sky

You know that I do not trust you with photos.

That won't work for you,, and is just another back-stepping routine of yours when facts and evidence have proven you wrong. You also made a mistake by bringing up the tail stinger. That told me that you are not familiar with helicopters anymore than you are with airplanes. Looking at the photos, why would you think a tail stinger had any significance in the Pakistan photo? You bring up the wrong things at the wrong time because you don't know better which underlines your lack of knowledge on helicopters.

You also wrongly assumed that all tail rotors shattered during accidents and once again, the photos have proven you wrong, which is resulted in your back-stepping comment which is what you normally do when faced with damaging evidence that slams the door shut on your case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe Little Short Bus is leaving Babe ! Dont miss it mate ! Bin Laden Is driving it ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That won't work for you,, and is just another back-stepping routine of yours when facts and evidence have proven you wrong. You also made a mistake by bringing up the tail stinger. That told me that you are not familiar with helicopters anymore than you are with airplanes. Looking at the photos, why would you think a tail stinger had any significance in the Pakistan photo? You bring up the wrong things at the wrong time because you don't know better which underlines your lack of knowledge on helicopters.

You also wrongly assumed that all tail rotors shattered during accidents and once again, the photos have proven you wrong, which is resulted in your back-stepping comment which is what you normally do when faced with damaging evidence that slams the door shut on your case.

Sky

You did not even give an answer to my question of "what is the purpose of a tail stinger?" And now, as usual, you make statements about it without even answering.

You are the most dishonest poster I have ever dealt with Sky, and I've dealt with many. You post like I imagine Dubya would. :innocent:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sky

You did not even give an answer to my question of "what is the purpose of a tail stinger?" And now, as usual, you make statements about it without even answering.

If you look at the photo, how is a stinger going to protect that tail rotor? That was your mistake in bringing a tail stinger to the table, but anyway, a fixed stinger is irrelevant to that type of helicopter anyway so why did you bring it up?

It goes to show that you have no real knowledge about certain types of helicopters. :no:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Yes or no: Do you think that the US actually put out info of all of their military equipment, including aircraft, for all the world to see?

2) Is it not possible that the rotor did not have a shroud? Not all rotors have shrouds.

3) Is it not possible for the rotor to have fallen to the ground after it was no longer turning?

1) Of course there are secret projects. That's what Area 51 is for. But there is also Aviation Week & Space Technology, the proverbial bible of the defense, aviation and space industries. They show and describe all sorts of projects. I've been reading it for more than 40 years and never seen anything like that.

2) If you become familiar with helicopter technology you will discover that the French technology, called 'fenestron' tail rotor, looks quite similar to what is shown in the picture. Some refer to it as a "ducted fan", which is close. The shroud is a critical part of a ducted fan and the French fenestron. It will not perform as a tail rotor without the duct/shroud. It will not work without it. It does not function without it.

3) I suppose it would be theoretically possible for it to have fallen to the ground, but it would take a very strange set of circumstances for that to be possible, all EXCLUDING normal operational considerations. Further, the oddball tail rotor, the blades themselves, show no such damage. I cannot imagine how that would be, especially given that there is nothing in our inventory that remotely resembles the piece in the picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the photo, how is a stinger going to protect that tail rotor? That was your mistake in bringing a tail stinger to the table, but anyway, a fixed stinger is irrelevant to that type of helicopter anyway so why did you bring it up?

It goes to show that you have no real knowledge about certain types of helicopters. :no:

No Sky. If you had been honest and addressed the function of a tail stinger, you would have been forced to address the reality of how that piece is artificial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1) Of course there are secret projects. That's what Area 51 is for. But there is also Aviation Week & Space Technology, the proverbial bible of the defense, aviation and space industries. They show and describe all sorts of projects. I've been reading it for more than 40 years and never seen anything like that.

2) If you become familiar with helicopter technology you will discover that the French technology, called 'fenestron' tail rotor, looks quite similar to what is shown in the picture. Some refer to it as a "ducted fan", which is close. The shroud is a critical part of a ducted fan and the French fenestron. It will not perform as a tail rotor without the duct/shroud. It will not work without it. It does not function without it.

That modified MH-60 was not a French-built helicopter and did not require an enclosure shroud.

3) I suppose it would be theoretically possible for it to have fallen to the ground, but it would take a very strange set of circumstances for that to be possible, all EXCLUDING normal operational considerations. Further, the oddball tail rotor, the blades themselves, show no such damage. I cannot imagine how that would be, especially given that there is nothing in our inventory that remotely resembles the piece in the picture.

Explain to us why the tail rotor blades here;

helicopter-crash.jpg

Are in the same condition as these rotor blades.

F-18-400x266.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Sky. If you had been honest and addressed the function of a tail stinger, you would have been forced to address the reality of how that piece is artificial.

It is nothing more than a tail skid and would have been a good reflection for radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss the briefing Babe? The navy Seal team had already had the rough landing I.E. full stop power down,Get the Hell outta the ship.Continue the mission on to Plan -B

Demo the chopper,egress outta Abbottbad with package ! I.E. Bin Ladens body !

Dump into ocean for fish food ! Only thing that was ever good in his life support the Food chain !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Of course there are secret projects. That's what Area 51 is for. But there is also Aviation Week & Space Technology, the proverbial bible of the defense, aviation and space industries. They show and describe all sorts of projects. I've been reading it for more than 40 years and never seen anything like that.

Do they show and describe everything bit of equipment the US develops/is developing? Do they show these secret projects you admit exist?

2) If you become familiar with helicopter technology you will discover that the French technology, called 'fenestron' tail rotor, looks quite similar to what is shown in the picture. Some refer to it as a "ducted fan", which is close. The shroud is a critical part of a ducted fan and the French fenestron. It will not perform as a tail rotor without the duct/shroud. It will not work without it. It does not function without it.

Looks "quite similar" is quite subjective. You're telling me that you know for a fact that the tail rotor would not work just by looking at it? I doubt this. But, assuming that is accurate, why would they design a fake non-functional tail rotor which people can determine as non-functional just by looking at pictures of it instead of just getting an actual tail rotor? The tail rotor does share quite a lot of similarities with the main rotor of the Comanche project, btw, which leads credence to the notion that it does belong to a stealth helicopter.

3) I suppose it would be theoretically possible for it to have fallen to the ground, but it would take a very strange set of circumstances for that to be possible, all EXCLUDING normal operational considerations. Further, the oddball tail rotor, the blades themselves, show no such damage. I cannot imagine how that would be, especially given that there is nothing in our inventory that remotely resembles the piece in the picture.

How strange is it that the helicopter could have crashed near the wall with the boom of the tail rotor being propped up by the wall? What about this is strange?

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a058906.pdf

Notice how they've been working on making a stealth UH-60 since 1978...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Do they show and describe everything bit of equipment the US develops/is developing? Do they show these secret projects you admit exist?

Looks "quite similar" is quite subjective. You're telling me that you know for a fact that the tail rotor would not work just by looking at it? I doubt this. But, assuming that is accurate, why would they design a fake non-functional tail rotor which people can determine as non-functional just by looking at pictures of it instead of just getting an actual tail rotor? The tail rotor does share quite a lot of similarities with the main rotor of the Comanche project, btw, which leads credence to the notion that it does belong to a stealth helicopter.

[/background]

How strange is it that the helicopter could have crashed near the wall with the boom of the tail rotor being propped up by the wall? What about this is strange?

http://www.dtic.mil/.../u2/a058906.pdf

Notice how they've been working on making a stealth UH-60 since 1978...

They have already made many "stealth" improvements in the UH-60 over the years. There is only so much they can do without sacrificing aerodynamic performance.

Are you rated in helicopters or airplanes?

Current issue of AW&ST has a picture and article of an F-18 with radar absorbent material (RAM) in an effort to improve stealth. Pretty super secret, eh? Posted in a magazine. Geez, if only OBL were with us, he would be reading that and advising his camel drivers to look out, eh? :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have already made many "stealth" improvements in the UH-60 over the years. There is only so much they can do without sacrificing aerodynamic performance.

The helicopter was an MH-60. On another note, what were you implying when you said, "sacrificing aerodynamic performance?" Remember, we are talking about a helicopter, not a high performance jet fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really Sad ,Skyeagle we could take Babe Ruth to Wright Patterson and show him a few of the toys that didnt wrk out to well ! THen we would have to Kill him of coarse ! :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have already made many "stealth" improvements in the UH-60 over the years. There is only so much they can do without sacrificing aerodynamic performance.

There is much, much more that can be done to make a typical helicopter stealthy.

Current issue of AW&ST has a picture and article of an F-18 with radar absorbent material (RAM) in an effort to improve stealth. Pretty super secret, eh? Posted in a magazine. Geez, if only OBL were with us, he would be reading that and advising his camel drivers to look out, eh? :w00t:

Apparently, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you do not understand military classifications related to its stealth aircraft nor knowledgeable about stealth technology. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Really Sad ,Skyeagle we could take Babe Ruth to Wright Patterson and show him a few of the toys that didnt wrk out to well ! THen we would have to Kill him of coarse ! :gun:

Yepper! Babe Ruth has also proven that he is not knowledgeable enough to debate anything related to stealth aircraft. Perhaps, he should find out why the CIA's A-12, was flying around for years without the public's knowledge.

The aircraft's final mission was flown in May 1968, and the program and aircraft retired in June of that year. Officially secret for over 40 years, the A-12 program began to be declassified by the CIA in 2007

I might add that the single-seat A-12 was smaller and lighter and flew higher and faster than the SR-71. Not knowing the rest of the story is why he thnks bin Laden was not buried at sea.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ye` whom only believes in what he gets outta You-tube like Babe See`s no reason to do actual research and study !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yepper! Babe Ruth has also proven that he is not knowledgeable enough to debate anything related to stealth aircraft. Perhaps, he should find out why the CIA's A-12, was flying around for years without the public's knowledge.

I might add that the single-seat A-12 was smaller and lighter and flew higher and faster than the SR-71. Not knowing the rest of the story is why he thnks bin Laden was not buried at sea.

You do not know beyond a reasonable doubt that he was or not buried at sea either! You choose to believe GOV reports, the media and claims made by some intelligence group who supposedly monitors this so-called Al Quada terrorist organization. Let me make this clear. You do not know anything other than what you choose to believe. You have zero proof.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before i read this article i all ready had a feeling that he was not buried at sea........

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ye` whom only believes in what he gets outta You-tube like Babe See`s no reason to do actual research and study !

Seems odd to me that Babe Ruth had anything to do with the military. He is definitely not up-to-snuff on various military security classifications concerning secret aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You do not know beyond a reasonable doubt that he was or not buried at sea either!

I had no doubt because I felt that burial at sea was not only the best option, but the only option.

You choose to believe GOV reports, the media and claims made by some intelligence group who supposedly monitors this so-called Al Quada terrorist organization.

Did you really think that the United States would have been serious enough to buried bin Laden on land? In doing so would have created a number of problems for the United States, one of which would have been the creation of a central rallying point for worldwide terrorism.

Let me make this clear. You do not know anything other than what you choose to believe. You have zero proof.

It is just a matter of knowing how to fit the pieces of the puzzle together to form a picture of what that puzzle is all about. I was once part of a cover-up regarding Korean FLT 007 and my aircraft was used in support of its recovery mission, but the cover-up was justified because of Soviet involvement and I might add that many Russians know how to read and understand english.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ye` whom only believes in what he gets outta You-tube like Babe See`s no reason to do actual research and study !

If he did, he would find that the United States followed Israel's lead when Israel dumped the ashes of Adolph Eichman into the Mediterranean Sea. This was to ensure that there could be no future memorial and that no country would serve as his final resting place.

That is what I have been saying as well. Additionally, terrorist cannot use his burial plot are a central rallying point and why I have said that the best and only option was to bury Osama bin Laden at sea.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no doubt because I felt that burial at sea was not only the best option, but the only option.

Did you really think that the United States would have been serious enough to buried bin Laden on land? In doing so would have created a number of problems for the United States, one of which would have been the creation of a central rallying point for worldwide terrorism.

It is just a matter of knowing how to fit the pieces of the puzzle together to form a picture of what that puzzle is all about. I was once part of a cover-up regarding Korean FLT 007 and my aircraft was used in support of its recovery mission, but the cover-up was justified because of Soviet involvement and I might add that many Russians know how to read and understand english.

I understand completely the reason to bury any enemy at sea over a land burial which could be used as a shrine....... But I NEVER raised this issue!

My issue is the quick burial at sea without a transparent and independent vetting process of the corpse. It was a slap in the face to everything that America stood for and the entire of the other nations conned into this so-called War on Terrorists. Pathetic recourse of inaction to prove to the people that trading your safety for freedom is justifiable.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand completely the reason to bury any enemy at sea over a land burial which could be used as a shrine....... But I NEVER raised this issue!

That was just hint. Israel also understood the logic when it dumped the ashes of Adolf Eichmann in the Mediterranean Sea.

My issue is the quick burial at sea without a transparent and independent vetting process of the corpse. It was a slap in the face to everything that America stood for and the entire of the other nations conned into this so-called War on Terrorists. Pathetic recourse of inaction to prove to the people that trading your safety for freedom is justifiable.

Well, some people see it your way and some don't, but in the end, it was the overall decision of Osama bin Laden that led up his death and burial at sea and I feel that was fair enough considering that he snuffed out the lives of thousands of innocent people, many of whom had no bodies left to bury anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was just hint. Israel also understood the logic when it dumped the ashes of Adolf Eichmann in the Mediterranean Sea.

Well, some people see it your way and some don't, but in the end, it was the overall decision of Osama bin Laden that led up his death and burial at sea and I feel that was fair enough considering that he snuffed out the lives of thousands of innocent people, many of whom had no bodies left to bury anywhere.

an eye for an eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

an eye for an eye

Which, eventually led to the death of Osama bin Laden. He declared war on the United States and carried out his attack on 9/11/2001, and the rest is now history. Remember his words:

Osama bin Laden's Message to America

People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.

Osama bin Laden, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Fatwa of Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri co-signed a fatwa in the name of the World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, which declared the killing of North Americans and their allies an "individual duty for every Muslim" to "liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) and the holy mosque (in Mecca) from their grip".

At the public announcement of the fatwa bin Laden announced that North Americans are "very easy targets". He told the attending journalists,

"You will see the results of this in a very short time."

Osama bin Laden, 1998

article-1382898-0BDF2AF200000578-310_306x350.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.