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

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
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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?

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

This has been discussed with you more times than needed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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?

The insufficient temperatures of the fires.

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

The pulverization of all concrete.

Why do you consider that a mystery?

The presence of molten metal for many weeks afterwards.

Time for a recap to review what you have just 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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now you want to deny that molten metal existed Raptor? Really? Are you that desperate?

Stoopid question on my part. :innocent:

On the morrow sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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

No you don't! :no:

I know that no 350 hour pilot first time in a Boeing could have done what Hani had to do.

I guess you didn't watch that 9/11 documentary last night where it was revealed the terrorist used flight simulators to practice their attack plans. BTW, it doesn't take a highly experience pilot to maneuver a B-757 in the sky. Any normal child with no flight experience can be taught to conduct a simple 360 degree turn in a B-757 in less than 30 minutes.

BTW, the terrorist didn't have to train to takeoff or land a B-757 and there have been cases where people with very little flying experience in small aircraft have flown a Lear Jet, a C-130, and even a F-86 jet fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The presence of molten metal for many weeks afterwards.

Understand that thermite does not leave behind molten metal for weeks, so what you need to do is to review what I have said about exothermic reaction of iron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now you want to deny that molten metal existed Raptor? Really? Are you that desperate?

Stoopid question on my part. :innocent:

On the morrow sir!

At what point did I deny the presence of molten metal?

In case you read wrong here was my exact quote:

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?

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Yes there was molten metal. Considering that the make up of WTC was not just steel so the existence of other metals in molten state other than steel is likely.

Again BR, at what point did i deny the existence of molten METAL?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

So where is your evidence that Stutt and Cimino analyzed different CSV files?

Quite a claim there considering that Cimino had used the same data decoded by Stutts software to analyze.

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

Of course you would lean towards the data being generated. It is your one trick pony. Had the FDR data been shown to be completely accurate and real, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on now would you?

Of course considering the fact that the FDR data contained 25 hours of flight history recorded, is a pretty tough fact to dismiss. Other than using the standard "data was falsified" accusation. Which, based on your posting history was not really a surprise that you would throw that in there.

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.

What is cute here is the fact that you want to discount the evidence Stutt present in his Co-Authored peer reviewed paper. A bit of hand-waving to discredit any attempt to rebutt Cimino.

However, I see the reason why of course.

If Cimino is found wrong, then ultimately your theory is wrong as well, and you can't digest that.

Call it confirmation bias.

FYI, if you didn't bother reading Stutt's paper, then you may have missed the fact that the FDR data conclusively shows that Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon down to the final "missing 4 seconds".

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

I would be, seeing as though you cannot properly explain where if not at their final inevitable destinations flight 93 and 77 ended up.

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:

Still no evidence that can hold up to scruitny?

I have given you information and answered your questions BR.

Are you going to man up, stop presenting hypotheticals, and show us the mountains of evidence to support your theory?

Nevermind, I think I am asking too much of you.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the straight answer.

I think I always give you straight answers, BR.

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.

No, your views are radical in the definitional sense as far as Shanksville. The vast majority of people, and of CTs as far as I can tell, do not dispute that there was a plane that crashed with humans on board at Shanksville, thus your very minority position here is by definition an extreme one, and 'radical' is a synonym of 'extreme'. Your continued invocation of Orwell just comes across to me as conceited and silly, it implies that almost everyone, especially here, are under the thumb of the government and gullible. Except for you of course, who is just a brave patriot with superior intellect and perception struggling courageously against 'the establishment', freed from the mental chains of oppression by the words of George. As far as Shanksville, your 'truth' only requires you to call the people who say they did find a Boeing and human remains liars, and to pretend that pictures showing the plane parts are fake. You can keep that kind of 'truth', no thanks.

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.

Then you just don't understand what 'impossible' means and I don't really want to wade through a bunch of your hyperbole to get at whatever points you are trying to make. I asked for the most questionable part of the official story in response to your question of what I doubt of the official story. I wasn't really looking for a rehash of short general statements that you've made countless times before, I was hoping for one particular point and some evidence of why it is the most questionable piece of the official story. There's all kinds of possible middle ground that could be reached on that question which is why I responded to it; I may not find that whatever you think to be the most questionable piece of the official story convinces me that the official story in general is incorrect, but I may agree that it is indeed the most or a questionable point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point did I deny the presence of molten metal?

In case you read wrong here was my exact quote:

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

Maybe I wasn't clear.

Yes there was molten metal. Considering that the make up of WTC was not just steel so the existence of other metals in molten state other than steel is likely.

Again BR, at what point did i deny the existence of molten METAL?

My apologies sir, I had thought you had denied the existence of molten metals, but I was wrong.

Now, do you also acknowledge the period of time that the molten metal was observed there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So where is your evidence that Stutt and Cimino analyzed different CSV files?

Quite a claim there considering that Cimino had used the same data decoded by Stutts software to analyze.

Of course you would lean towards the data being generated. It is your one trick pony. Had the FDR data been shown to be completely accurate and real, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on now would you?

Of course considering the fact that the FDR data contained 25 hours of flight history recorded, is a pretty tough fact to dismiss. Other than using the standard "data was falsified" accusation. Which, based on your posting history was not really a surprise that you would throw that in there.

What is cute here is the fact that you want to discount the evidence Stutt present in his Co-Authored peer reviewed paper. A bit of hand-waving to discredit any attempt to rebutt Cimino.

However, I see the reason why of course.

If Cimino is found wrong, then ultimately your theory is wrong as well, and you can't digest that.

Call it confirmation bias.

FYI, if you didn't bother reading Stutt's paper, then you may have missed the fact that the FDR data conclusively shows that Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon down to the final "missing 4 seconds".

I would be, seeing as though you cannot properly explain where if not at their final inevitable destinations flight 93 and 77 ended up.

Still no evidence that can hold up to scruitny?

I have given you information and answered your questions BR.

Are you going to man up, stop presenting hypotheticals, and show us the mountains of evidence to support your theory?

Nevermind, I think I am asking too much of you.

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that one of the points of contention was CSV files, as provided to some applicants under FOIA, versus raw data as provided to other applicants.

Yes, it appears that whatever data provided by the government, in either CSV or raw data, is manipulated or created out of whole cloth. That is, both Cimino and STutt were provided fictitious data. Whereas Cimino recognized that he had been provided fluff and false information, it appears that Stutt believes that what he had been provided was The Real Deal.

I say that the government is well practiced at the art of deception. Considering that one of the fundamental tenets of military strategy is deception, it's no surprise that the Pentagon would attempt to deceive those civilians analyzing data regarding the events of the day. If the Pentagon had its druthers, there would be NO data released. As it was, it took years for the data to be provided in accordance with FOIA law.

Yessir, my One Trick Pony might be the truth, and the odds are it IS the truth, all things considered.

25 hours of data is silly and irrelevant. What, are you suggesting that the previous 25 hours of flight time is relevant to what happened in the last 30 minutes? :whistle:

No Raptor, you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I don't really care who is right--Cimino or Stutt--because there is SO MUCH OTHER material that works against the official story. Close analysis of government provided information reveals all manner of irregularities, besides even the simultaneous setting of the altimeters. From suspicious and irregular gate locations, irregular INS procedures, claims that GPS equipment was onboard when it could not have been, cell phone calls that could not have been, aerodynamic maneuvers that could not have been. Good Lord man, it's almost impossible to count all the contradictions and impossibilities in the OCT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I always give you straight answers, BR.

No, your views are radical in the definitional sense as far as Shanksville. The vast majority of people, and of CTs as far as I can tell, do not dispute that there was a plane that crashed with humans on board at Shanksville, thus your very minority position here is by definition an extreme one, and 'radical' is a synonym of 'extreme'. Your continued invocation of Orwell just comes across to me as conceited and silly, it implies that almost everyone, especially here, are under the thumb of the government and gullible. Except for you of course, who is just a brave patriot with superior intellect and perception struggling courageously against 'the establishment', freed from the mental chains of oppression by the words of George. As far as Shanksville, your 'truth' only requires you to call the people who say they did find a Boeing and human remains liars, and to pretend that pictures showing the plane parts are fake. You can keep that kind of 'truth', no thanks.

Then you just don't understand what 'impossible' means and I don't really want to wade through a bunch of your hyperbole to get at whatever points you are trying to make. I asked for the most questionable part of the official story in response to your question of what I doubt of the official story. I wasn't really looking for a rehash of short general statements that you've made countless times before, I was hoping for one particular point and some evidence of why it is the most questionable piece of the official story. There's all kinds of possible middle ground that could be reached on that question which is why I responded to it; I may not find that whatever you think to be the most questionable piece of the official story convinces me that the official story in general is incorrect, but I may agree that it is indeed the most or a questionable point.

Let's keep it real LG. Neither yourself nor anybody else is able to provide any photos at all of Boeing wreckage at Shanksville, IN CONTEXT. That is, aside from some photos in a trial of very questionable provenance and completely out of context, you are unable to prove, or to even demonstrate, that there was a 757 in the field that day. And that is only in the vacuum of suppressed and scrubbed photos and testimony that works against your position.

Oh gosh, I'm sorry. You asked for the MOST questionable part, and I provided too many questionable parts.

Are you serious LG?

You're somehow missing the notion of the legal term "preponderance of the evidence". There is so MUCH evidence that works against the official story, 11 years after the fact in the age of the internet, that I erred in giving you too much.

Sorry dude!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies sir, I had thought you had denied the existence of molten metals, but I was wrong.

Now, do you also acknowledge the period of time that the molten metal was observed there?

I never stated that there was not a period in time where molten metals were not identified. Heck, even fire fighters during the recovery efforts stated "looks like molten steel was running in the channels".

What I have stated many times before, firemen are not trained to identify molten metal, and molten steel is the most common statement to associate what they saw under the rubble.

Regardless, since the firefighters are not trained in molten metal identification or testing the components in molten metal, we cannot take their statement that it was molten steel at face value.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that one of the points of contention was CSV files, as provided to some applicants under FOIA, versus raw data as provided to other applicants.

You are very wrong and I will prove to you why.

The FDR contains raw data which, when using Stutt's decoder, outputs into a CSV file readable by Microsoft Excel or Microsoft access.

As stated on Warren Stutt's page:

http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRDecoder/

This program decodes the raw Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") file for American Airlines Flight 77 (AAL77) included by the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) on CDROMs provided in response to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for information regarding the events of September 11th 2001.

The program allows you to selectively decode parts of the FDR file and generate a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file containing the selected information. The first line of the CSV file contains the parameter names and it can be opened by various programs including Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access.

So basically, the data that both Cimino and Stutt analyzed are one and the same.

Stutt also confirms on his webpage that the CSV does not alter any part of the raw data on decoding.

Found here:

In the interests of transparency in showing that the program is really generating its output from the raw FDR file, you can download the C# source code. I used Microsoft Visual C# 2010 Express Edition to create it. You can look at the .cs source files using any text editor, and you can download the Microsoft Visual C# 2010 Express Edition from Microsoft to compile it. Alternatively, you may be able to get a DVD with the Visual Studio Express Editions from your local Microsoft sales office.

Yes, it appears that whatever data provided by the government, in either CSV or raw data, is manipulated or created out of whole cloth. That is, both Cimino and STutt were provided fictitious data. Whereas Cimino recognized that he had been provided fluff and false information, it appears that Stutt believes that what he had been provided was The Real Deal.

Let us put the whole "created out of whole cloth" statement into perspective.

Was Flight 77 active 25 hours prior to the crash at the Pentagon? Answer: Yes

Did Flight 77 undergo any type of major maintainence 25 hours prior to the crash? Answer: No

Is it possible to pull an active FDR off a plane during the boarding process? Answer: No

So at what point in time was anyone able to pull the FDR off Flight 77, keeping 24-25 hours of flight record in tact and manipulating the final 30 minutes?

You have to remember, the black box is not accessible by any means without taking the plane out for maintainence.

So at what point in time was anyone able to process 25 hours of data matching exactly what flight 77 did within the last 25 hours of flight?

So, pointing out the fact that all that data was manipulated is a pretty far stretch of imagination.

I say that the government is well practiced at the art of deception. Considering that one of the fundamental tenets of military strategy is deception, it's no surprise that the Pentagon would attempt to deceive those civilians analyzing data regarding the events of the day. If the Pentagon had its druthers, there would be NO data released. As it was, it took years for the data to be provided in accordance with FOIA law.

Read above.

Yessir, my One Trick Pony might be the truth, and the odds are it IS the truth, all things considered.

Which so far, your "twoof" is not holding up to any kind of scruitny what-so-ever.

Cimino was not able to decode properly the final 4 seconds on that FDR, Stutts was, and the final 4 seconds confirmed impact. Heck it showed the nose of flight 77 was 4 ft off the ground right at impact. Is Cimino still touting that a plane did not hit the Pentagon and still supporting Fetzer's fly-over theory?

My god...../facepalm.

25 hours of data is silly and irrelevant. What, are you suggesting that the previous 25 hours of flight time is relevant to what happened in the last 30 minutes? :whistle:

It is only silly and irrelevant to you. What ever happened to looking at the big picture? What ever happened to looking at evidence in its entirety.

25 hours of flight record matches the last 25 hours of radar data on flight 77...DOWN TO THE SECOND. I'm, sure that is irrelevant to you, but to most investigators, it tells a whole lot more.

Those 25 hours of data you want to hand wave conclusively shows that the FDR data came from flight 77. The fact that you scoff at the idea that i even mentioned it shows a level of ignorance on your part.

No Raptor, you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I don't really care who is right--Cimino or Stutt--because there is SO MUCH OTHER material that works against the official story. Close analysis of government provided information reveals all manner of irregularities, besides even the simultaneous setting of the altimeters. From suspicious and irregular gate locations, irregular INS procedures, claims that GPS equipment was onboard when it could not have been, cell phone calls that could not have been, aerodynamic maneuvers that could not have been. Good Lord man, it's almost impossible to count all the contradictions and impossibilities in the OCT.

Keep telling yourself that BR.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us put the whole "created out of whole cloth" statement into perspective.

Was Flight 77 active 25 hours prior to the crash at the Pentagon? Answer: Yes

Did Flight 77 undergo any type of major maintainence 25 hours prior to the crash? Answer: No

Is it possible to pull an active FDR off a plane during the boarding process? Answer: No

So at what point in time was anyone able to pull the FDR off Flight 77, keeping 24-25 hours of flight record in tact and manipulating the final 30 minutes?

You have to remember, the black box is not accessible by any means without taking the plane out for maintainence.

So at what point in time was anyone able to process 25 hours of data matching exactly what flight 77 did within the last 25 hours of flight?

So, pointing out the fact that all that data was manipulated is a pretty far stretch of imagination.

It is not a stretch of the imagination but all rather simple.

In context of a switch, there was a period where both FDRs of the repossessed Flight 77 and the crashed drone flight were ‘out of service’/available for manipulation prior to NTSB receipt. Then, after contradictory reports of where the FDR was found, it turns up with no identifying serial number, which is unprecedented. It’s not difficult to combine two FDR data series, which I believe ultimately consist of a sequence of 0s and 1s, and place them in a single unit.

In all, what we do have on record is not evidence of the aircraft identity, i.e. without the process of collection, audit trail and at least a serial number, it is worthless in this regard. Though it does indicate that ‘a’ plane departed and ‘a’ plane impacted the Pentagon. The same plane? Well, that's were the lack of physical investigation let everyone down.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a stretch of the imagination but all rather simple.

In context of a switch, there was a period where both FDRs of the repossessed Flight 77 and the crashed drone flight were ‘out of service’/available for manipulation prior to NTSB receipt. Then, after contradictory reports of where the FDR was found, it turns up with no identifying serial number, which is unprecedented. It’s not difficult to combine two FDR data series, which I believe ultimately consist of a sequence of 0s and 1s, and place them in a single unit.

But to manipulate the entire 25 hours of data recorded and confirmed by radar tracking data of Flight 77 in its entirety down to the second?

That would entail receiving the actual data off the "actual" plane's FDR which would need to be removed at some point before the crash to provide continuity.

When it comes to the s/n are we talking about the information contained off the preamble showing assignment of the FDR raw data file or the s/n off the actual equipment?

In all, what we do have on record is not evidence of the aircraft identity, i.e. without the process of collection, audit trail and at least a serial number, it is worthless in this regard. Though it does indicate that ‘a’ plane departed and ‘a’ plane impacted the Pentagon. The same plane? Well, that's were the lack of physical investigation let everyone down.

At least we can agree on this bit that a plane impacted the pentagon.

Although the previous 25 hours of FDR raw data matches the last 25 hours of flight of AA77 down to the second.

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's keep it real LG. Neither yourself nor anybody else is able to provide any photos at all of Boeing wreckage at Shanksville, IN CONTEXT.

Please show us a Tu-154 in this photo.

art.iran.crater.afp.gi.jpg

In case you don't know what a Tu-154 looks like, here it is.

Tu-154-RA-85570.jpg

Photos taken of the wreckage of United 93 have been presented here many times.

P200061_1.jpg

That is, aside from some photos in a trial of very questionable provenance and completely out of context, you are unable to prove, or to even demonstrate, that there was a 757 in the field that day.

Of course it was proven that United 93 crashed near shanksville and you were made aware of the facts. Any pilot would have known that there would be nothing left of an aircraft striking the ground from a steep angle at over 500 mph as was the case with United 93. Just the other day, a Lear jet carrying a famous singer crashed in Mexico and all that was left were bits and pieces and nothing that resembled an intact Lear jet.

And that is only in the vacuum of suppressed and scrubbed photos and testimony that works against your position.

Now wait a minute!! You were the person who first brought coroner Wally Miller into the argument and now look what you are posting! You didn't like his remark when he slammed people like you for distorting his initial statements.

That doesn't work in your case since you have admitted to having fun from time to time and this is just another case where you continue to distort the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In context of a switch, there was a period where both FDRs of the repossessed Flight 77 and the crashed drone flight were ‘out of service’/available for manipulation prior to NTSB receipt.

The Boeing Co. and American Airlines sent information needed to facilitate the investigation involving FDR data of American 77 and that information pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77, and no other aircraft.

In all, what we do have on record is not evidence of the aircraft identity, i.e. without the process of collection, audit trail and at least a serial number, it is worthless in this regard.

Each part of an aircraft have part and/or serial numbers stamped for indentification purposes.

aa_debris_serialcropped.jpg

We already know that a B-757 was involved in the incident at the Pentagon and B-757 parts have been identified as well. In addition, American Airlines, operator of American 77, confirmed the loss of American 77 and remains of passengers and crew of American 77 were recovered from the Pentagon and have been identified and those facts leave no room for 9/11 conspiracist to claim the aircraft cannot be identified.

Though it does indicate that ‘a’ plane departed...

What do you mean, "departed?" Do you mean that Air Force C-130, which was asked by air traffic controllers to follow American 77, which came close to colliding with that C-130? Did you watch the interview of that C-130 pilot on the 9/11 documentary the other day? He mentioned that the B-757 came so close to his aircraft that it filled his windscreen.

I might add that a C-130 does not resemble a B-757.

300px-Lockheed_C-130_Hercules.jpg

C-130

757_ext_586_1.jpg

B-757

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 8

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.