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

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:

I guess you were not aware that ATC radar was tracking American 77 just prior to the B-757 striking the Pentagon?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Yes, actual data off the actual planes (that commandeered and the drone) combined to produce one data series. Of course this would be required to take place after the crash (not sure why you say “before the crash” above). The FDR was found at approximately 3:40am on Friday, 14th September and delivered to the NTSB sometime later that day. Who was responsible for the FDR in transit and how long for? It is not unprecedented for the black box to be tampered or exchanged during transit. Please see the case of Airbus A320: -

Evidence, including photographs, has now been exposed that an Airbus official at the scene switched the Digital Flight Data Recorder before the court hearing.

Since May 1998, it is proven that the Flight Data Recorder was switched after the accident. The Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology (IPSC) comes to the conclusion that the recorder presented to the Court is NOT the one taken from the aircraft after the accident.

There are even numerous alternatives to this method and timeframe I can think of, though I don’t need to speculate further at this point. In all, the current lack of audit trail and serial number is not proof of the FDR nor aircraft identity.

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?

I don’t believe the FDR data is useful in identifying the aircraft given the previously mentioned issues. I was referring to physical serial number off the actual equipment.

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

Yes it did. And for anyone wondering, here are the ten best reasons why: -

http://www.unexplain...45#entry4057924

Edited by Q24
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

MOST unpersuasive, and a dodge of the question regarding how long the "molten metal" was observed.

Untrained in molten metal identification? ROFLMAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LG

Let's consider that piece of evidence--the fuselage section with windows that Sky shows above.

You and the government want me to believe that it is from an airplane that, depending upon which story is told, impacted the ground more or less vertically at a high rate of speed. Depending upon which version of the story we use, we are told that the airplane either buried itself in the ground, or was vaporized or melted somehow. This piece survived as we see it, yet the corresponding piece on the other side of the aircraft, and the similar pieces forward and aft of the given piece, were vaporized or melted. For an object travelling at a high rate of speed, this surviving piece shows no signs of compression from front to rear. The window frames are still intact, even though the piece impacted the ground at a high rate of speed. That is not consistent with such an accident.

The piece we see amounts to a small percentage of the whole fuselage, maybe 5% or less. So while 95% of the fuselage was rendered invisible, this piece survived with no compression damage at all. And this piece too was rendered invisible, because if it HAD been visible that day, there would have been many pictures taken of it, and from overhead, that piece would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Like so many other details of the events of the day, it is impossible. No steel engines, no steel landing gear, no rubber tires, no suitcases, no bodies, but a neat piece of fuselage section with no compression damage. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Untrained in molten metal identification? ROFLMAO

Apparently, you are not trained in molten metal indentification nor have you seen molten aluminum, which I have, otherwise, you would have known why the molten metal flowing out of WTC2 was NOT steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MOST unpersuasive, and a dodge of the question regarding how long the "molten metal" was observed.

I sure as hell hope that your not using the NASA Ariel photos showing heat under the rubble as proof of molten metal weeks after the collapse.

Not sure if you skirted around the possibility that those photos showed the heat generated under the rubble due to the "furnace" type environment created by the debris. Or you cherry picked that evidence as proof of molten metal sitting underground.

But then again, based on your undying faith for the latter, you wouldn't even consider other possibilities.

Untrained in molten metal identification? ROFLMAO

I personally know firefighters both retired and current volunteers. Both groups have stated they are not trained to identify molten metals.

The fact that you will take an untrained person's statements at face value shows how far you are willing to go to twist one's statements to confirm your own theories is very telling.

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LG

Let's consider that piece of evidence--the fuselage section with windows that Sky shows above.

You and the government want me to believe that it is from an airplane that, depending upon which story is told, impacted the ground more or less vertically at a high rate of speed. Depending upon which version of the story we use, we are told that the airplane either buried itself in the ground, or was vaporized or melted somehow. This piece survived as we see it, yet the corresponding piece on the other side of the aircraft, and the similar pieces forward and aft of the given piece, were vaporized or melted. For an object travelling at a high rate of speed, this surviving piece shows no signs of compression from front to rear. The window frames are still intact, even though the piece impacted the ground at a high rate of speed. That is not consistent with such an accident.

Can you tell me the rate of speed Flight 93 experienced on its descent?

Can you also tell me the structural tolerance the airframe is able to withstand before breaking up in mid-air?

Are you assuming that the entire structure of the plane stayed intact right on impact without pieces being broken off on the way down?

Shows how much you know about airplane crashes.....

The piece we see amounts to a small percentage of the whole fuselage, maybe 5% or less. So while 95% of the fuselage was rendered invisible, this piece survived with no compression damage at all. And this piece too was rendered invisible, because if it HAD been visible that day, there would have been many pictures taken of it, and from overhead, that piece would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

Your basis of assumption starts off with "flight 93 never took off so it cannot be there in Shanksville". So no matter how many photos of wreckage shown to you of crash debris in Shanksville, you will always come up with the conclusion that it was never there.

Are you ever going to answer Sky's question regarding the TU-154 crash photo? Or are you dead set in dodging that? He has asked you multiple times, and yet you still failed to answer his question.

Like so many other details of the events of the day, it is impossible. No steel engines, no steel landing gear, no rubber tires, no suitcases, no bodies, but a neat piece of fuselage section with no compression damage. :no:

Photos of engine parts dug out of that crater has been shown to you many times.

93debris1.jpg

Also photos of the crash debris.

shankshole3.jpg

EPA21.jpg

EPA11.jpg

EPA41.jpg

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LG

Let's consider that piece of evidence--the fuselage section with windows that Sky shows above.

You and the government want me to believe that it is from an airplane that, depending upon which story is told, impacted the ground more or less vertically at a high rate of speed. Depending upon which version of the story we use, we are told that the airplane either buried itself in the ground, or was vaporized or melted somehow. This piece survived as we see it, yet the corresponding piece on the other side of the aircraft, and the similar pieces forward and aft of the given piece, were vaporized or melted. For an object travelling at a high rate of speed, this surviving piece shows no signs of compression from front to rear. The window frames are still intact, even though the piece impacted the ground at a high rate of speed. That is not consistent with such an accident... but a neat piece of fuselage section with no compression damage. :no:

Windows from United 175.

3fc887f4576f.jpg

3.jpg

plane_part_from_WTC5_cutout-from-re.jpg

fuselage1ib.jpg

Now, let's do another recap on United 93 and compare the windows from United 175 with those from United 93.

800px-UA93_fuselage_debris.jpg

Like so many other details of the events of the day, it is impossible. No steel engines, no steel landing gear, no rubber tires,...

Rubber tires from United 93.

ua93gearwheelsinwood.png

...no suitcases, no bodies,...

p200068.jpg

p200069.jpg

pa00101a.jpg

pa00108a.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, actual data off the actual planes (that commandeered and the drone) combined to produce one data series. Of course this would be required to take place after the crash (not sure why you say “before the crash” above).

Will get to your other responses in due time Q.

I want to take this statement to see your thought process on how this was even possible.

Considering that 25 hours of flight record was datamined off the FDR found at the Pentagon, and within those 25 hours of data, the final flight of AA77 was recorded from take off to the crash at the Pentagon.

How was it possible to match exactly Flight 77's FDR record from take off to crash based on Radar data.

That is all 88 difference parameters of flight would need to be "manipulated" in order to appease experts that might eventually read the data into thinking it was "real".

Can't get those parameters of flight off radar data, so how can they even be manipulated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sure as hell hope that your not using the NASA Ariel photos showing heat under the rubble as proof of molten metal weeks after the collapse.

Not sure if you skirted around the possibility that those photos showed the heat generated under the rubble due to the "furnace" type environment created by the debris. Or you cherry picked that evidence as proof of molten metal sitting underground.

But then again, based on your undying faith for the latter, you wouldn't even consider other possibilities.

I personally know firefighters both retired and current volunteers. Both groups have stated they are not trained to identify molten metals.

The fact that you will take an untrained person's statements at face value shows how far you are willing to go to twist one's statements to confirm your own theories is very telling.

Well they are probably not trained to identify eggs and sausage either, but that does not mean they don't know it when they see it.

Your lack of common sense is still pretty darn amazing Raptor.

I'm not familiar with NASA Ariel photos, but I am aware of certain NASA satellite thermal imaging type photos, if that's what you mean. Those recorded numerous 'hot spots' in the area, and those support the statements of various individuals, including Mark Loizeaux and photos taken.

Like the explosions that some folks like to pretend did not happen, there are many comments from many different people regarding molten metal, and that they remained for about 6 weeks and cooked off so many metals and chemicals is likely explanation for all the respiratory ailments experienced by many on the pile.

Jetfuel & gravity can't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they are probably not trained to identify eggs and sausage either, but that does not mean they don't know it when they see it.

Your lack of common sense is still pretty darn amazing Raptor.\

Comparing eggs and sausages to make up of molten metal is hilarious.

Does common sense allow a person to differentiate the difference between molten steel and molten metals?

No it does not, and for you to inject the notion that anyone can tell the difference is ridiculous.

I'm not familiar with NASA Ariel photos, but I am aware of certain NASA satellite thermal imaging type photos, if that's what you mean. Those recorded numerous 'hot spots' in the area, and those support the statements of various individuals, including Mark Loizeaux and photos taken.

How many of those areas were confirmed by sight that the heat radiated was completely molten metal? Or is that YOUR assumption that all of it was?

Like the explosions that some folks like to pretend did not happen, there are many comments from many different people regarding molten metal, and that they remained for about 6 weeks and cooked off so many metals and chemicals is likely explanation for all the respiratory ailments experienced by many on the pile.

Jetfuel & gravity can't do that.

Sounds of explosions can be produced by a lot of things. The fact that your taking into account that what sounds like explosions as being caused by an explosive without looking into other alternatives shows that you are displaying ignorance in real research when it comes to producing evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claiming that a person needs formal training to recognize molten metal is even more hilarious, and dodging questions provides much insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claiming that a person needs formal training to recognize molten metal is even more hilarious, and dodging questions provides much insight.

Hotcasting.jpg

What metal is being poured here?

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know Raptor, but I recognize it as molten.

And I have no formal training!!! :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know Raptor, but I recognize it as molten.

And I have no formal training!!! :gun:

Nice dodge on my question.

Are you going to answer it or not?

This just shows that by sight, you are not able to identify the make up of any molten substance. Which proves my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

Your question was "What metal is being poured here?"

I answered "Don't know".

How is that not an answer to your question sir? Do you actually speak English, or is somebody translating my posts for you?

I know you're in a desperate position, attempting to defend the indefensible, but that was a straight answer to a straight question.

For your consideration, I would like to ask you what conclusions YOU reach, understanding that molten metal was in the bowels of the basement for many many weeks? Or, does that mean nothing to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

Your question was "What metal is being poured here?"

I answered "Don't know".

How is that not an answer to your question sir? Do you actually speak English, or is somebody translating my posts for you?

The premise of my question is regarding those firefighters you have always stated SAW molten steel under the rubble.

Reason why I asked you to answer my question is because I specifically stated that Firemen or anybody else that is not trained to identify the makeup of a molten substance can tell the difference between molten steel, molten aluminum, heck even molten glass.

The fact that you are dodging around that point is telling at the fact that you are more liable to take statements at face value as long as it conforms with your own fantasy conclusions.

I know you're in a desperate position, attempting to defend the indefensible, but that was a straight answer to a straight question.

You are in the desperate position to defend the indefensible.

Are you ready to defend your arguments about nuclear destruction at WTC?

Are you ready to defend your arguments that United 93 was in flight after the crash?

Are you ready to defend your arguments that a plane did not strike the Pentagon?

Are you ready to defend your arguments that a cruise missle hit the Pentagon?

Are you ready to defend your arguments at all?

Seriously BR......

'

'

For your consideration, I would like to ask you what conclusions YOU reach, understanding that molten metal was in the bowels of the basement for many many weeks? Or, does that mean nothing to you?

I already stated, the rubble caused a furnace like environment.

What is your conclusion? Lets not forget that thermite does not burn for weeks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not familiar with NASA Ariel photos, but I am aware of certain NASA satellite thermal imaging type photos, if that's what you mean. Those recorded numerous 'hot spots' in the area, and those support the statements of various individuals, including Mark Loizeaux and photos taken.

What have I told you about exothermic reactions of iron? Thermite does not leave behind molten steel for weeks, but exothermic reactions of iron can and such reactions can produce temperatues high enough to cause fires. You can conduct a simple experiment using rusty steel wool to produce heat to understand what I am mean.

Like the explosions that some folks like to pretend did not happen,...

Considering no explosions are evident in video nor detected on seismic monitors nor have explosives been recovered from the rubble of the WTC buildngs nor found at the Fresh Kills landfill simply means you have been a victim of disinformation.

Jetfuel & gravity can't do that.

Why of course jet fuel can. Look what a simple building fire did to this steel beam.

076-full.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us have had no formal training in sex, yet somehow we all manage to do it. We have no formal training in walking, yet we learn to do it before we can even speak the language. So, you point is silly, that the firemen have no formal training in recognizing molten metal. I know your chosen position attempting to defend an indefensible story is most frustrating, but I think you've reached a new level with this absurd statement.

Seriously sir, I never claimed an airplane did not hit the Pentagon. Actually, I got into hot water over at PFT because I thought that some sort of flying object DID hit the Pentagon. While I do not know what it was that hit the Pentagon, I do know what it WAS NOT. It was NOT a Boeing 757 carrying passengers and baggage. That has been my position all along, both at PFT and here at UM. That you insist upon attributing things to me that I did not say is a very strong indicator of the weakness of your chosen position, and your tendency to misrepresent what I said.

In the same vein, I did not categorically state that nuclear devices were employed at WTC. I speculated, I entertained the idea, that nuclear devices MIGHT have been employed there. Consider what Socrates said Raptor--learn to ENTERTAIN an idea, CONSIDER an idea, without necessarily embracing it. Such a practice is part of what is known as "critical thinking."

Considering that the evidence shows 93 was not in that Shanksville field, and that ARINC data shows the airplane to have still been airborne AND in phase coherence with the ground stations, critical thinking requires one to conclude that, from what is known so far, 11 years later, the part of the OCT regarding Shanksville is not valid or true.

What you hold in your mind is no threat to me sir. It neither breaks my leg nor threatens my family. I must say it does provide insight, but that is harmless to me. I'm not "defending my arguments" except to repeat some of the vast amount of evidence that contradicts the story you tell here in public.

Peace, Raptor. :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us have had no formal training in sex, yet somehow we all manage to do it. We have no formal training in walking, yet we learn to do it before we can even speak the language. So, you point is silly, that the firemen have no formal training in recognizing molten metal. I know your chosen position attempting to defend an indefensible story is most frustrating, but I think you've reached a new level with this absurd statement.

I have seen molten aluminum flowing after an aircraft accident and another reason why I have said the flowing molten metal was not steel.

Seriously sir, I never claimed an airplane did not hit the Pentagon. Actually, I got into hot water over at PFT because I thought that some sort of flying object DID hit the Pentagon.

That was obvious, and PFT cannot be considered a reliable source of information anyway. :no:

While I do not know what it was that hit the Pentagon, I do know what it WAS NOT. It was NOT a Boeing 757 carrying passengers and baggage.

That is false, considering that witnesses described a large aircraft, some in the markings of American Airlines and evidence collected outside and inside the Pentagon are consistent with wreckage from an American Airlines B-757. In addition, the black box proved the aircraft was American 77 and remains of passengers and crew from American 77 were recovered from the Pentagon. Additionally, the FAA deregistered the tail number for the airframe of American 77 and American Airlines has confirmed that American 77 crashed at the Pentagon.

In other words, you threw out the evidence of an American Airlines B-757 and added that P700 anti-ship missile. In other words, you cannot be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raptor

I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of us have had no formal training in sex, yet somehow we all manage to do it. We have no formal training in walking, yet we learn to do it before we can even speak the language.

Irrelevant comparisons, as being able to determine the make up of a molten substance is hardly human instinct. But bravo for bringing up such a silly comparison, I haven't laughed like this in days.

So, you point is silly, that the firemen have no formal training in recognizing molten metal. I know your chosen position attempting to defend an indefensible story is most frustrating, but I think you've reached a new level with this absurd statement.

No sir, firemen are not trained in recognizing the make up of a molten substance.

I have asked retired and currently serving volunteer firemen before, and neither of them had formal training in molten metal substance identification.

Now you are just being dishonest in a lousey attempt to defend your molten steel theory.

Here is a question for you to answer. What metal was used to clad the outside of the buildings.

Seriously sir, I never claimed an airplane did not hit the Pentagon.

But you had also skirted around the idea of a anti-ship cruise missile?

Dear god man, pick something already!

Actually, I got into hot water over at PFT because I thought that some sort of flying object DID hit the Pentagon.

Which is funny why you still follow a group that believes of a Pentagon fly-over theory (Rob Balsamo, Cimino, Fetzer)

While I do not know what it was that hit the Pentagon, I do know what it WAS NOT. It was NOT a Boeing 757 carrying passengers and baggage. That has been my position all along, both at PFT and here at UM. That you insist upon attributing things to me that I did not say is a very strong indicator of the weakness of your chosen position, and your tendency to misrepresent what I said.

You did not state a anti-ship cruise missile hit the Pentagon?

I may have to do some digging up to find that quote.

In the same vein, I did not categorically state that nuclear devices were employed at WTC. I speculated, I entertained the idea, that nuclear devices MIGHT have been employed there. Consider what Socrates said Raptor--learn to ENTERTAIN an idea, CONSIDER an idea, without necessarily embracing it. Such a practice is part of what is known as "critical thinking."

The entire reason why your theories are considered bunk in my opinion.

You think you know the Official story is not true, yet you cannot come up with any solid answers to why your theory is more correct.

:no:

Considering that the evidence shows 93 was not in that Shanksville field, and that ARINC data shows the airplane to have still been airborne AND in phase coherence with the ground stations, critical thinking requires one to conclude that, from what is known so far, 11 years later, the part of the OCT regarding Shanksville is not valid or true.

And what has been stated to you so many times before by several posters, your theory on the ARINC data is incorrect, yet you still manage to ignore all that and continue harping the same tired old BS?

Carry on.

What you hold in your mind is no threat to me sir. It neither breaks my leg nor threatens my family. I must say it does provide insight, but that is harmless to me. I'm not "defending my arguments" except to repeat some of the vast amount of evidence that contradicts the story you tell here in public.

Peace, Raptor. :gun:

Show us this evidence then?

So far everything you have brought up has not been holding up to any kind of scruitney what-so-ever.

Where is your smoking gun?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that the evidence shows 93 was not in that Shanksville field,...

What evidence? There is no evidence that supports your claim. On the contrary, recovery crews, coroner Wally Miller, investigators and United Airlines have confirmed the crash site as that of United 93.

...and that ARINC data shows the airplane to have still been airborne AND in phase coherence with the ground stations,...

ARINC data depicted no such thing and I have challenged you to call the folks at ARINC as I have done so they can set you straight because you are deliberately spreading false and misleading bits of trash. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never get it Raptor, and that's OK.

You argue for trivial and meaningless details, assuming one is able to view the proverbial Big Picture. The forest, not the trees.

And the Big Picture is that so many lies and misrepresentations have been foisted upon the american people and the world, that clearly YES it was a conspiracy, and it has been covered up so well for 11 years that they even are still making movies about it, as Katheryn Bigelow's latest movie is but a propaganda piece.

So please have it your way....every man is entitled to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will never get it Raptor, and that's OK.

We have asked you to present evidence and you come up empty-handed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I can't dispute the official explanation, something just does not seem quite right about it all.

I saw clips of the newscasts taken in front of the Pentagon after impact, there was a gaping hole and a small fire, which eventually got worse. What was absent from the clips as far as I could tell was plane wreckage; no fuselage, jet engines, landing gear, wing or tail sections, seats, bodies, luggage, nothing. It seems to me with a hole only the size of the one in the building the wings would have sheared off on the outside of the Pentagon, the wings I believe BTW, are filled with jet fuel which should have led to a massive fireball, inside and especially outside the building. You saw such a fireball as the planes impacted the Twin Towers and the wings themselves went through the building, since it was mostly glass and steel frame. But shortly after the Pentagon was hit, news crews were on the scene outside the building and you would expect a lot more flames given the terrorists used fully fuel-laden aircraft. Early on the fire, even inside the building, seemed a lot smaller then what one might expect from an impact with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

Also, is it not the usual practice of the FAA to gather up wreckage of any plane crash, find the black boxes and attempt to "put the pieces back together" in a hanger somewhere to determine what happened, how it happened, how to prevent future happenings, etcetera? Does anyone have knowledge that this was done? It may have I am just not aware of it. Unlike the Twin Towers where the plane wreckage were mixed with thousands of tons of building debris, this was near ground level and brought under control fairly quickly. A plane does not just disintegrate into nothing, some pieces should have survived. No plane wreckage suggests no plane, if indeed there was no salvaged wreckage, yet something hit the building and a plane is presumably missing in any case.

There are (or were) clips from several news organizations local (and I believe national like CNN) that were on scene immediately after the explosion you may still be able to find them online and judge for yourself if you can see any plane wreckage.

Anyway, I'm not much for most conspiracy theories, and certainly no expert on airline disasters but the official explanation has always seemed a bit odd to me.

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.