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 8
lliqerty

911 Pentagon Video Footage

3,304 posts in this topic

Why did George Bush mention explosives? I mean, explosives were there, the president mentioned it himself.

One more time because it seems you missed the boat the first time around. President Bush was referring what was told by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

"For an example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

He (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

So once again, you missed the boat.

Convenient for just such an inside job. Somebody had a hand in disabling, fooling or glitching the seismic monitors.

Please explain how seismic monitors were fooled during the 9/11 attack.

Maybe the CIA could pull that off? I wouldn't put it past them.

Forget the "maybe" part because this in not a guessing game. The overwhelming evidence speaks for itself.

Demolition Experts on both sides claiming opposites.

I have posted many videos proving beyond any doubt the collapse of the WTC buildings were not the result of controlled demolitions.

Some explain how a plane couldn't have done the damage it did, but explosives instead were needed, alongside other 9/11 witnesses who claim they heard multiple explosions,...

First of all, they did not hear bomb explosions nor felt the bomb waves of bomb explosions and once again, seismic monitors did not detect bomb explosions.

.... whilst other demolition experts say they haven't heard such a thing.

I would take the testimony of demolition experts over those who have never heard nor felt blast waves from real bomb explosions, and I have heard many bomb explosions as well, which is another reason why I have said that I did not see nor hear evidence of bomb explosions in any of the 911 videos..

Why did George Bush, himself, claim that explosives were used to bring down the upper floors of the WTC, "keeping people from getting out?"

Review the video again because he is referring to what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was saying about terrorist plans and nothing to do with what occurred during the 911 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One more time because it seems you missed the boat the first time around. President Bush was referring what was told by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed So once again, you missed the boat.

But you, yourself said those sounds coming from the detonations were "falling elevators." So what is it, Sky?

You first denied detonations/explosives were used, and that the sounds were mere falling elevators, but now you're suggesting explosives were used and Bush only knew about it because he was told by Khalid.

Somebodies losing ground, here.

"Explosives planted high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping." ~ Bush

If Middle-Eastern terrorists are in the process of detonating their planted explosives, they're going to stand well out of harms way. Common sense 101, so who does that leave "trapt above?"

The innocent civillians & workers of the World Trade Center, of course, and we all know many innocents lost their lives that day. Were there any dead terrorists?

Please explain how seismic monitors were fooled during the 9/11 attack.

The Government doesn't disclose it's true strategies and secrets with civillians, afraid. Particularly not when it can expose a coverup. Thats a large part of why nobody trusts them.

Forget the "maybe" part because this in not a guessing game. The overwhelming evidence speaks for itself.

When the US Gov insists on blocking ivestigations, covering up the evidence, and tellings truths mixed with lies, it becomes a guessing game. Basic logic should tell you that.

A "guessing game" is precisely what it is at this point.

First of all, they did not hear bomb explosions

Who didn't hear bomb explosions?

nor felt the bomb waves of bomb explosions

Yet, George Bush admits explosives were used to keep people from escaping.

once again, seismic monitors did not detect bomb explosions.

Perhaps some shadow-player working for Bush turned them off, that they may not pick up the detonation shockwaves? It's a possibility.

I would take the testimony of demolition experts over those who have never heard nor felt blast waves from real bomb explosions, and I have heard many bomb explosions as well, which is another reason why I have said that I did not see nor hear evidence of bomb explosions in any of the 911 videos.

Like I said, bomb experts exist on both sides of the fence. Some tell that they didn't hear explosions, while others explain they did hear explosions. Many 9/11 witnesses claim to have heard explosions and considering Bush admitted explosives were used, this goes against the "dropping elevators" theory.

Review the video again because he is referring to what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was saying about terrorist plans and nothing to do with what occurred during the 911 attacks.

That video boils down to this:

A: Bush/US Government had explosives planted, for the sake of staging a false flag attack on the WTC, in order to convince the American public they have to go to war against the Middle-East, and in the process, use this "War on Terror" as an excuse to strip the American people of their rights, one by one.

or

B: Bush knew terrorists, or operatives as Bush likes to call them, had knowledge on how to blow the World Trade Center and Bush did nothing but sit on his ass as they did it. Conveniently, any fighter jets that could have protected the WTC were diverted the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush this, Bush that, why don't you actually find some evidence and come back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Government doesn't disclose it's true strategies and secrets with civillians, afraid. Particularly not when it can expose a coverup. Thats a large part of why nobody trusts them.

Slight correction, nobody trusts them except for you apparently. As soon as you find something Bush said that you can (mis-) construe as supporting your belief, it's amazing how trustworthy he becomes all of a sudden. For reference, see, well, you: "Yet, George Bush admits explosives were used to keep people from escaping."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush this, Bush that, why don't you actually find some evidence and come back

Why don't the people behind the "official" 9/11 conspiracy theory do that themselves?

Why do people believe the "official" conspiracy theory any more than other theories spoken of which make just as much if not more sense; and come with just as much if not more evidence supporting those theories?

Edited by Left-Field

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slight correction, nobody trusts them except for you apparently. As soon as you find something Bush said that you can (mis-) construe as supporting your belief, it's amazing how trustworthy he becomes all of a sudden. For reference, see, well, you: "Yet, George Bush admits explosives were used to keep people from escaping."

I believe he speaks truth mixed with lies. Sometimes he just flatout lies.

Either way, it appears to me I'm wasting my time on people who have already made up their minds on this matter, choosing to believe the words of a corrupt government. But hey, you do have freedom of choice in America.

Take care & peace.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it's amazing how trustworthy he becomes all of a sudden.

It's about as equally as amazing as the debunkers who fully believe everything they are told is the truth by numerous government agencies, etc all the way until a former CIA/FBI agent (or something of the like) comes forth and speaks of crimes and cover-ups the government commits and partakes in.

Whenever someone like that steps forward they are suddenly deemed as an unreliable source. Whenever someone like that speaks in favor of the "official" version of history however, the debunkers believe everything they have to say.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you, yourself said those sounds coming from the detonations were "falling elevators." So what is it, Sky?

I said no such thing. They mistaken the sound of falling elevators as explosions, which they later admitted was incorrect. In other words, they said they heard explosions, but later cleared that up when they said the sounds they heard were attributed to the falling elevators.

In this case, you missed the boat concerning my remarks about the falling elevators.

"Explosives planted high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping." ~ Bush

Didn't you even read what I have posted? The remarks were attributed to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. not to President Bush. Let's do a recap.

President Bush said:

"For an example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

He (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

In other words, President Bush was repeating what was told by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

If Middle-Eastern terrorists are in the process of detonating their planted explosives, they're going to stand well out of harms way. Common sense 101, so who does that leave "trapt above?"

It would have been impossible for terrorist to plant enough explosives in the WTC buildings and not draw attention, much less do so in less than a year. It takes many months of planning and preparation by highly experience demolition experts to bring down a building the size of the WTC towers. You can't just plant explosives in a steel frame building and expect the building to collapse. In Iraq, buildings took multiple hits by JDAM bombs yet they remained standing. Do you know why the buildings remained standing despite multiple bomb strikes? There are those who think that you can set off explosives in a building and it will instantly collapse, but that is not the case and another good example was the 1993 bombing of WTC1.

WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg

The innocent civillians & workers of the World Trade Center, of course, and we all know many innocents lost their lives that day. Were there any dead terrorists?

Yes, in the two airliners they flew into WTC1 and WTC2.

The Government doesn't disclose it's true strategies and secrets with civillians, afraid. Particularly not when it can expose a coverup. Thats a large part of why nobody trusts them.

If you claim a 911 government coverup, you have to provide the evidence, otherwise, your remarks hold as much water as a bottomless bucket.

When the US Gov insists on blocking ivestigations, covering up the evidence,...

What evidence? If you can't provide the evidence, you have no case. :no:

A "guessing game" is precisely what it is at this point.

It is clearly evident that you have no evidence to refute the official story.

Who didn't hear bomb explosions?

No one heard bomb explosions nor felt the blast waves from bomb explosions.

Yet, George Bush admits explosives were used to keep people from escaping.

Let's do another recap because you missed the boat again.

President Bush said:

"For an example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.

He (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."

He was referring to a plan put forth by the terrorist, and nothing what occurred on 9/11/2001.

Perhaps some shadow-player working for Bush turned them off, that they may not pick up the detonation shockwaves? It's a possibility.

That doesn't work either because the monitors detected the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no bomb explosions, so in that respect, the monitors were working. As I have said, you can't guess at these things and evidence is what counts, which 911 conspiracist do not have in order to refute the official story. :no:

Like I said, bomb experts exist on both sides of the fence.

Bomb experts in the area have said there was no evidence of explosives.

Bush knew terrorists, or operatives as Bush likes to call them, had knowledge on how to blow the World Trade Center and Bush did nothing but sit on his ass as they did it. Conveniently, any fighter jets that could have protected the WTC were diverted the other way.

It would have been simply impossible for the terrorist to plant enough explosives to bring down the WTC buildings. After all, they tried and failed to bring down WTC1 in 1993 with over 1000 pounds of explosive at ground level.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to show us the mountains of evidence that a anti-ship cruise missile hit the Pentagon? Or better yet, where flight 93 landed including evidence of the exsistence of the passengers after 9/11?

Oh wait....forgot who I was responding to....carry on BR, carry on.

I SPECULATED that perhaps a Russian missle struck the Pentagon. Never claimed it was factual, but I understand how you are forced to operate.

Why don't YOU present the mountains of evidence that prove 93 was in that field? I cannot prove a negative, but the pictures and statements of people there give it a pretty good shot.

And now that you're back on duty, perhaps you can answer my hypothetical regarding how FDRs are given unique identification marks? Hope you don't pass on that, but I won't be holding my breath. :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you just said, "Nothing is a "fact" that comes from wicked Government. It's truth mixed with lies." So I guess this is evidence that it wasn't an inside job, Bush is a liar, right? Except when he says something that agrees with you, then of course he's truthful?

LG

I'm a bit surprised you are not familiar with Freudian Slips. The proverbial "slip of the tongue" that all of us humans commit from time to time. You know, like Silverstein's and Miller's and.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I SPECULATED that perhaps a Russian missle struck the Pentagon.

Problem is, you speculate too often.

Why don't YOU present the mountains of evidence that prove 93 was in that field?

It has been proven that United 93 crashed in that field.

And now that you're back on duty, perhaps you can answer my hypothetical regarding how FDRs are given unique identification marks?

The Boeing Co. and American Airlines provided information needed to read the FDR data, which simply means they provided information that pertained ONLY to American 77 and no other aircraft, but it seems you were unaware of that fact. :w00t:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the RIGHT places are necessarily Government Approved! :whistle:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he speaks truth mixed with lies. Sometimes he just flatout lies.\

Which to a greater or lesser extent describes everyone on earth. I think the assumption that you are working into your argument, without evidence, is that you can tell the difference when he is lying or telling the truth. I don't see how you can do that concerning the specifics of what you are discussing here, and thus it seems odd to me to simultaneously hold him up as a liar when he says one thing but then turn around and use him as a truthful source for another.

Either way, it appears to me I'm wasting my time on people who have already made up their minds on this matter, choosing to believe the words of a corrupt government. But hey, you do have freedom of choice in America.

That also is quite an evidence-free leap if you are referring to me in your group of 'people who have already made up their minds'; I've made two posts to you on which you are coming to this conclusion. Do you believe that the Space Shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry? Almost all of the information you have on that comes from the corrupt government, certainly a much greater percentage than the information we have on 9/11. Are you choosing to believe their corrupt words in that case? What part of the government story concerning Columbia is the truth and what part is the lies they are mixed with? And by the way, the only options are not just 'believe you' or 'believe the corrupt government', there are many more positions that people can and do take besides those two.

Take care & peace.

You also!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the RIGHT places are necessarily Government Approved! :whistle:

Apparently, American Airlines, United Airlines, Air Line Pilots Association, Allied Pilots Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Institute of Architects, Protec Services, Inc. and other demolition companies, are not government agencies yet they support the official story, not the fantasies of 911 conspiracist. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about as equally as amazing as the debunkers who fully believe everything they are told is the truth by numerous government agencies, etc all the way until a former CIA/FBI agent (or something of the like) comes forth and speaks of crimes and cover-ups the government commits and partakes in.

I don't know which 'debunkers' you are referring to, I haven't seen anyone around here who fully believes everything they are told by the government, quite the contrary.

Whenever someone like that steps forward they are suddenly deemed as an unreliable source. Whenever someone like that speaks in favor of the "official" version of history however, the debunkers believe everything they have to say.

They are suddenly deemed an unreliable source by whom? Are you going to just attribute the qualities of some or a few debunkers/skeptics to all debunkers/skeptics? There are CTs participating on this very thread who deem all kinds of people, whether they work for the government or not, to be unreliable sources, but when the same tactic is used against their position we're going to cry foul?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now that you're back on duty, perhaps you can answer my hypothetical regarding how FDRs are given unique identification marks? Hope you don't pass on that, but I won't be holding my breath. :gun:

Ask Warren Stutt yourself, if you want to know.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6846611&postcount=4292

The two fields are not zeroed out in the plain text preamble. They do not appear at all.

It would be possible for someone to remove them from the preamble by modifying the FDR file, but I have no evidence that anyone did this.

I have four FDR files from another source and they also have no AC ID or FLEET ID fields. Rob Balsamo asked me to share the other files, but my source has has denied permission since they were from a client and that client had not given permission for my source to share the files with me. My source shared the files with me so that I could help him decode them.

I think that the AC ID and FLEET ID fields never appear in the text preamble contrary to Dennis Cimino's claim that they always do.

Warren.

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, to add on top of that BR, the FDR data contained 25 full hours of flight time for flight 77 prior to the impact at the Pentagon which matches flight records from AA.

Also, when matched with RADAR data from take off to impact, the FDR matches the information down to the second.

Can it get anymore Ironclad than that or are you still at a disagreement?

I still think that based on the amount of ignorance resistance to facts you have shown so far, I am thinking the latter. :cry:

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which to a greater or lesser extent describes everyone on earth. I think the assumption that you are working into your argument, without evidence, is that you can tell the difference when he is lying or telling the truth. I don't see how you can do that concerning the specifics of what you are discussing here, and thus it seems odd to me to simultaneously hold him up as a liar when he says one thing but then turn around and use him as a truthful source for another.

That also is quite an evidence-free leap if you are referring to me in your group of 'people who have already made up their minds'; I've made two posts to you on which you are coming to this conclusion. Do you believe that the Space Shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry? Almost all of the information you have on that comes from the corrupt government, certainly a much greater percentage than the information we have on 9/11. Are you choosing to believe their corrupt words in that case? What part of the government story concerning Columbia is the truth and what part is the lies they are mixed with? And by the way, the only options are not just 'believe you' or 'believe the corrupt government', there are many more positions that people can and do take besides those two.

You also!

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

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 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.