Russian Pilot photos 9/11 as it happens

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So how much was found at all the crash sites?

So with all the erroneous statements that you talk about how can people still beleive the official story?

The Strontium thing is a good example of people flying off with wild ideas based on incomplete information along with misunderstandings. Strontium was found in the USGS surveys but it was not radioactive Strontium 90, just plain old stable Strontium compounds which are common. There is a natural occurence of Sr90 atoms which contributes to the background radiation levels.

The DU thing is similar and probably snowballed from a simple uninformed suggestion as to the source of the radiation detected, which later turned out to be from Tritium which burned in the fires to produce radioactive water (HTO) and the source of the Tritium was identified as I posted earlier.

The Pentagon radiation could be from exactly the same sources as that detected at the WTC, common things like exit lights, luminous watches, illuminated gun sights. As long as the Tritium remains sealed in its borosilicate (pyrex) glass container, it barely registers on radiation detectors because it emits beta particles which rarely make it all the way through the glass. Break the glass and it's a different story altogether.

Originally posted by HLR53K
The Google censoring 9/11 items is new to me. I'd like to know if this can be confirmed.

Oh there was a report on this a while back, i will see if i can find it again.

However, if you were trying to find information, in detail, on a specific assembly or component, it's not as simple as typing a phrase into a computer.

Well i know from being a crew chief in the Air Force how to look up what manual a specific part woud be in. Plus from expereince of using the manuals over the yers you get to know what parts are in what manuals.

Or you can contact people that have a lot of knowledge of a specific aircraft, they are called Technical Reps.

Obviously a call is the best way, but you have to go through proper channels and we all know how long that can take for a company to respond in a way that is both sensitive to the event and doesn't put a negative spin on the company itself.

Well that is also where FOIA request come in and e-mails to companies asking the proper questions.



[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The DU thing is similar and probably snowballed from a simple uninformed suggestion as to the source of the radiation detected,

So your saying agencies like the EPA and other government agencies on the scenes were uninformed?

The Pentagon radiation could be from exactly the same sources as that detected at the WTC, common things like exit lights, luminous watches, illuminated gun sights.

Pretty good coincidence that the Pentagon had the same kind of lights, watches and gun sights.

Can you tell me your soucre for this, specailly the gun sights?

[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
The Google censoring 9/11 items is new to me. I'd like to know if this can be confirmed.

Oh there was a report on this a while back, i will see if i can find it again.

However, if you were trying to find information, in detail, on a specific assembly or component, it's not as simple as typing a phrase into a computer.

Well i know from being a crew chief in the Air Force how to look up what manual a specific part woud be in. Plus from expereince of using the manuals over the yers you get to know what parts are in what manuals.

Or you can contact people that have a lot of knowledge of a specific aircraft, they are called Technical Reps.

Obviously a call is the best way, but you have to go through proper channels and we all know how long that can take for a company to respond in a way that is both sensitive to the event and doesn't put a negative spin on the company itself.

Well that is also where FOIA request come in and e-mails to companies asking the proper questions.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

You might know how to look it up, but you can't apply that to everyone else. Not everyone working for the EPA or other agencies have military experience nor worked at the companies that assemble the aircraft.

Plus there is a big difference between how the Air Force indexes information and how the individual companies or the agencies indexes information.

I'm willing to bet that if you came over to Sikorsky and tried to look something up, you would have a hell of a time trying to even start. I, on the other hand, would know who to contact and where to begin looking.

Also, you might know which manual to look it up in, but do you know where the agency or company actually stores that manual?


You misunderstood me completely regarding going through proper channels. I was talking about getting information on the spot (i.e. when the agency worker or news worker wanted to verify the DU claim as it was brought up).

I do not believe FOIA requests apply to proprietary company information. If it did, then no company secret would ever be secret. A company is a private entity, whereas the government is a public entity. You cannot use an FOIA request to pull information from a private company any more than you can use it to get information about another citizen.

Think of the chaos that would happen if FOIA requests applied to company proprietary information. One company would come up with a design in stealth aircraft that gave them an edge in the market. If a competing company just had to file an FOIA request to get that secret, what good is capitalism then?

Even if you e-mail and ask the right questions, it will still take time for the e-mail to be brought through the proper internal company channels (that's why there's a Public Relations and Legal department in all companies). They have to make sure that their interests are protected first and foremost.

Go ahead and write an e-mail to any of the large aerospace companies (or any other company for that fact). I bet you that you'll either get a scripted response back from the Public Relations department saying something along the lines of:

"Thanks for your interest in X company. At this time, we cannot directly provide that information to you..."

Or you'll get no response from them at all. You, Ultima, as just a citizen and a non-employee of the company, have no rights to their private information.

My point with the looking up of information and calling/e-mailing companies directly was that before the internet got as robust as it is today, it took much more time to find something.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by HLR53K
Not everyone working for the EPA or other agencies have military experience nor worked at the companies that assemble the aircraft.

But doesn't the media have military consultants and other specialist to get information from for thier stories?

I am sure the EPA could also contact people that had the knowledge.

I'm willing to bet that if you came over to Sikorsky and tried to look something up, you would have a hell of a time trying to even start. I, on the other hand, would know who to contact and where to begin looking.

I think i would have a good idea where to start or who to contact to get information.

Also, you might know which manual to look it up in, but do you know where the agency or company actually stores that manual?

Well i do know a little about how governemt agencies work so i do not believe i would have a problem locating the manuals.

You misunderstood me completely regarding going through proper channels. I was talking about getting information on the spot (i.e. when the agency worker or news worker wanted to verify the DU claim as it was brought up).

As stated the medai has experts and consultants they can get infomration fast for their stories.

Or you'll get no response from them at all. You, Ultima, as just a citizen and a non-employee of the company, have no rights to their private information.

Well i e-mail companies a lot in the process of my government job and also have e-mailed companies from home, so in know what sorts of information they would send.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
Not everyone working for the EPA or other agencies have military experience nor worked at the companies that assemble the aircraft.

But doesn't the media have military consultants and other specialist to get information from for thier stories?

I am sure the EPA could also contact people that had the knowledge.

I'm willing to bet that if you came over to Sikorsky and tried to look something up, you would have a hell of a time trying to even start. I, on the other hand, would know who to contact and where to begin looking.

I think i would have a good idea where to start or who to contact to get information.

Also, you might know which manual to look it up in, but do you know where the agency or company actually stores that manual?

Well i do know a little about how governemt agencies work so i do not believe i would have a problem locating the manuals.

You misunderstood me completely regarding going through proper channels. I was talking about getting information on the spot (i.e. when the agency worker or news worker wanted to verify the DU claim as it was brought up).

As stated the medai has experts and consultants they can get infomration fast for their stories.

Or you'll get no response from them at all. You, Ultima, as just a citizen and a non-employee of the company, have no rights to their private information.

Well i e-mail companies a lot in the process of my government job and also have e-mailed companies from home, so in know what sorts of information they would send.

[edit on 7-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

They should, but whether or not they're avaiable at then time is the question. They might not know every last bit of information. If the whole group doesn't know, then they have to spend time looking for it. Either way, it takes much longer than the modern Google method.


I seriously doubt you would know where to go at Sikorsky. We have our own part nomenclature, our own specification labeling, our own data sheets, etc.. You would also need to know how to use the numerous programs that might or might not be able to find the information.

You'll have to know if it's a standard part, if it's a composite or metallic part, where on the aircraft it's located, is it a finalized production part or is it a work-in-progress by a supplier, etc., etc..


You e-mail them at work as a representative of a government agency. But you as a private citizen (i.e. representing yourself) still do not have the right to freely ask for proprietary company information. You don't own the information, they do. It's their absolute right to reject you access to that information if they feel like it.

It's like if I asked about your family (wife, kids, etc., if you have them). It's your information and I have no right knowing about it if I don't have a damned good reason to. A government agency might, but another private citizen shouldn't.


But we have gone off-topic. We are supposed to be discussing the Russian pilot's pictures, not whether or not you can find information at my company nor if FOIA requests apply to private companies.

If you would like, I can create another thread to continue this discussion (even though it's not a direct 9/11 issue).

[edit on 7-6-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by HLR53K
Either way, it takes much longer than the modern Google method.

Not really anyone with a basic knowledge of airliners would be able to confirm that the 757 aqnd 767 do not carry DU.

You e-mail them at work as a representative of a government agency. But you as a private citizen (i.e. representing yourself) still do not have the right to freely ask for proprietary company information.

Well i would ask some general questions and see what kind of information i could get. It would not be about proprietary information (unless i could be considered work related)

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Not really anyone with a basic knowledge of airliners would be able to confirm that the 757 aqnd 767 do not carry DU.

Well i would ask some general questions and see what kind of information i could get. It would not be about proprietary information (unless i could be considered work related)

Know, maybe. But not as a reliable source to confirm it. If I grabbed a random person off the street, you would not take their answer as a reliable one, even if they say that they know about airliners.

They have a 50/50 shot at answering correctly. They would lean towards the "no" not because they know specifically that the 757s and 767s don't use DU, but more out of a fear of hearing the word uranium. I would guess that the most common answer would actually be "I would hope not".

Most people also would not know that the 747-200 used DU as trim weights.

Since you have some general aircraft knowledge, can you tell me how you can tell a Sea Hawk apart from a Black Hawk? Paint scheme aside, since they could be painted whatever color the military wants.


But anyway, can we get back to the Russian's pictures? What were we discussing before going off on this tangent?

[edit on 8-6-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by HLR53K
Know, maybe. But not as a reliable source to confirm it. If I grabbed a random person off the street, you would not take their answer as a reliable one, even if they say that they know about airliners.

But anyway, can we get back to the Russian's pictures? What were we discussing before going off on this tangent?

1. If you were at the Pentaogn i think you could find a reliable source.

2. Well as stated it not really off topic when you consider its just yet another question about the official story, but we can get bcak to the photos.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

1. If you were at the Pentaogn i think you could find a reliable source.

2. Well as stated it not really off topic when you consider its just yet another question about the official story, but we can get bcak to the photos.

Ok, my last post on this tangent (I can't help it).

That's still going to a specific source. The person wanting to find the information would still have to call or e-mail the contact and depending on if the contact was there or not or had the information on-hand, it could take anywhere from a few hours to days. Plus, most of these expert contacts are shared by various news companies.

And I meant it was a tangent converstation in regards to this thread specifically. Discussing the DU claim is fine, but not what we can find via FOIA requests and how companies file their information.

I still would like to know if you can tell the difference between a Sea Hawk and a Black Hawk (if I parked them in front of you with the exact same paint scheme). It's something anyone with "general aircraft knowledge should know", as you put it. And it's just an amusing question from me.

Originally posted by HLR53K
I still would like to know if you can tell the difference between a Sea Hawk and a Black Hawk (if I parked them in front of you with the exact same paint scheme). .

You mean aside from 1 having a NAVY ID and tail ccode ? and the other having a Army ID and tail code ?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


No looking stuff up. If I just put a grey Black Hawk and a grey Sea Hawk in front of you without any markings on the skin whatsoever. Just looking at them from a distance.

Come on, it's very easy.

I know you're looking it up now, so there's not real point in asking. I just wanted to prove that there are some things that even people with "general aircraft knowledge" wouldn't know.

[edit on 8-6-2008 by HLR53K]

[edit on 8-6-2008 by HLR53K]

Originally posted by HLR53K
No specifics. If I just put a grey Black Hawk and a grey Sea Hawk in front of you without any markings on the skin whatsoever. Just looking at them from a distance..

Well i had a friend who was on a Blackhawk and if i remember the 1 difference is the location of the wheels.



[edit on 8-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Heh, specifically the tail wheel. SH-60s have twin rear wheels located right under the start of the tail cone which has a piston system. M/UH-60s have a single tail wheel right under the tail rotor pylon. with no shock absorbers.

And if you look at the turboshaft engine exhausts ducts, you'll see that the SH-60 has a "smooth" transition into the tailcone, whereas the U/MH-60 has baffles. Bet you didn't notice that eh?

Like I said, my only point was that some people with general aircraft knowledge would not know some of the tiny things like that.

Ok, enough tangents, back to the WTC.

Originally posted by HLR53K
And if you look at the turboshaft engine exhausts ducts, you'll see that the SH-60 has a "smooth" transition into the tailcone, whereas the U/MH-60 has baffles. Bet you didn't notice that eh?

Well i have never worked on a helicopter, but had a good friend that was a crew chief on 1 and was just remembering what he told me.

So does the seahawk have the crash seats?

I need to update the "correction" I made earlier.
I had downloaded the hi-res video (link above) and started watching the things flying around in the smoke above the second tower that is coming off the first tower.(in the Fairbanks video)
At normal speed, they look like they may be debris.
I am making screen captures to assemble frames to make a slow version of the video.
I do not have every frame, yet, but I have enough to see that they are not chunks of random debris.
There are two triangular black objects that move as if the points of the triangle are wings.
They both fly in a figure 8 type course above the building.
It seems to me that they could be close observation platforms for checking on the progress of the attack.
As this is going on, there are three sequential trails from something flying down from the smoke, like missiles.
This is all going on at the East facing wall of tower 2.
I will post a link to my video, when I get it done, here.