The best site for 911 research

[little grey rabbit]

is here, or so I was informed by JREFers.

Some gave me this youtube clip sometime ago. I have never known quite what to make of it, as there seems to be a very good community of anti-truther opponents here, I can depend on you to give me the right debunking and that is exactly what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3PxBF_qmNE

The final screen ends up with this

Position 50 km away from the WTC
UAL 175: United Airlines 175
B762: Boeing 767-200
310 438: 31000ft, 438 knots
BOS 08:15a
LAX 01:44p

N 175 F: Extra Flight 175
007 136: 700ft, 136 knots
????
???? ??? ???

So as the best place for 911 research on the web, can you tell me if
a) is the clip genuine? It looks genuine and in other versions they go to great lengths to show context and try to show the bona fide of what they present. Perhaps it is all just an extremely sophisticated fake?
b) Have they deciphered the abbreviations correctly?
c) What does it mean, if anything?

[Dave Rogers]

I suspect that you might get rather more information if you posted the thread under a more informative title; I would suggest you ask the moderators to change it to something like "Flight N175F debunk request". You might also want to try sending PMs to JREF users Cheap Shot, who was an ATC on duty on 9/11, and femr2, who appears to have posted the video in question.

Dave

[little grey rabbit]

Oh I am sure if there is a debunk for it, it will turn up sooner or later, regardless of the thread title.
And if there isn't, it won't.

I get the feeling that like the anti-revisionists, anti-truthers have an excellent internal intelligence service.

There is no hurry. I am sure the Illuminati is not about to demolish another couple of skyscrapers in the next few weeks.

[DC]

:rolleyes:

I get the feeling that like the anti-revisionists, anti-truthers have an excellent internal intelligence service.

yes your thread made the alarm bells ring, 1000's of SMS were sent to all the NWO payd shills to show up and denie your truths. Life is a bitch.

[Dave Rogers]

Oh I am sure if there is a debunk for it, it will turn up sooner or later, regardless of the thread title.

And I'm sure you'll reject it, regardless of the content.

Dave

[Sam.I.Am]

Good god. How old are you? Illuminati? Go back to playing Deus-Ex and reading trashy Dan Brown fiction novels. There is no level of control like that in the real world, not even close. Your post alone shows this to be true, I never would've seen it if your fantasy was true.

(of course your seeing this post means that the Illuminati approved this post as disinfo so it's all moot. RIGHT?)

[Dave Rogers]

Good god. How old are you? Illuminati? Go back to playing Deus-Ex and reading trashy Dan Brown fiction novels.

I think you need to distinguish between little grey rabbit's deliberate irony, his deliberate disingenuity, his deliberate evasiveness and his deliberate insubstantial innuendo, and try not to mistake any of them for the illusion of his actually making a positive claim. I think the Illuminati bit was irony, though it's difficult to be sure what someone means when they're trying very hard not to say anything at all because they don't want to open their irrational beliefs up to any kind of scrutiny.

Dave

[sylvan8798]

Great. Another no-planer.

[little grey rabbit]

And I'm sure you'll reject it, regardless of the content.

Dave

Nope, first I want to know if the video is fake or real. If it is fake, it is an extraordinary good one.
Secondly, I want to know what the meaning of the MSNBC clip showed.

There may, nay almost surely is, an excellent explanation. I just want to know what it is, so no more poor trusting souls will be fooled by this slick presentation.

Can't say fairer than that.

[T.A.M.]

That clip already has 2 threads going on this forum in the past. If someone remembers the names of the threads, please bring them forward, so we don't have to waste any more of our time on this crap.

TAM:)

[little grey rabbit]

I think you need to distinguish between little grey rabbit's deliberate irony, his deliberate disingenuity, his deliberate evasiveness and his deliberate insubstantial innuendo, and try not to mistake any of them for the illusion of his actually making a positive claim. I think the Illuminati bit was irony, though it's difficult to be sure what someone means when they're trying very hard not to say anything at all because they don't want to open their irrational beliefs up to any kind of scrutiny.

Dave

To be absolutely honest with you Dave, I don't have any idea. The best analogy I can offer you is with Dark Matter, you can't see it, you can't measure it, you can't describe it, but you know it exists because of the devastating gravitational pull it exerts on our social fabric.

However, one has to give Dark Matter a name and the Illuminati is rather a fun name, so that will do for the time being.

[little grey rabbit]

That clip already has 2 threads going on this forum in the past. If someone remembers the names of the threads, please bring them forward, so we don't have to waste any more of our time on this crap.

TAM:)

Thanks, but a two or three line summary would be just as good.

I just want to know if its genuine and what the information that the MSNBC part of it shows means.

I have no particular theory about 9/11 I need to defend

[T.A.M.]

I think, IIRC, the gist was that the radar data continued along a predetermined flight path, without the real time up date indicating the crash, and this is what was shown.

It was a while ago, and others may remember it better.

TAM:)

[little grey rabbit]

I think, IIRC, the gist was that the radar data continued along a predetermined flight path, without the real time up date indicating the crash, and this is what was shown.

It was a while ago, and others may remember it better.

TAM:)

So genuine. Although 31000 feet seems to be a very speedy ascent for a computer generated estimation. I have no knowledge of either the system or software, so I am not in any position to judge how plausible that explanation is.

and what was N 175 F?

[T.A.M.]

Here is one of the threads I mentioned. The clip is not exactly the same, but I think the truther content is.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137237&highlight=flight

I think it has to do with how the program "Flight Explorer" which generates the graphic representation in the video, works, and how it gets its data, when it updates, etc...

TAM:)

[little grey rabbit]

After reading through the first page of insults and flames.
I came across the suggestion that the transponder was turned off and therefore the screen showed the last known location. Again I don't know the software, so I can make no comment. I don't know if 31 000 feet to sea level is a reasonable descent rate over that length.

However, if the transponder was turned off, that still doesn't explain why there was a "N 175 F" at 700 feet. It appears to have an automated height value and an automated speed value.

[funk de fino]

Are you a no planer?

[femr2]

After reading through the first page of insults and flames.
I came across the suggestion that the transponder was turned off and therefore the screen showed the last known location. Again I don't know the software, so I can make no comment. I don't know if 31 000 feet to sea level is a reasonable descent rate over that length.

However, if the transponder was turned off, that still doesn't explain why there was a "N 175 F" at 700 feet. It appears to have an automated height value and an automated speed value.

I haven't been able to get any further useful information on the subject to be honest.

I've contacted FlightExplorer a few times, as they have a service through which you can request the raw data for all aircraft, and play it back through the client software, but I have never received any replies. (Requested data for all *9/11* flight AND N175F)

The transponder was not turned off. It's frequency was changed twice, which seems to correlate with the reduction in data points.

The altitude data for UAL175 does not match the official altitude data either.

The data is positional, and follows the flightpath deviations correctly, until the large reduction in data-points.

FlightExplorer is not predictive, and only updates when new data for a flight is received.

The FAA pointed all requests for flightpath data to FlightExplorer at that time. Quite a testament to it's accuracy and validity I'd say.

There has been suggestion of manually keyed data being an explanation, but frankly that makes little sense, and the suggested manual figures are in entirely the wrong fields.

Still unclear I'm afraid.

N175F is in the right place, UAL175 is not. Did the FAA mix up flight ID's ? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

eta: The officially released flightpath traces from FlightExplorer also include the *odd* final position of UAL175...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/Feaa11ual175static.gif

Oh, and the RADES data for UAL175 seems to suffer from quite a bit of *oddness* then played for the first time. Rewinding it and playing it again *resolves* the odd behaviour...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMubzTgwIkw

[little grey rabbit]

femr2. I appreciate your response.

The issues are completely outside my knowledge base, so I have nothing informative to add. I was just shown this some time ago and I was interested in what the "response" would be.

My own personal view, to the very minor extent that I pay attention to 911 issues, is that the flight paths the planes took just prior to striking the two towers are psychologically puzzling for two pilots who had never flown an aircraft before. In as much as both planes seemed to have banked suddenly before turning to strike the buildings perpendicular to the face of the building. I have seen in Baghdad that this is the way the military program cruise missiles to strike buildings; I assume to make sure the explosive payload is delivered to the center of the structure.

If I imagine myself a suicide pilot, I think I would just visually line up the buildings and make a straight line for them. The coolness to be able to do those last minute bank and turns surprises me

[little grey rabbit]

The second to last point on your image still shows it at 31 000 feet.

[femr2]

The second to last point on your image still shows it at 31 000 feet.

Yes. According to the following image, it should be ~22000ft.

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/2/376965454.jpg

[little grey rabbit]

femr2, just hypothetically to suppose the utterly incredible was true and a flight N 175 F did come in, could point E "changes beacon codes twice" be a suitable point for the 2nd flight to take over the identity of the official UAL 175 flight?

As I already said, this is a technology of which I know nothing

[Dave Rogers]

My own personal view, to the very minor extent that I pay attention to 911 issues, is that the flight paths the planes took just prior to striking the two towers are psychologically puzzling for two pilots who had never flown an aircraft before. In as much as both planes seemed to have banked suddenly before turning to strike the buildings perpendicular to the face of the building.

Neither flight behaved as you've described them here, though. Flight 175 didn't hit WTC2 particularly close to perpendicular, and flight 11 didn't bank suddenly just before hitting WTC1. In fact, flight 11 behaved in a way best described by:

If I imagine myself a suicide pilot, I think I would just visually line up the buildings and make a straight line for them.

Flight 11 seems to have made a relatively straight run-in and simply crashed straight on into WTC1, whereas flight 175 was looking like it wouldn't hit the building at all until the pilot made a sharp turn to correct his aim. That suggests to me that Atta was a better pilot than al-Shehhi, because he didn't nearly screw up.

But it's easier to find inconsistencies in the 'official story' if you're allowed to make them up for yourself, isn't it?

Dave

[Oystein]

...The coolness to be able to do those last minute bank and turns surprises me

I occasionally play a little MS FlightSim for recreation. I am not a good or talented sim pilot, but I have done a few take-offs and landings. And crashed some, too.

Usually, when I am aiming for a target - whether it is an airstrip or I try to pass between two buildings in Chicago, because I am a mediocre (read: bad) pilot, I am liable to a lot of last second banking - it is much more a sign of lack of coolness.

[little grey rabbit]

Flight 11 seems to have made a relatively straight run-in and simply crashed straight on into WTC1, whereas flight 175 was looking like it wouldn't hit the building at all until the pilot made a sharp turn to correct his aim. That suggests to me that Atta was a better pilot than al-Shehhi, because he didn't nearly screw up.

Its been along time since I looked at the impact videos and I am not going to do so again any time soon. From my recollection both planes were angled on impact and both hit perpendicular. If one plane turned less, then it was due to less turning being required to make a perpendicular strike.

However, you are wrong that this means al-Shehhi was a poor pilot. A poor pilot just lines up the building and makes the tiny adjustments to hit - angled strike, so what? Everyone in the plane and on that floor dies.

An excellent pilot, if his approach does not take him perpendicular to the building face, flies just to one side and then makes a sharply banked turn to strike at 90 degrees.

An excellent pilot or a plane on a GPS controlled flight path.

However, when you have Allah on your side, who knows what you can achieve?

[femr2]

femr2, just hypothetically to suppose the utterly incredible was true and a flight N 175 F did come in, could point E "changes beacon codes twice" be a suitable point for the 2nd flight to take over the identity of the official UAL 175 flight?

As I already said, this is a technology of which I know nothing
Hypothetically, yes. It could also be that following transponder changes the FAA simply mixed up two flights that were in a similar position.

(Stands back before the inevitable rush of flame)

I think it wiser to focus on the data, though as I've said I had no joy getting extra information out of the FlightExplorer company.

I don't think there is a *ghost* aircraft, so what I'd like to know is...

a) If the flight marked UAL175 50km NE of WTC is NOT UAL175, what flight was it, and what was it's full flightpath ?

b) If the flight marked N175F is UAL175, how did it end up named N175F ?

c) If it's a simple mix-up between flight ID's, and therefore assuming that the indicated position for UAL175 is actually N175F, what was N175F ? Commercial airliner ?

[Oystein]

...and both hit perpendicular...

No, UA175 did not.

If one plane turned less, then it was due to less turning being required to make a perpendicular strike.

AA11 had the easier approach path, coming from the north and along the East river. Much easier to line up nicely many miles in advance.
UA175, coming from the south, had a more boggled approach and was struggling till the last second to hit at all.

...
An excellent pilot, if his approach does not take him perpendicular to the building face, flies just to one side and then makes a sharply banked turn to strike at 90 degrees.

An excellent pilot or a plane on a GPS controlled flight path.
...

All in your imagination.

A GPS-controlled flight path would simply go straight, which UA175 did not. Not nearly.
A GPS-controlles flight path could by the way miss the building altogether - GPS isn't so very precise in-flight.

[MRC_Hans]

My own personal view, to the very minor extent that I pay attention to 911 issues, is that the flight paths the planes took just prior to striking the two towers are psychologically puzzling for two pilots who had never flown an aircraft before. In as much as both planes seemed to have banked suddenly before turning to strike the buildings perpendicular to the face of the building. I have seen in Baghdad that this is the way the military program cruise missiles to strike buildings; I assume to make sure the explosive payload is delivered to the center of the structure.

If I imagine myself a suicide pilot, I think I would just visually line up the buildings and make a straight line for them. The coolness to be able to do those last minute bank and turns surprises meAs has been discussed at some length years ago, the simplest way to fly a plane into something is to place a marker on the front screen (a magic marker cross will do nicely) and maneuvre to keep it over the target. Eventually, you will hit the target.

The Japanese WW2 Kamikaze pilots did the same, using the gunsight in the plane.

Hans

[Dave Rogers]

Its been along time since I looked at the impact videos and I am not going to do so again any time soon. From my recollection both planes were angled on impact and both hit perpendicular.

Then your recollection is incorrect. Both planes were banked at impact, but flight 11 was not turning and flight 175 was not perpendicular. But you say you're not interested in checking this. So, since you have so little interest in 9/11 that you can't be bothered to check your own recollection of something you consider suspicious, how come you're nevertheless interested enough in the subject to demand a debunk of a very little-known point of suspicion? Your attitude reeks of insincerity.

Dave

[little grey rabbit]

AA11 had the easier approach path, coming from the north and along the East river. Much easier to line up nicely many miles in advance.
UA175, coming from the south, had a more boggled approach and was struggling till the last second to hit at all.

Its boeing, not bucking bronco.


A GPS-controlled flight path would simply go straight, which UA175 did not. Not nearly.
A GPS-controlles flight path could by the way miss the building altogether - GPS isn't so very precise in-flight.

I dare say you are correct and my terminology all wrong. All I know from studying the impact hole and burnt out exteriors of buildings in Baghdad, it seems to me that the military have technology that allows missiles approaching from any angle to make last minute adjustments to strike perpendicular.

In fact, you can easily see why it would be very important to do so.

So if GPS is the wrong term, my apologies, it is whatever the military uses to guide missile strikes.

[little grey rabbit]

As has been discussed at some length years ago, the simplest way to fly a plane into something is to place a marker on the front screen (a magic marker cross will do nicely) and maneuvre to keep it over the target. Eventually, you will hit the target.

The Japanese WW2 Kamikaze pilots did the same, using the gunsight in the plane.

Hans

Exactly.

[MRC_Hans]

A GPS-controlled flight path would simply go straight, which UA175 did not. Not nearly.
A GPS-controlles flight path could by the way miss the building altogether - GPS isn't so very precise in-flight.

In this scenario, GPS would be used to get within visual distance of the building, then simply make for it. You could see it with the Pentagon plane: Navigating till they had visual contact, then finding they were way too high, and having to make nearly a full circle to burn off altitude. Obviously, the Manhattan skyline is visible from a much greater distance, so there was more time to line up.

Hans

[little grey rabbit]

I think it wiser to focus on the data, though as I've said I had no joy getting extra information out of the FlightExplorer company.

I don't think there is a *ghost* aircraft, so what I'd like to know is...


Which is why an in-depth knowledge of Holocaust denial and studying the dynamics of both the debunkers and Her Majesty's loyal opposition (aka "respectable" denial) makes an excellent apprenticeship for looking at 9/11.

The tactics don't really change, its just the content.

[Dave Rogers]

I have never known quite what to make of it, [...]

I don't have any idea.

I have no particular theory about 9/11 [...]

I have no knowledge of either the system or software, [...]

Again I don't know the software, so I can make no comment.

The issues are completely outside my knowledge base, so I have nothing informative to add.

As I already said, this is a technology of which I know nothing

I dare say you are correct and my terminology all wrong.

Given the quite remarkable level of modesty displayed above, I would just like to comment that:

Which is why an in-depth knowledge of Holocaust denial and studying the dynamics of both the debunkers and Her Majesty's loyal opposition (aka "respectable" denial) makes an excellent apprenticeship for looking at 9/11.

... seems rather an odd statement. It seems that you feel your apprenticeship has left you with no relevant knowledge or understanding whatsoever. In your place, I'd be looking for a refund.

Dave

[little grey rabbit]

Mr Rogers, I do not study 9/11, I study you.

Bless

[MRC_Hans]

Mr Rogers, I do not study 9/11, I study you.

BlessAhh, that explains why the title of this, your thread, is "The best site for 911 research" :rolleyes:

Very weird angle from which to study people. :dio: :nope:

Take care lest you happen to disclose more about yourself than about the rest of us. :p

Hans

[funk de fino]

Ahh, that explains why the title of this, your thread, is "The best site for 911 research" :rolleyes:

Very weird angle from which to study people. :dio: :nope:

Take care lest you happen to disclose more about yourself than about the rest of us. :p

Hans

Too late.

[Dave Rogers]

Mr Rogers, I do not study 9/11, I study you.

I'll look forward to your presentation of your findings. Uninformed speculation is always amusing, especially when I know the subject matter so intimately.

Dave

ETA: By the way, you've got one thing wrong already. Good work so far.

[little grey rabbit]

Take care lest you happen to disclose more about yourself than about the rest of us. :p

Hans

Hans, please, I have no secrets. I am so transparent you can read a newspaper through me.

[Oystein]

Its boeing, not bucking bronco.

Ae you saying an inexperienced pilot would fly smooth as a pro and not struggle? Wow...

I dare say you are correct and my terminology all wrong. All I know from studying the impact hole and burnt out exteriors of buildings in Baghdad, it seems to me that the military have technology that allows missiles approaching from any angle to make last minute adjustments to strike perpendicular.

This is very fascinating. It just doesn't seem to have much to do with 9/11 since, you see, neither flight 175 nor flight 77 hit their targets perpendicularly.

In fact, you can easily see why it would be very important to do so.

So if GPS is the wrong term, my apologies, it is whatever the military uses to guide missile strikes.

Well, your argument seems to prove that no missile guiding technology as used by the US military in Bagdad was used on 9/11, since the planes didn't do what those cruise missiles do.

We knew that already ;)

[Dave Rogers]

I am so transparent you can read a newspaper through me.

Provided it's the American Free Press.

Dave

[Gord_in_Toronto]

femr2.

<snip>

for two pilots who had never flown an aircraft before. WTF?

<snip>

[16.5]

After reading through the first page of insults and flames.
I came across the suggestion that the transponder was turned off and therefore the screen showed the last known location. Again I don't know the software, so I can make no comment. I don't know if 31 000 feet to sea level is a reasonable descent rate over that length..

That is bull **** and you have proven yourself to be untrustworthy. Here is my first post on the first page:

"Have you discussed your theory with Flight Explorer?

Here is Flight Explorer's flight path for UA 175,

http://www.avweb.com/other/911flightexplorer.html

and the location of that plane corresponds with the last data point Flight Explorer provides in outlining the flight path of UA 175.

So we have two possible explanations: the location shown on the video shows the last data point for UA175 and there was no more data to update the flight explorer because it hit the Tower; or UA 175 was hanging stationary in the air somewhere over New York City.

Talk to Flight explorer and get back to us.

eta: "For example, do you know how Flight Explorer copes when the flow of data is interrupted?" Ding, ding, ding!!!"

So, your question has been previously answered, your search skills suck, and this thread should be merged with the last thread where we blew this insane No Planer theory right the **** out of the water.

Welcome to the best debunking site in the world, champ.

[femr2]

So we have two possible explanations: the location shown on the video shows the last data point for UA175 and there was no more data to update the flight explorer because it hit the Tower; or UA 175 was hanging stationary in the air somewhere over New York City.

If you think that the indicated final position is over NYC, take another look.

It's ~50km NE of the WTC.

The accuracy of the data before the reduction in data-points matches very well with RADES data, although as I indicated the RADES data itself has some *quirks* when played directly from the source data.

[16.5]

If you think that the indicated final position is over NYC, take another look.

It's ~50km NE of the WTC.

The accuracy of the data before the reduction in data-points matches very well with RADES data, although as I indicated the RADES data itself has some *quirks* when played directly from the source data.

Oh My, you mean it is hanging in the air about 50 klicks from the towers!

Inside jobby job!

[T.A.M.]

guys,

lgr has no interest in the issue at hand. He has been telling you throughout, that his purpose is to study our response and conclusions, not the argument or details themselves.

Unless you enjoy some wannabe psychologist/sociologist examining your behavior for kicks, just leave it alone...let the thread die.

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

Unless you enjoy some wannabe psychologist/sociologist examining your behavior for kicks, just leave it alone...let the thread die.

At which point lgr will of course declare victory and loudly proclaim that the JREF forum never actually debunks anything. Given that his aim in all this is to maintain his cherished ignorance of anything that might refute his twisted world view, in a sense that is a victory.

Dave

[femr2]

Oh My, you mean it is hanging in the air about 50 klicks from the towers!

No, I am saying that the position on the map is very clearly ~50km NE of the WTC, not over NYC as you suggested. I infer from your statement that you think the position is *real*, which is a bigger issue, but I'm sure you can clarify your viewpoint on that eh.

Unless you enjoy some wannabe psychologist/sociologist examining your behavior for kicks, just leave it alone...let the thread die.

Or perhaps a definitive solution to the anomoly could be supplied. The *stabs in the air* on the original thread were far from such.

You can ignore it of course, or assume it's a data anomoly, but it's not going to fully, er, *die* until something definitive emerges, which is pretty unlikely as FlightExplorer don't respond to requests for the raw data on that day.

[16.5]

No, I am saying that the position on the map is very clearly ~50km NE of the WTC, not over NYC as you suggested. I infer from your statement that you think the position is *real*, which is a bigger issue, but I'm sure you can clarify your viewpoint on that eh.

Or perhaps a definitive solution to the anomoly could be supplied. The *stabs in the air* on the original thread were far from such.

You can ignore it of course, or assume it's a data anomoly, but it's not going to fully, er, *die* until something definitive emerges, which is pretty unlikely as FlightExplorer don't respond to requests for the raw data on that day.

Uh, no, I don't think the position is "real." I think the whole thing is a joke, it was discussed to death, and it all seems premised on the suggestion that the freaking plane did not hit the freaking tower, which we all know if freaking looney tunes.

So until the mods either relegate this crap to AAH or merge it with the earlier thread that the genius in the OP COMPLETELY missed, i'm done with this thread.

[Dave Rogers]

You can ignore it of course, or assume it's a data anomoly, but it's not going to fully, er, *die* until something definitive emerges, which is pretty unlikely as FlightExplorer don't respond to requests for the raw data on that day.

Or you could consider the totality of the evidence for flight UA175 having been the aircraft to hit WTC2, and accept that the simplest explanation of this particular anomaly is that FlightExplorer was doing something we don't fully understand that gave a false impression it was tracking two separate airliners when in fact there was only one physically present. Since that is so far the only reasonably complete hypothesis that has even been suggested, I'm happy to accept it provisionally, until either (a) any new evidence emerges or (b) someone proposes an alternative hypothesis that doesn't contradict more evidence than it explains.

Dave

[femr2]

until either (a) any new evidence emerges or (b) someone proposes an alternative hypothesis that doesn't contradict more evidence than it explains.

Aiii.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Spamming his YouTube videos over a year ago, femr said this unidentified aircraft was the one that hit WTC2.
http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt332/JREFImages/175.jpg

[dafydd]

Why would anyone want to do 9/11 ''research''? We know what happened,at least sane people know what happened.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If I may be so bold as to respond to the thread title (it's crazy, I know), the two best sites, IMO, are Gravy's http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ and http://www.911myths.com/ .

[little grey rabbit]

Actually it's not true I have no interest in the subject at hand, but rather I use as a guide the responses I get here as important part of determining the value of each particular Truther(TM) claim.

I have over the years in Holocaust denial developed a rather sensitive textual analysis software package that can detect certain patterns and motifs which give a very precise guide as to the collective emotional state of the Illuminati to each particular sub-thesis

No, I am saying that the position on the map is very clearly ~50km NE of the WTC, not over NYC as you suggested. I infer from your statement that you think the position is *real*, which is a bigger issue, but I'm sure you can clarify your viewpoint on that eh.



Or perhaps a definitive solution to the anomoly could be supplied. The *stabs in the air* on the original thread were far from such.

You can ignore it of course, or assume it's a data anomoly, but it's not going to fully, er, *die* until something definitive emerges, which is pretty unlikely as FlightExplorer don't respond to requests for the raw data on that day.

Exactly femr2, without wishing to say this pre-determines the issue, a less than rigorous and, dare I say, hand-waving explanation has been provided.

Would anyone care to be more specific as to how the points that read Flight N 175 F and UAL 175 came to appear on that screen? What was the underlying data and how was it derived.

To play devil's advocate here: I am going to suggest that once a transponder was turned off, it was left hanging in the position where it last sent a signal.

So ghost flight N 175 F last sent a signal just at the WTC before crashing and destroying its transponder (or however these signals are communicated), whereas Flight UAL175 sent its last signal 50 miles NE and then was turned off and it did not signal again. It may be that it had been turned on and off momentarily, as the pattern is extremely intermittent.

So when the TV broadcast live at 10:20, these planes were not suspended in the air, rather the software showed their positions at the last point where a signal received and then was unable to resolve its path further.

[Dave Rogers]

I have over the years in Holocaust denial developed a rather sensitive textual analysis software package that can detect certain patterns and motifs which give a very precise guide as to the collective emotional state of the Illuminati to each particular sub-thesis

This is starting to look rather more like clinical paranoia. I'd advise you to see a psychiatrist, but no doubt that's just another way the Illuminati control the minds of the sheep, right? In fact, I assume you already have it categorised as a standard response, and the fact that you encounter it frequently is, to you, simply further proof of your suspicions.

Unfortunately, if you're sincere, you have a very unhappy life of fear and self-imposed impotence ahead of you. You have my sympathy, though probably not my attention for much longer.

Dave

[little grey rabbit]

This is starting to look rather more like clinical paranoia. I'd advise you to see a psychiatrist, but no doubt that's just another way the Illuminati control the minds of the sheep, right? In fact, I assume you already have it categorised as a standard response, and the fact that you encounter it frequently is, to you, simply further proof of your suspicions.

Unfortunately, if you're sincere, you have a very unhappy life of fear and self-imposed impotence ahead of you. You have my sympathy, though probably not my attention for much longer.

Dave

Mr Rogers, truly my lot in life is much to be pitied. All I can do is quote what I have quoted elsewhere
Two brief last questions. Do you regret the course of your life?
How can I? 'Regret' implies a freely chosen, but erroneous action; free will plays no part in my story.

However, we still have yet to get a rigorous explanation of the Flight Recorder data before we get too emotional and metaphysical.

[MRC_Hans]

Hans, please, I have no secrets. I am so transparent you can read a newspaper through me.Methinks you may be confusing 'transparant' with 'shallow'.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

To play devil's advocate here: I am going to suggest that once a transponder was turned off, it was left hanging in the position where it last sent a signal.

That is an entirely valid hypothesis, and one that can be confirmed/rejected by people knowing about the way such systems function.

One must, however, bear in mind that the transponder squawks to the radar signal, so even if the transponder stops, the radar keeps updating the position of the radar blib, only now sans the transponder info, so, as a system construction engineer, I find it more likely that the transponder flag will wink off, and the radar blip will fly on. If transponder flags were generally left hanging, it could get very confusing.

Hans

[little grey rabbit]

So the best 911 research site on the internet can't do any better than this?

Or you could consider the totality of the evidence for flight UA175 having been the aircraft to hit WTC2, and accept that the simplest explanation of this particular anomaly is that FlightExplorer was doing something we don't fully understand that gave a false impression it was tracking two separate airliners when in fact there was only one physically present. Since that is so far the only reasonably complete hypothesis that has even been suggested, I'm happy to accept it provisionally, until either (a) any new evidence emerges or (b) someone proposes an alternative hypothesis that doesn't contradict more evidence than it explains.


Don't get me wrong, I am patient and very grateful if anyone is actually putting in some serious research to find a more robust explanation.

In the meantime, where do you think the UAL 175 on the screen 50 km NE of New York was heading?
Greenland? Neuschwabenland? Moscow, Idaho?

[DC]

So the best 911 research site on the internet can't do any better than this?



Don't get me wrong, I am patient and very grateful if anyone is actually putting in some serious research to find a more robust explanation.

In the meantime, where do you think the UAL 175 on the screen 50 km NE of New York was heading?
Greenland? Neuschwabenland? Moscow, Idaho?

what explanation did your own research lead to?

[16.5]

Uh, this topic has already been addressed in another thread. You are wrong about the transponder, and in fact the person who raised that issue admitted it was erroneous on the same *********** page he mentioned it.

So you are a fraud, and a liar.

But your experience is in holocaust denial, so you already knew that.

[tsig]

Nope, first I want to know if the video is fake or real. If it is fake, it is an extraordinary good one.
Secondly, I want to know what the meaning of the MSNBC clip showed.

There may, nay almost surely is, an excellent explanation. I just want to know what it is, so no more poor trusting souls will be fooled by this slick presentation.

Can't say fairer than that.

Just Asking Questions?

[beachnut]

... where do you think the UAL 175 on the screen 50 km NE of New York was heading?
Greenland? Neuschwabenland? Moscow, Idaho?
Flight 175 impacted a WTC tower. RADAR proves it.

Have you found the best site yet?

[T.A.M.]

So the best 911 research site on the internet can't do any better than this?



Don't get me wrong, I am patient and very grateful if anyone is actually putting in some serious research to find a more robust explanation.

In the meantime, where do you think the UAL 175 on the screen 50 km NE of New York was heading?
Greenland? Neuschwabenland? Moscow, Idaho?

You are obviously here just to irritate and mock...which is your right. I am exercising my right to add you to my ignore list.

buh bye.

TAM:)

[little grey rabbit]

Uh, this topic has already been addressed in another thread. You are wrong about the transponder, and in fact the person who raised that issue admitted it was erroneous on the same *********** page he mentioned it.

So you are a fraud, and a liar.

But your experience is in holocaust denial, so you already knew that.

OK, so it was answered in another thread, but you need to understand for JREFer outsider it is very hard to pull out the genuine information amongst all the flames and the insults.

So if the transponder wasn't turned off or was turned off, how was this data being produced and why is there a flight N 175 F at the Trade Center and a UAL 175 flight 50 km NE?

I have provided a Truther explanation that fits quite nicely, I want to know what the best alternative explanation is.

There is no hurry.

[16.5]

OK, so it was answered in another thread, but you need to understand for JREFer outsider it is very hard to pull out the genuine information amongst all the flames and the insults.

So if the transponder wasn't turned off or was turned off, how was this data being produced and why is there a flight N 175 F at the Trade Center and a UAL 175 flight 50 km NE?

I have provided a Truther explanation that fits quite nicely, I want to know what the best alternative explanation is.

There is no hurry.

A great truther explanation? That is like saying it is a great idiot's explanation.

You did not read the first thread, you did no research, you have no clue what the data you were looking at actually shows, and you have no clue how the program you were looking at actually works.

Did you listen to the voice over on the video? That would have given you a clue that you were NOT looking at output taken in the time it would take the plane to fly 50 klicks. Did you think the plane was hanging in mid air several hours after it hit the building?

Yeah that is a great truther explanation. You are an idiot.

There is no hurry for you to wake up, truther.

[little grey rabbit]

Did you listen to the voice over on the video? That would have given you a clue that you were NOT looking at output taken in the time it would take the plane to fly 50 klicks. Did you think the plane was hanging in mid air several hours after it hit the building?

Yeah that is a great truther explanation. You are an idiot.

There is no hurry for you to wake up, truther.

Well I have already provided an explanation for that, the program simply left the last verified position it had in the air on screen. Obviously UAL 175 wasnt hanging 50 km NE of New York. Obviously flight N 175 F wasn't hanging 700 feet about WTC.

In both cases Flight Explorer received no more data and so plotted no more movements. Its fairly obvious why Flight N 175 F
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc5inmZqGu8
didnt send anymore signals.

What we don't know is why Flight UAL175 sent no further signals and where it was heading to.

I am still waiting on the Debunker explanation for the Flight Explorer data.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Well I have already provided an explanation for that, the program simply left the last verified position it had in the air on screen. Obviously UAL 175 wasnt hanging 50 km NE of New York. Obviously flight N 175 F wasn't hanging 700 feet about WTC.

In both cases Flight Explorer received no more data and so plotted no more movements. Its fairly obvious why Flight N 175 F
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc5inmZqGu8
didnt send anymore signals.

What we don't know is why Flight UAL175 sent no further signals and where it was heading to.

I am still waiting on the Debunker explanation for the Flight Explorer data.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4535230#post4535230

[little grey rabbit]

Thank you Unloved Rebel, if you haven't read these threads before it all looks a bit like "you're an idiot", "no you're an idiot"

So most Debunkers feel this is a good summary of their views of this issue (to the extent you have a view on it?). I don't want to be attacking a strawman
I'll give it a shot, my guess is that a controller started an additional track on UAL175 just in case they lost radar on the aircraft. UAL175 changed its beacon code to a different code during the Hijack. My guess when they started a new track they identified it with the "N" the reason why is in the ATC system requires all first characters to be an "ALPHA" character a "letter" not a number. The "F" at the end probably identified it as word Flight, so basically it was a ghost track. The "007" is probably the computer ID associated with the track, and the 138 below, means the aircraft was descending below 13,800 ft. That altitude could be manually entered or it could have been a Mode C hit. The controller probablly entered this from his position and flight explorer like the TSD or ASD just takes a snapshot of what the controller is watching, nothing else.

I won't be revisiting this for a day or so, so if anyone has some additions or improvements, please add them.

[UNLoVedRebel]

You asked for an explanation and I gave you one from a skilled professional. The guy's a Air Traffic Controller, so he knows more about the subject than a 65 year-old pensioner.

[little grey rabbit]

You asked for an explanation and I gave you one from a skilled professional. The guy's a Air Traffic Controller, so he knows more about the subject than a 65 year-old pensioner.

And I am sincerely grateful that you took the time to do so. I will take his qualification like anything on the Internet with caution. At the moment I can see some obvious problems with what he says, especially in light of Femr2's Flight Recorder data.

But I am just going to wait to see if this is the final word for a day or so.

[MRC_Hans]

So the best 911 research site on the internet can't do any better than this?



Don't get me wrong, I am patient and very grateful if anyone is actually putting in some serious research to find a more robust explanation.

In the meantime, where do you think the UAL 175 on the screen 50 km NE of New York was heading?
Greenland? Neuschwabenland? Moscow, Idaho?On this, he best research site for 911, the majority opinion is that 911 has been exhaustedly researched, and that the case is closed.

Which new evidence can you present that merits a re-opening?

Note that your possible failure to understand, or agree with, the research already done, is entirely your own problem, and this community is under no obligation to help you out, although some may contribute, if only for fun.

Hans

[Oystein]

Let me try to get this straight:

On the one hand, we have the testimonies of several ATCs, the radar data analysis of the NTSB, debris of a United Airlines 767 found on the roof of WTC5, the remains of UA175 passengers Peter Hanson and Lisa Frost found in the rubble at Ground Zero and identified by DNA analysis, all other passengers and crew disappeared after having boarded UA175, plenty of videos that show a 767 crash into WTC2, tens of thousands of eye witnesses seeing the same, United Airlines presumably missing their plane that was departed Boston Logan.

On the other hand we have a surprising blip on a computer map, generated second or third hand from dumbed-down FAA data, and shown time-delayed on TV by non-experts.

Suppose I can't explain any of all that. I have 2 theories at hand.
A: UA175 crashed into WTC2.
B: Something else crashed (?) into WTC2, while UA175 flew happily off into the blue sky and diappeared forever.

Let's see which theory needs more unproven assumptions:
A: Flight Explorer displayed some errant data record from whoknowswhere.
B: Shareholders, pilots, maintenance crews and managers of United Airlines all conspired to hide the fact that they did not lose their plane; Evidence (debris, human remains) was planted by conspiring investigators; FAA personel lied; dozends of videos and thousands of eyewitness reports are forged, or a second 767 of unknown origin was flown from wedontknowwhere by wedontknowwhom into WTC2; radar data has been forged by either FAA or USAF or NTSB, or all. The 60 people on board UA175 were either murdered or are agents of the conspiracy; they either abandonden their families and social ties, or their families and employers are also in on it.


Can someone help me here and decide, what Occam's razor would suggest in a complicated case like this? LGR maybe?

[little grey rabbit]

Let me try to get this straight:

On the one hand, we have the testimonies of several ATCs, the radar data analysis of the NTSB, debris of a United Airlines 767 found on the roof of WTC5, the remains of UA175 passengers Peter Hanson and Lisa Frost found in the rubble at Ground Zero and identified by DNA analysis, all other passengers and crew disappeared after having boarded UA175, plenty of videos that show a 767 crash into WTC2, tens of thousands of eye witnesses seeing the same, United Airlines presumably missing their plane that was departed Boston Logan.

On the other hand we have a surprising blip on a computer map, generated second or third hand from dumbed-down FAA data, and shown time-delayed on TV by non-experts.

Suppose I can't explain any of all that. I have 2 theories at hand.
A: UA175 crashed into WTC2.
B: Something else crashed (?) into WTC2, while UA175 flew happily off into the blue sky and diappeared forever.

Let's see which theory needs more unproven assumptions:
A: Flight Explorer displayed some errant data record from whoknowswhere.
B: Shareholders, pilots, maintenance crews and managers of United Airlines all conspired to hide the fact that they did not lose their plane; Evidence (debris, human remains) was planted by conspiring investigators; FAA personel lied; dozends of videos and thousands of eyewitness reports are forged, or a second 767 of unknown origin was flown from wedontknowwhere by wedontknowwhom into WTC2; radar data has been forged by either FAA or USAF or NTSB, or all. The 60 people on board UA175 were either murdered or are agents of the conspiracy; they either abandonden their families and social ties, or their families and employers are also in on it.

Yes, thats about the size of it, that is why my area of expertise is in group psychopathology.

I would dispute whether another 767 was used however.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc5inmZqGu8

[Reactor drone]

Yes, thats about the size of it, that is why my area of expertise is in group psychopathology.

I would dispute whether another 767 was used however.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc5inmZqGu8

And if that youtube video was an exhaustive examination of all available data which came to the conclusion that the aircraft that hit the second tower didn't have passenger windows you might have a point with it, as it is it's a small selection of cherry picked quotes and images that demonstrates nothing at all.

You may want to turn your expertise to the group think in trutherland, it's very entertaining stuff.

[Arisia]

Let's see, the climate stuff didn't catch on, the holocaust denier stuff is still going, and now you've plunged into the 9/11 stuff... what's next on your 'TrollingStudying the JREF Forum' checklist, lgr? And it's amazing you've stuck around so long, since the JREF Forum is apparently full of 'spastics'.

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, thats about the size of it, that is why my area of expertise is in group psychopathology.

Your choice of profession was dictated by discussions of 911? Interesting ....

I would dispute whether another 767 was used however.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc5inmZqGu8

Based on exactly what?

Hans

[femr2]

I'll give it a shot, my guess is that a controller started an additional track on UAL175 just in case they lost radar on the aircraft. UAL175 changed its beacon code to a different code during the Hijack. My guess when they started a new track they identified it with the "N" the reason why is in the ATC system requires all first characters to be an "ALPHA" character a "letter" not a number. The "F" at the end probably identified it as word Flight, so basically it was a ghost track.
There is still the UAL175 flight on the same screen. Why would they not be in exactly the same place ? If they both apply to the same aircraft, their behaviour should match. If N175F is a ghost track, I'd expect the *real* UAL175 track to behave more correctly within the FlightExplorer software.

Also implies the FlightExplorer gets to *see* controller ghost tracks.

The "007" is probably the computer ID associated with the track,
That field is used to denote height.

and the 138 below, means the aircraft was descending below 13,800 ft.
That field is used to denote speed, not height.

That altitude could be manually entered or it could have been a Mode C hit. The controller probablly entered this from his position and flight explorer like the TSD or ASD just takes a snapshot of what the controller is watching, nothing else.
Suggested values are in the wrong field.

That was the statement that was fully accepted by the, er, locals.

I don't really think it explains a lot.

1) UAL175 is not in the same place as N175F
2) The suggested manual field values are in the wrong fields
3) It's simply a *suggestion*. A might-have.

However, as I've already said, FlightExplorer didn't respond to my enquiries, so I don't really have a way personally to progress. I'd need to see raw data for all relevant flights, and a more detailed explanation from FlightExplorer about how the system functions.

[16.5]

However, as I've already said, FlightExplorer didn't respond to my enquiries, so I don't really have a way personally to progress. I'd need to see raw data for all relevant flights, and a more detailed explanation from FlightExplorer about how the system functions.

Personally progress on interpreting the out put of a 2001 computer simulations?

Wow, you *********** truthers are genius at wasting our time. I'll just leave this here No Planers:

You did not read the first thread, you did no research, you have no clue what the data you were looking at actually shows, and you have no clue how the program you were looking at actually works.

[progge]

Also implies the FlightExplorer gets to *see* controller ghost tracks.

Controllers do not use FE or any other TSD/ASD system, they use radar. Radar data show that there was no UA 175 50 miles NE of WTC at ~10:26, let alone a low-flying N-whatever flight at or near the WTC, except NYPD and news helicopters (which are VFR aircraft, and therefore not displayed at FE), and the Otis fighters (which will not be seen on FE as well). NYC was "ATC zero" at this time.

If you listen to Herndon Tapes, you´ll notice that the entities looking at the TSD were seeing several ghost tracks, at least for AA 77 and UA 93. Also, by listening to ATC Tapes, you´ll see that entities looking at radar did not watch UA 175 flying north of WTC at any time. It´s really something about FE, not about what controllers saw on 9/11.
I can´t explain how the tracks seen on FE came up, but IMO there is no question that these tracks are indeed ghost tracks.

[femr2]

Personally progress on interpreting the out put of a 2001 computer simulations?

Wow, you *********** truthers are genius at wasting our time. I'll just leave this here No Planers:

You did not read the first thread, you did no research, you have no clue what the data you were looking at actually shows, and you have no clue how the program you were looking at actually works.

Anger management perhaps halfof33 ?

Quite where you get *no-planer* from any of this is quite bizarre. There's zero suggestion of *no plane*.

When I first noticed the anomoly, I dug into it as deeply as I could, but as I said, I got no response from FlightExplorer. Without that further information, yeah, it's not really possible to progress with it. I did read the other thread, and it's was pretty funny watching all the erronious claims of a solution, all of which suffer from exactly the problem you are highlighting...namely no-one knows exactly how FlightExplorer works. I thought UnlovedRebels suggestion that it was an F-16 was quite funny. I've highlighted a few issues with the *final* suggested explanation in my previous post on this thread.

You'll note I didn't start this thread, and have repeatedly stated that there's not likely to be any progress. I've tried getting the extra information from FlightExplorer to no avail. No-one else seems likely to try.

The anomoly is present on the officially released FlightExplorer flightpath images, and the N175F/UAL175 positional anomoly has not been definitively explained.

Ho hum.

[femr2]

Controllers do not use FE or any other TSD/ASD system

I was highlighting that the suggestion that N175F was a manually entered *ghost track* carries the implication that FE ends up getting and displaying that data. I was highlighting that as a problem for the suggestion.

That suggestion was from user *Cheap Shot*.

[Oystein]

Yes, thats about the size of it, that is why my area of expertise is in group psychopathology.

I would dispute whether another 767 was used however.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc5inmZqGu8

Ah ok, I understand. So that's why you like delve so deep into trutherland! It's rich hunting grounds for your study interests! :)

Your problems with these conflicting witness testimonies are easily explained:
Every time several people witness an accident, there will be several versions of what they saw, and some will be mutually exclusive. A great concern every time is that the mind fills in the blanks within the recorded memory. People saw a plane. Upon being asked for specifics, they kinda "roll back the film", and when there is no distinct memory of what the plane looked like - markings, windows, colour - they are likely to fill in something, whatever seems likely to the. The second time around, those imagined fill-ins have become part of the recorded memory.

I was once knocked over by a car while riding my bicycle, was rendered unconscious for close to a day, and had no memory of the accident. But I was asked many times up until what moment I do remember. Today, I clearly remember the guy behind the wheel of his red car, squinting because the sun was low, turning towards me.
Of course in reality the car wasn't red.

It is very easy to understand why people would not consciously see windows on a plane flying around 500mph about 800-1000ft above street level: depending on bank, you can see the sides of a plane sufficiently clear only when you see it from the side; in which case you are either a long distance away (one of the witnesses in the above video was in Brooklyn), or more likely than not the flight path will be obscured most of the time by other buildings, and you only have fractions of a second to see. Or you are closer to the flight path, in which case you mainly see the belly of the plane.

I live about 25km away from an airbase that is home to the NATO E-3A wing. The planes are mostly 707-based: AWACS with a very pronounced radar "mushroom" on their back, tankers, and rather ordinary cargo- and personell transporters. It is not rare that one of them flies low by my house en route to landing. Just the other day, I and a friend saw one maybe 2500ft away, and we discussed it (how far, how noisy), and guess what: neither of us remembered if it had radar or not, and we both had doubts whether they have 2 or 4 engines. Ask me for markings? Windows? I could not tell from any of the many fly-bys I have witnessed. They are grey. That much I am sure.


By the same reasoning I would be very skeptical towards any witness who reports having seen a "United Airlines" plane, or one with AA-markings. I'd suspect most filled that information in hours if not days and weeks after the event.

[W.D.Clinger]

Yes, thats about the size of it, that is why my area of expertise is in group psychopathology.

Your choice of profession was dictated by discussions of 911? Interesting ....
Psychopathology is his hobby, not his profession.

[progge]

I was highlighting that the suggestion that N175F was a manually entered *ghost track* carries the implication that FE ends up getting and displaying that data. I was highlighting that as a problem for the suggestion.

Right, I misunderstood your point, my excuses. But then I don’t see the problem. We know that ASD/TSD occasionally shows ghost tracks entered by controllers. ZOB controller Linda Justice entered a new flight plan for UA 93 into the system at 09:58 (to reflect the course change towards D.C.).
ZOB lost UA 93 on radar at ~10:03 EDT. The flight symbol for UA 93, however, continued to move on the TSD screens until 10:28. So there was a ghost track (= there was no associated radar track) and it was based on controller intervention. This is how TSD works, sometimes.
I still don’t know where the UA 175 and N 175 symbols came from, but a manually entered ghost track is definitely not excluded from the range of possibilities (while real planes are excluded, as radar data show).

[16.5]

Anger management perhaps halfof33 ?

The anomoly is present on the officially released FlightExplorer flightpath images, and the N175F/UAL175 positional anomoly has not been definitively explained.

Ho hum.

**** anger management, champ.

You ever try reading the OP's posts? He is a no planer through and through.

Gee, a commercially available software package produced an anomaly? What ever shall we do? That HAS to be the first time EVER that has happened.

Hey champ, maybe flight explorer did not answer your questions because they view you as an anonymous jerk off from the internet.

Why don't you BUY the *********** package, hmmm? I bet they would answer you questions then, right? DO IT! Stop JAQ’ing off and buy the *********** package, money talks, right sport?

[beachnut]

...

The anomoly is present on the officially released FlightExplorer flightpath images, and the N175F/UAL175 positional anomoly has not been definitively explained.

Ho hum. 8 years and your evidence is, "Ho hum". The RADAR data proves where Flight 175 was, the FlightExplorer track does not. Explained and solved.

[T.A.M.]

Psychopathology is his hobby, not his profession.

yes, and by "expertise" he is likely referring to "extensive investigoogling".

TAM;)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Let me try to get this straight:

On the one hand, we have the testimonies of several ATCs, the radar data analysis of the NTSB, debris of a United Airlines 767 found on the roof of WTC5, the remains of UA175 passengers Peter Hanson and Lisa Frost found in the rubble at Ground Zero and identified by DNA analysis, all other passengers and crew disappeared after having boarded UA175, plenty of videos that show a 767 crash into WTC2, tens of thousands of eye witnesses seeing the same, United Airlines presumably missing their plane that was departed Boston Logan.

On the other hand we have a surprising blip on a computer map, generated second or third hand from dumbed-down FAA data, and shown time-delayed on TV by non-experts.

Suppose I can't explain any of all that. I have 2 theories at hand.
A: UA175 crashed into WTC2.
B: Something else crashed (?) into WTC2, while UA175 flew happily off into the blue sky and diappeared forever.

Let's see which theory needs more unproven assumptions:
A: Flight Explorer displayed some errant data record from whoknowswhere.
B: Shareholders, pilots, maintenance crews and managers of United Airlines all conspired to hide the fact that they did not lose their plane; Evidence (debris, human remains) was planted by conspiring investigators; FAA personel lied; dozends of videos and thousands of eyewitness reports are forged, or a second 767 of unknown origin was flown from wedontknowwhere by wedontknowwhom into WTC2; radar data has been forged by either FAA or USAF or NTSB, or all. The 60 people on board UA175 were either murdered or are agents of the conspiracy; they either abandonden their families and social ties, or their families and employers are also in on it.


Can someone help me here and decide, what Occam's razor would suggest in a complicated case like this? LGR maybe?

Nominated. :D

[Oystein]

Nominated. :D

For? :confused:

[femr2]

**** anger management, champ.
Riiight.

Gee, a commercially available software package produced an anomaly? What ever shall we do? That HAS to be the first time EVER that has happened.
Well, perhaps not make up crap to explain it until someone actually has answers. Nowt wrong with there being no answer, but hilarious to see folk champing at the bit to provide a (BS) definitive answer with absolutely nothing in their hand.

Hey champ, maybe flight explorer did not answer your questions because they view you as an anonymous jerk off from the internet.
Maybe. Perhaps someone else may be inclined to approach them and clear up the anomoly.

Why don't you BUY the *********** package, hmmm? I bet they would answer you questions then, right? DO IT! Stop JAQ’ing off and buy the *********** package, money talks, right sport?
I already have it, however, that does not provide you with any kind of information about it's internal workings. Through usage of the actual application, I was able to confirm that it doesn't predict position, but beyond that observation none of the other questions can be answered.

Oh, and by the way, you can go and download it right now for a short period of time, for freeness. If you'd even bothered to visit their site before going on a, er, rant, you would, of course, already know that. Nice one, champ. lol.

[femr2]

8 years and your evidence is, "Ho hum".
er, nope. My opinion is *ho hum*. Anomoly unresolved. I won't lose too much sleep about it, but it's still unresolved.

The RADAR data proves where Flight 175 was, the FlightExplorer track does not.
Capitalised RADAR eh. Nice. RADES, er, RADAR data proves to be a bit *odd* for the UAL175 track when originally played., but ho hum.

Explained and solved.
In context, no, and.....no.

[carlitos]

femr2, is there somewhere I can read your hypothesis about the events of 9/11, or are you ... just asking questions? If there is a place, this thread seems reasonably on-topic for you to post a link. Thanks! :)

[femr2]

femr2, is there somewhere I can read your hypothesis about the events of 9/11

Sure.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org

[UNLoVedRebel]

The 9/11 Forum
Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Top Posters
...
...
...
Heiwa

[carlitos]

Sure.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org

That's the entire forum. Is there a section dedicated to where members post their personal hypotheses, or does everyone at that forum agree with one common hypothesis. Either way, I'd like to read it (them).

Thanks! :)

[femr2]

The 9/11 Forum
Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Top Posters
...
...
...
Heiwa

Point ?

OneWhiteEye 1964
femr2 1469
Major_Tom 1219
David B. Benson 897
Dr. G 517
T_Szamboti 437
.
.
.
Heiwa 427

He faced much opposition, but of course posted much.

My opinion, as per the request, is found in that place.

[carlitos]

Scrolling through the posts over there, I can't find it. Given that you have a hundred-something posts here, would it be too much trouble to post your hypothesis about 9/11 in a few short sentences? There are at least two topics open for just that. Latest one here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=172952), but selfishly, I prefer my old topic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149321) that I started for this purpose.

[femr2]

would it be too much trouble to post your hypothesis about 9/11 in a few short sentences?

Yes.

[Cheap Shot]

There is still the UAL175 flight on the same screen. Why would they not be in exactly the same place ? If they both apply to the same aircraft, their behaviour should match. If N175F is a ghost track, I'd expect the *real* UAL175 track to behave more correctly within the FlightExplorer software.

Also implies the FlightExplorer gets to *see* controller ghost tracks.


That field is used to denote height.


That field is used to denote speed, not height.


Suggested values are in the wrong field.

That was the statement that was fully accepted by the, er, locals.

I don't really think it explains a lot.

1) UAL175 is not in the same place as N175F
2) The suggested manual field values are in the wrong fields
3) It's simply a *suggestion*. A might-have.

However, as I've already said, FlightExplorer didn't respond to my enquiries, so I don't really have a way personally to progress. I'd need to see raw data for all relevant flights, and a more detailed explanation from FlightExplorer about how the system functions.

I do believe I got it right on the correct fields, but for what it's worthit is flight explorer which is a dumbed down version of the FAA TSD, which we wouldn't use for anythig regarding an accident or any type of investigation. I don't know the link to my original rersponse on flight explorer, but trying to use that for anything would be a joke. if you have a question for me I will do my best to answer it. I beleive the thread was about this being the best site for debunking some of the theories out there. So what I am saying to you is that if you want to debunk a theory and everyone here is telling you the RADES data is what you should use, then I think I would take that avenue. Basing a theory or trying to explain why the targets disn't do what they should have done on flight explorer is a waste of time.

Flights on flight explorer are going to do several different things, if it has a flightplan associated with it, and the flight was flat tracked prior to losing the transponder thier is a good chance the data tag will continue on the flight plan. If it wasn't flat tracked then it could follow its last known heading and speed. If the track jumped to another target and never finds its way back to the original track it could continue on the heading and route of flight, or if it never really picked up any tag, it could just sit where it was.

New York Center entered N175F, why I don't know, they also entered a ghost track for AAL11, becasue AAL 11 was never flightplanned into thier airspace. They couldn't get track control from Boston Center becasue AAL was primary radar only. Hope this helps, like I said if you have an ATC question I will answer it. RADES Radar question there are other on this site that can answer it better, though I have some knowledge in it, I can answer some questions

[femr2]

I do believe I got it right on the correct fields
Sorry, no.

Hope this helps...I can answer some questions
I think the only possible way to progress would be to get the actual data from FlightExplorer, along with information from them that details the actual behaviour of the system in the specific conditions, but thanks.

[A W Smith]

OK, so it was answered in another thread, but you need to understand for JREFer outsider it is very hard to pull out the genuine information amongst all the flames and the insults.

So if the transponder wasn't turned off or was turned off, how was this data being produced and why is there a flight N 175 F at the Trade Center and a UAL 175 flight 50 km NE?

I have provided a Truther explanation that fits quite nicely, I want to know what the best alternative explanation is.

There is no hurry.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=UAL+175+flight+explorer+site%3Arandi.org&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=a85ca58d4c72c8fd

[16.5]

Riiight.


Well, perhaps not make up crap to explain it until someone actually has answers. Nowt wrong with there being no answer, but hilarious to see folk champing at the bit to provide a (BS) definitive answer with absolutely nothing in their hand.


Maybe. Perhaps someone else may be inclined to approach them and clear up the anomoly.


I already have it, however, that does not provide you with any kind of information about it's internal workings. Through usage of the actual application, I was able to confirm that it doesn't predict position, but beyond that observation none of the other questions can be answered.

Oh, and by the way, you can go and download it right now for a short period of time, for freeness. If you'd even bothered to visit their site before going on a, er, rant, you would, of course, already know that. Nice one, champ. lol.

OH , I can download it for free! Jeepers, great point, I would not have known that if I did not go to that *********** site in the original thread and *********** link the actual data from their site, or gone there today to look for the pricing on the software. A free sample! Wow.

Hey everyone! We got us a no planer here.

[Oystein]

...
Hey everyone! We got us a no planer here.

Uhm no. Because...

...would it be too much trouble to post your hypothesis about 9/11 in a few short sentences? ...

Yes.


...in typical truther-fashion, femr2 doesn't have the balls to tell us what he believes. I suppose he, like most truthers, knows very that their theory would be torn to shreads within minutes if they ever were so foolish as to utter it.

[femr2]

Uhm no. Because...
...in typical truther-fashion, femr2 doesn't have the balls to tell us what he believes. I suppose he, like most truthers, knows very that their theory would be torn to shreads within minutes if they ever were so foolish as to utter it.

That's funny. I provided a link...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org
...which has around 1500 posts from me, making my position abundently clear.
Summing a global opinion in a couple of sentences is simply ridiculous, but if that's what your after, sound-byte stylee, fine. It's won't be a fully accurate portrayal of course, but as it seems no-one has anything to resolve the thread content, I guess it's time for you all to wander off into derail and discredit mode...


I have serious questions about the mechanism of initiation.

Ta da ! :)

[uke2se]

That's funny. I provided a link...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org
...which has around 1500 posts from me, making my position abundently clear.
Summing a global opinion in a couple of sentences is simply ridiculous, but if that's what your after, sound-byte stylee, fine. It's won't be a fully accurate portrayal of course, but as it seems no-one has anything to resolve the thread content, I guess it's time for you all to wander off into derail and discredit mode...


I have serious questions about the mechanism of initiation.

Ta da ! :)

Yeah, guys! I mean, you can't be bothered to read 1500 (rambling incoherent) posts trying to piece together something that would take femr2 maybe 10 minutes to write down (less if he has it for copy/paste), probably missing some bits allowing femr2 to dismiss you later on because you didn't pick up on some minute detail or nuance?

Lazy.

Femr2: Post your questions. We will do our best to answer them, no matter how serious they are.

[little grey rabbit]

I have serious questions about the mechanism of initiation.

Ta da ! :)

I am told it involves kissing the posterior of the person who initiates you, but not being Illuminati I couldn't possibly say for sure.




PS That was what you meant, wasn't it?

[Oystein]

That's funny. I provided a link...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org
...which has around 1500 posts from me, making my position abundently clear.
Summing a global opinion in a couple of sentences is simply ridiculous, but if that's what your after, sound-byte stylee, fine. It's won't be a fully accurate portrayal of course, but as it seems no-one has anything to resolve the thread content, I guess it's time for you all to wander off into derail and discredit mode...
...

Asking us to find all your 1500 posts and form a synopsis is silly, and you know that.

The topic the OP is the issue of one piece of evidence: A video showing some surprising FE data, as it was presented on TV 9 years ago.

I think we have agree that we can't resolve the question posed, as long as no conclusive data from FE is forthcoming, so this thread might as well be shut.

However, we tried to deal with this lack of data by trying to find the most parsimonius assumptions with regards to our theory, which is that UA175 was flown into WTC2 by 5 Arab hijackers.

You criticize our efforts, but by standard scientific method, it would suit you well to make that criticism constructive and offer a hypothesis and assumptions and explain why your theory and assumptions fit the evidence better.


Of course it ought to be possible to spell out the outlines of an alternative theory. Anyone of us would be happy any time to spell out the rough outlines of our theory - it really doesn't take 1500 posts to do that.


Evasion noted.

[BCR]

er, nope. My opinion is *ho hum*. Anomoly unresolved. I won't lose too much sleep about it, but it's still unresolved.

Only to someone who lacks an understanding of what a TSD is and how the FAA system operates. But for the sake of trying to be useful, I'll give you a hint - coast track. Flight Explorer is NOT radar.

[T.A.M.]

Only to someone who lacks an understanding of what a TSD is and how the FAA system operates. But for the sake of trying to be useful, I'll give you a hint - coast track. Flight Explorer is NOT radar.

you are trying to reason with someone who, without any experience in the field, told Cheap Shot, who is in fact and Air Traffic Controller, that he is point blank "wrong".

Good luck with that. He is going on my ignore list.

TAM:)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

For? :confused:

Best JREF post of the month. ;)

[Oystein]

Best JREF post of the month. ;)

Phew. Why? :confused:
I went back and read it twice to check if it contains a silly Stundie :D

[Cheap Shot]

For femr2, Flight Explorer compared to RADES Data, is like comparing the old football vibrator game where the metal board vibrated and the players all kind of went thier own direction and ran into each other, to watching a live NFL game.

Have fun with flight explorer, proves nothing, means nothing, and good luck to trying to base some theory on it.

Cheap Shot

[carlitos]

I have serious questions about the mechanism of initiation.

Ta da ! :)
Thanks. What does that have to do with RADAR?

[beachnut]

...

I have serious questions about the mechanism of initiation.

Ta da ! :)
911 truth has a serious problem understanding 911. They prefer made up delusions and fail to understand simple points repeated over and over. RADAR data is the evidence, the tracker is hearsay. But don't worry 911 truth has little grey rabbit as a cheerleader willing to avoid evidence and knowledge and act like a good NAZI spewing dirt dumb delusions for 911 truth with the same clueless attitude most of 911 truth insists on displaying.

Use RADAR data to figure out where flight 175 went, not flight explorer; explain this to little grey rabbit when you join and comprehend reality.

[dafydd]

Scrolling through the posts over there, I can't find it. Given that you have a hundred-something posts here, would it be too much trouble to post your hypothesis about 9/11 in a few short sentences? There are at least two topics open for just that. Latest one here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=172952), but selfishly, I prefer my old topic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=149321) that I started for this purpose.

Why will no truther here ever give us their detailed hypothesis of the events on 9/11?

[carlitos]

would it be too much trouble to post your hypothesis about 9/11 in a few short sentences?

Yes.
I am absolutely fascinated by this. If you look at my topic that I linked, I get the whole story in about 2 sentences. I could do it in 4 words if I had to - Hijackers, boxcutters, plane crashes. How can someone post 1500 times without putting a story together to better explain the events of the day?

[femr2]

That's funny. I provided a link...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org
...which has around 1500 posts from me, making my position abundently clear.
Summing a global opinion in a couple of sentences is simply ridiculous, but if that's what your after, sound-byte stylee, fine. It's won't be a fully accurate portrayal of course, but as it seems no-one has anything to resolve the thread content, I guess it's time for you all to wander off into derail and discredit mode...


I have serious questions about the mechanism of initiation.

Ta da ! :)
Ta da ! :)

[dafydd]

I am absolutely fascinated by this. If you look at my topic that I linked, I get the whole story in about 2 sentences. I could do it in 4 words if I had to - Hijackers, boxcutters, plane crashes. How can someone post 1500 times without putting a story together to better explain the events of the day?

I will never fathom the thought processes of truthers.

[carlitos]

femr2, it is possible that you don't understand my question.

The common definition of hypothesis = An assumption taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation.

When I asked if you 1) have an alternative hypothesis, or 2) were "just asking questions," is it safe to say that it's option #2?

That is what I assumed, but then you provided your link to the other forum as an answer, which didn't help me understand your point of view one way or the other. Anyway, please feel free to clarify. Your latest answer "I have serious questions about the collapse initiation" doesn't appear to be a hypothesis, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks! :)

[little grey rabbit]

Gentlemen, gentlemen.
Let us keep the discussion narrowly focused on the topic rather than ranging widely over the entire 911 field.

The question I have asked is, approximately, what lies behind what appeared on the TV screens of the morning of 9/11, showing the positions of two aircraft, UAL 175 and N 175 F.

What was the data underlying each point, how was it collected and why did it appear. I am not sure entirely rigorous answers have been presented yet.

If they have would someone be so kind as to summarise in two sentences. Eg:
The location marked UAL175 was....... represented......and was derived from the following data.......
The location marked N 175 F was........represented......and was derived from the following data........

Then we have our final conclusive resolution for this video clip.

[Macgyver1968]

Gentlemen, gentlemen.


There are ladies here too...btw.

I'm not sure what you're asking.

[little grey rabbit]

There are ladies here too...btw.



In this instance it was the gentlemen who were squabbling. Ladies do not squabble.

I refer you to the first post of this thread that showed what appear to be anomalous two aircraft appearing on flight control software in TV broadcasts and to femr2's Flight explorer data.

I am hoping to get a concise explanation of the two points that appeared in the TV broadcast something along the lines of
The point UAL 175 represents [.........................] and was derived using the following data and data types [...................]
The point N 175 F etc etc.

I refer you again to the first post of this thread.

[Macgyver1968]

It was a software glitch...clearly the two planes in question hit the trade center...as the passengers on those planes have not been seen or heard from since...and there is FAA radar data tracking them to the towers..and there is dna evidence...and there parts of the planes in question found at the site...and....well..no need to go further...

Ladies do not squabble.

Guess you never met Hok or LashL. :)

[little grey rabbit]

It was a software glitch...clearly the two planes in question hit the trade center...as the passengers on those planes have not been seen or heard from since...and there is FAA radar data tracking them to the towers..and there is dna evidence...and there parts of the planes in question found at the site...and....well..no need to go further...


Thank you for your opinion, I am looking for a more rigorous and detailed explanation than "software glitch". There is no need for you to contribute further to this thread.

[Macgyver1968]

You make the rule of who posts now? Explain away the points I made.

[Trojan]

You make the rule of who posts now? Explain away the points I made.

Its the denier in him, reject the obvious and accept what sliver of doubt that he can twist to support his predetermined belief. If the software designer explained it to him, he would just move on to another issue, his faith unshaken

[TexasJack]

He has no trouble believing that 6 million Jews could be missing, I'm sure a few hundred passengers on the planes doesn't faze him.

[Oystein]

I see both camps are deeply entrenched and unable to see the middle ground.

We are looking at some historical Flight Explore output that appears to be showing one of the planes that are implicated in the "official" 9/11 theory as having been still airborne by the time it was supposed to have crashed into WTC2.

Can we agree that that is the situation we are looking at here?

Great.

Some have suggested that this is some sort of software/data glitch. Those who do so must admit that this is only an assumption - they can't rigorously prove this directly by looking into the software, its input data, and determining just how the software processed its inputs, and just how those inputs came about.
Correct?
Those who claim that the FE blip proves UA175 was still afloat also can't rigorously prove from examining software and input data that the blip represents what is appears to represent.

We all agree that such rigorous proof is not likely to come forward as FE does not release the data we are interested in. Right? So in lieu of proof we must resort to assumptions. There is nothing wrong with assumptions in the context of a theory, as long as we don't multiply them unnecessarily.

If we all assume that FE by and large shows real life flight data, and that was the ONLY evidence we have about 9/11, then the most parsimonious explanation would be: UA175 did not crash into WTC2.

BUT it is not at all the only evidence we have! In fact, as far as data sources relevant to flight tracks are concerned, we have sources far superior to FE, so the issue of flight tracking alone would make the assumption "FE blip is software/data error or forgery" more parsimonious than the assumption "recorded primary radar data is erroneous or forged".

If we then add the huge mountain piles of physical evidence of a UA175 crash at the WTC, the case becomes fixed:

We must, by Occam's razor, assume that the FE blip appeared erroneously. No explanation really needed.

Sure, it would be nice if we could explain it rigorously, but at the end of the day there will always be things that are not rigorously explained. That lack of explanation itself explains nothing, and no truther should try too get too much mileage from such nothingness.

[MikeW]

at the end of the day there will always be things that are not rigorously explained. That lack of explanation itself explains nothing, and no truther should try too get too much mileage from such nothingness.
That's now the main point of the truther's games, though: to come up with "anomalies" that remain unexplained, so they can wave their hands and say "look at all these strange events, you can't debunk any of them, we need a new investigation". It doesn't matter if the "anomalies" are flimsy or don't even support "inside job", the aim is to get critics to say "I can't explain that" so truthers get to justify their existence.

[Oystein]

That's now the main point of the truther's games, though: to come up with "anomalies" that remain unexplained, so they can wave their hands and say "look at all these strange events, you can't debunk any of them, we need a new investigation". It doesn't matter if the "anomalies" are flimsy or don't even support "inside job", the aim is to get critics to say "I can't explain that" so truthers get to justify their existence.

Yeppers.

And that's why me must pressure for alternative theories. In other words: The questions a new investigation should be designed for to answer, and a reasonable motivation why those questions would bring us closer to proving a different theory. It would be quite ok if that theory is laden with assumptions about things we don't know yet, but it should as a minimum explain the things we do know, and explicitily name the assumptions.

[Cheap Shot]

Someone had used one of my earlier posts it came from a UAL175 earlier post, I have not seen a picture of the Flight Explorer showing both aircraft but had posted based on what someone said what the info said about UAL175. If someone wants to bput a clean picture up I can tell you exactly what is going on. I cannot tell from some blurred vision image that has been shown.

Even without the image I can tell you it was not a glitch. Someone at New York Center entered a new track N175F, they used the November call sign which is US registry, and then added the flight number and put the letter F at the end to indicate so, each controller uses their own way entering second flight plans when it is needed. At Boston Center we normally put a letter A at the end of the flight number.

After UAL175 crashed into the towers on our radar scope the data block deosn't disappear when a plane crashes or lands, we have to drop it. If you don't the track will continue in a "Coast Track" on our radar scopes it could continue on its last heading and spped, or it could just stop.

As far as the TSD or flight explorer, it could do a couple of things there as well, it could continue on its last flight path, it could stop where it is, or it could follow the route of flight associated with it.

In either case it is no indication that the aircraft is still flying. Even in our radar display system, we have data blocks, but we don't pay attention to them as much as what the data block is attached to, and that is the actual digitized radar target. If it has a beacon code slash one way if it is correlatated, and it slashes the other way if it is uncorelated. If it has no tranponder it will normally be a plus symbol if it is uncorrelated, if it is correlated it would be an x symbol. If it is a weak signal it could only be a dot.

Looking at flight explorer it's not really the data block you should show interest in but what the data block is attached to the symbol. The symbol lets you know what is the track status, can't tell from a blurry picture.

Hope that helps but doesn't confuse anybody. But again basing any thoery on the TSD or flight explorer would really be a joke.

[carlitos]

Yeppers.

And that's why me must pressure for alternative theories. In other words: The questions a new investigation should be designed for to answer, and a reasonable motivation why those questions would bring us closer to proving a different theory. It would be quite ok if that theory is laden with assumptions about things we don't know yet, but it should as a minimum explain the things we do know, and explicitily name the assumptions.
Exactly. So, how does this software glitch contribute to some other hypothesis?

[femr2]

Someone had used one of my earlier posts it came from a UAL175 earlier post, I have not seen a picture of the Flight Explorer showing both aircraft but had posted based on what someone said what the info said about UAL175. If someone wants to bput a clean picture up I can tell you exactly what is going on. I cannot tell from some blurred vision image that has been shown.
The only source which shows N175F is the blurry video I'm afraid (unless the original FlightExplorer data can be sourced).
The UAL175 flightpath released from FlightExplorer is clear for UAL175, but doesn't include N175F.
http://femr2.ucoz.com/Feaa11ual175static.gif
The only unique information I could extract was the pop-up box content.
http://femr2.ucoz.com/UAL175.jpg
http://femr2.ucoz.com/N175F.jpg

Even without the image I can tell you it was not a glitch. Someone at New York Center entered a new track N175F, they used the November call sign which is US registry, and then added the flight number and put the letter F at the end to indicate so, each controller uses their own way entering second flight plans when it is needed. At Boston Center we normally put a letter A at the end of the flight number.

After UAL175 crashed into the towers on our radar scope the data block deosn't disappear when a plane crashes or lands, we have to drop it. If you don't the track will continue in a "Coast Track" on our radar scopes it could continue on its last heading and spped, or it could just stop.

As far as the TSD or flight explorer, it could do a couple of things there as well, it could continue on its last flight path, it could stop where it is, or it could follow the route of flight associated with it.

In either case it is no indication that the aircraft is still flying. Even in our radar display system, we have data blocks, but we don't pay attention to them as much as what the data block is attached to, and that is the actual digitized radar target. If it has a beacon code slash one way if it is correlatated, and it slashes the other way if it is uncorelated. If it has no tranponder it will normally be a plus symbol if it is uncorrelated, if it is correlated it would be an x symbol. If it is a weak signal it could only be a dot.

Looking at flight explorer it's not really the data block you should show interest in but what the data block is attached to the symbol. The symbol lets you know what is the track status, can't tell from a blurry picture.

Hope that helps but doesn't confuse anybody. But again basing any thoery on the TSD or flight explorer would really be a joke.

Okay. Thanks. Is there a good reason why the second-to-last position (following significant data frequency reduction) is still indicated to be at 31000ft ?
How would transponder frequency changes result in the data frequency reduction ?

[Cheap Shot]

Okay. Thanks. Is there a good reason why the second-to-last position (following significant data frequency reduction) is still indicated to be at 31000ft ?
How would transponder frequency changes result in the data frequency reduction ?

UAL175 did not turn off the transponder but the Mode 3 Code was switched to a different code. The aircraft did a huge dive and my guess is the system lost altitude, based on aircraft type parameters. The N175F probably was track started and had an altitude entered by the controller, a controller can enter a hard altitude and until the computer system reaquires altitude the assingend altitude will remain. this is my guess is that that it never reaquired altitude.

Explain to me what data frequency reduction is, not quite sure what you are saying.

[femr2]

UAL175 did not turn off the transponder but the Mode 3 Code was switched to a different code.
Yes, code, changed twice. Looks like data-point frequency reduction on the FlightExplorer image occurs near transponder code chanes.

The aircraft did a huge dive and my guess is the system lost altitude, based on aircraft type parameters. The N175F probably was track started and had an altitude entered by the controller, a controller can enter a hard altitude and until the computer system reaquires altitude the assingend altitude will remain. this is my guess is that that it never reaquired altitude.
How would the system lose altitude prior to altitude change ? As a direct result of code change ?
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/2/376965454.jpg

Explain to me what data frequency reduction is, not quite sure what you are saying.
Yes, Mode 3 change.

[Bell]

Can someone provide the radar and FlightExplorer data that shows the path taken by the airplane that DID crash into WTC2? Since UA175 did not do that, and all...

[Cheap Shot]

How would the system lose altitude prior to altitude change ? As a direct result of code change ?
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/2/376965454.jpg

Yes that could cause it during the struggle or at anypoint changeing codes they could have accidentally hit the Mode C which would have stopped the altitude coding, switching transponders could have caused an issue with the interogation of the transponder, and it could have missed an altitude as far as processing it for UAL175.

[little grey rabbit]

If you look at the Flight Explorer release, it shows the last 3 points of UAL175 all at 31 000 feet.

However the distance between the 3rd to last (8.47) and the 2nd to last (8.59) is only slightly more than the difference to the WTC impact point at 9.03. At least how I read it. It took 12 minutes to go from point A to point B, but only 4 minutes to go from point B to point C.

So this suggests either UAL175 massively accelerated to make its rendezvous or the 2nd to last point must be utterly wrong as well.

[femr2]

Yes that could cause it during the struggle or at anypoint changeing codes they could have accidentally hit the Mode C which would have stopped the altitude coding
Are you saying that transponder code mode C hit is separate to a mode C hit that would stop altitude coding ?

switching transponders could have caused an issue with the interogation of the transponder, and it could have missed an altitude as far as processing it for UAL175.
How long would the *outage* be expected to be ?

[femr2]

If you look at the Flight Explorer release, it shows the last 3 points of UAL175 all at 31 000 feet.

However the distance between the 3rd to last (8.47) and the 2nd to last (8.59) is only slightly more than the difference to the WTC impact point at 9.03. At least how I read it. It took 12 minutes to go from point A to point B, but only 4 minutes to go from point B to point C.

So this suggests either UAL175 massively accelerated to make its rendezvous or the 2nd to last point must be utterly wrong as well.

The FE image doesn't specifically state the final point time, so it's *unknown*.

Will re-check the penultimate point with RADES data. Can't remember how well it matched.

[little grey rabbit]

As to the beacon codes, the pilot of UAL175 knows that he has to disappear from the sky at a certain point, and allow flight N175F take his identity.
But he jumps the gun slightly, he changes from 1470 to 3020 before ghost flight N175F had started their beacon 3321. So you get a tiny stretch of 3020 (in green) but looks like less than a minute.

And then for UAL175 its a hey and a ho and a hey-nonny-nonny for Neuschwabenland

[little grey rabbit]

The FE image doesn't specifically state the final point time, so it's *unknown*.

Will re-check the penultimate point with RADES data. Can't remember how well it matched.
On the image you show it does.

However, I agree the data is probably fictional, as the point labeled 8.34 is anomalous again.

[DGM]

As to the beacon codes, the pilot of UAL175 knows that he has to disappear from the sky at a certain point, and allow flight N175F take his identity.
But he jumps the gun slightly, he changes from 1470 to 3020 before ghost flight N175F had started their beacon 3321. So you get a tiny stretch of 3020 (in green) but looks like less than a minute.

And then for UAL175 its a hey and a ho and a hey-nonny-nonny for Neuschwabenland
It's fun to view "evidence" in a vacuum with no regards for reality, isn't it.

[femr2]

On the image you show it does.

Which image ?

The FE flightpath image only states impact time. It doesn't display the point data itself.

[little grey rabbit]

Which image ?

The FE flightpath image only states impact time. It doesn't display the point data itself.
In the first image in post 135.

It has been annotated with 4 or 5 time points. These time points don't seem strongly anchored in reality. Quelle surprise when dealing with 911 data.

[little grey rabbit]

It's fun to view "evidence" in a vacuum with no regards for reality, isn't it.

It is, not as fun as crashing two military aircraft into tall buildings and blaming arabs, but its still up there and best of all, no one gets hurt!

[DGM]

It is, not as fun as crashing two military aircraft into tall buildings and blaming arabs, but its still up there and best of all, no one gets hurt!
Personally, I don't think that would be fun at all.

Why would you dream something like that up (maybe it's a sign of some deep seeded issue)?

[Bell]

Little Grey Rabbit, found this already?

Can someone provide the radar and FlightExplorer data that shows the path taken by the airplane that DID crash into WTC2? Since UA175 did not do that, and all...

:confused:

[Oystein]

...
And then for UAL175 its a hey and a ho and a hey-nonny-nonny for Neuschwabenland

This is as clear as truther hypothesises go these days.
Thanks for the enlightment ^^

[Cheap Shot]

As to the beacon codes, the pilot of UAL175 knows that he has to disappear from the sky at a certain point, and allow flight N175F take his identity.
But he jumps the gun slightly, he changes from 1470 to 3020 before ghost flight N175F had started their beacon 3321. So you get a tiny stretch of 3020 (in green) but looks like less than a minute.

And then for UAL175 its a hey and a ho and a hey-nonny-nonny for Neuschwabenland

Now I know where you are from, the hole that Alice fell in.

[Cheap Shot]

Are you saying that transponder code mode C hit is separate to a mode C hit that would stop altitude coding ?


How long would the *outage* be expected to be ?

Mode C doesn't have a hit, but lots of things could casue a miss of the receiving the altitude for one radar hit or possibly two, one of them being changing codes.

The outage would normally only be one hit, about a 12 second sweep for ARSR's. Other issues come into play one of them being the sort box, I don't think that comes into play here, sort box issues are fairly known at each facility.

[Cheap Shot]

Because ARSR's operate ona 12 second sweep, you seem to get involved in it or how it works, if you don't have any data in HOST the center's computer Flight Explorer would show you a blank screen.

[Dave Rogers]

Sometimes, juxtaposition is all the debunking that's needed.

As to the beacon codes, the pilot of UAL175 knows that he has to disappear from the sky at a certain point, and allow flight N175F take his identity.
But he jumps the gun slightly, he changes from 1470 to 3020 before ghost flight N175F had started their beacon 3321. So you get a tiny stretch of 3020 (in green) but looks like less than a minute.

And then for UAL175 its a hey and a ho and a hey-nonny-nonny for Neuschwabenland

It has been annotated with 4 or 5 time points. These time points don't seem strongly anchored in reality.

:i:

Dave

[dafydd]

It is, not as fun as crashing two military aircraft into tall buildings and blaming arabs, but its still up there and best of all, no one gets hurt!

No wonder that I despise truthers.

[Dave Rogers]

No wonder that I despise truthers.

To be fair, they're not as bad as Holocaust deniers.

Oh, wait...

Dave

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Phew. Why? :confused:
I went back and read it twice to check if it contains a silly Stundie :D

Posts can be nominated as good posts. No Stundie involved. I thought you summed up the dichotomy quite nicely.

:th:

[LashL]

To be fair, they're not as bad as Holocaust deniers.

Oh, wait...



^^Nailed it in one.

[little grey rabbit]

Just returning to this fascinating subject.

I was looking at this picture again
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/2/376965454.jpg

Now the only footage I have seen of the plane striking the 2nd tower, it seems to come out of nowhere but flying relatively level, does its turn and strikes perpendicular with excellent penetration.

That was an incredible timing of the descent, to go from so high, plummet rapidly down so low and level off precisely to strike the WTC tower. Easy enough for a pre-programmed flight of course, but otherwise it must have been Allah himself directing the pilot.

I was reading wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175
and it says By 08:58, the plane was heading towards New York City and descended from an altitude of 28,500 feet over New Jersey. From the time, at approximately 08:58, when Shehhi completed the turn toward New York to the moment of impact, the plane went into a sustained power dive, descending more than 24,000 feet in 4 minutes 40 seconds, for an average rate of over 5,000 feet per minute.[13] New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues "were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet."[15]

It must have been dropping like an absolute stone.

Interesting one of the phone calls during this plummeting motion said
Peter Hanson made a second phone call to his father at 09:00:

“ It's getting bad, Dad. A stewardess was stabbed. They seem to have knives and Mace. They said they have a bomb. It's getting very bad on the plane. Passengers are throwing up and getting sick. The plane is making jerky movements. I don't think the pilot is flying the plane. I think we are going down. I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building. Don't worry, Dad. If it happens, it'll be very fast....Oh my God... oh my God, oh my God."[15] ”

As the call abruptly ended, Hanson's father heard a woman screaming.[15]


Is this one of the calls that was actually recorded?

Because "making jerky movements" seems a rather odd description in the circumstances and "I think we are going down" at 9:00 would be verging on understatement.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That was an incredible timing of the descent, to go from so high, plummet rapidly down so low and level off precisely to strike the WTC tower. Easy enough for a pre-programmed flight of course, but otherwise it must have been Allah himself directing the pilot.

Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

[Sledge]

I agree with you, little grey rabbit, that it's simply appalling that people terrified for their lives in an aircraft diving at 5,000 feet per minute can't be more accurate with their choice of words. Didn't these people realise that their last words on this Earth would be pored over by moronic conspiracy theorists for years to come? Honestly, some people.

[A W Smith]

Just returning to this fascinating subject.

I was looking at this picture again
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/2/376965454.jpg

Now the only footage I have seen of the plane striking the 2nd tower, it seems to come out of nowhere but flying relatively level, does its turn and strikes perpendicular with excellent penetration.

That was an incredible timing of the descent, to go from so high, plummet rapidly down so low and level off precisely to strike the WTC tower. Easy enough for a pre-programmed flight of course, but otherwise it must have been Allah himself directing the pilot.

I was reading wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175
and it says

It must have been dropping like an absolute stone.



Graph is very misleading Here i will let you do the math. 500 mph is 44000 feet per minute traveled. Pick whatever drop in altitude, 5000 fpm or 10000 fpm, Whatever blows your dress up.

http://www.1728.com/gradient.htm

Tell me what angle of decent that is in degrees, ( I already know) Then get back to me with your rocks and we can play. Mkay?

[little grey rabbit]

Graph is very misleading Here i will let you do the math. 500 mph is 44000 feet per minute traveled. Pick whatever drop in altitude, 5000 fpm or 10000 fpm, Whatever blows your dress up.

http://www.1728.com/gradient.htm

Tell me what angle of decent that is in degrees, ( I already know) Then get back to me with your rocks and we can play. Mkay?

No idea, but will accept your answer without question.

So you say the air traffic controllers were wrong? That this is not an unprecedented descent for a commercial airliner?

Its things like this is why I just love JREF.

[AJM8125]

That this is not an unprecedented descent for a commercial airliner?

No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_841_(1979))

[little grey rabbit]

I expect that the passengers on that particular aeroplane would not have been on the phone saying the plane is jerking around and I think we might be descending. Not wanting to get all pedantic or anything, but it does appear to me that flight was plummeting out of control.

but your article does contain this
For comparison, a normal rate of descent for an airliner would be 1800 feet per minute

[AJM8125]

I expect that the passengers on that particular aeroplane would not have been on the phone saying the plane is jerking around and I think we might be descending. Not wanting to get all pedantic or anything, but it does appear to me that flight was plummeting out of control.

but your article does contain this

Flight 175 was plummeting in control. The point being that the truther canard of "impossible speed" is wrong. Sure, sustained high speed can damage an airliner but that was of no concern to someone who intended to crash it in the first place.

[little grey rabbit]

Flight 175 was plummeting in control. The point being that the truther canard of "impossible speed" is wrong. Sure, sustained high speed can damage an airliner but that was of no concern to someone who intended to crash it in the first place.

I am not aware of a truther claim of impossible speed, I made no such claim. I said unusual speed, speed at which that would be uttermost on the person's mind who made a phone call.

Moreover speed that would be enormously difficult to coordinate with a precise perpendicular strike on the WTC.

Easy for a computer programmed flight path, however.

[AJM8125]

I am not aware of a truther claim of impossible speed, I made no such claim. I said unusual speed, speed at which that would be uttermost on the person's mind who made a phone call.

Moreover speed that would be enormously difficult to coordinate with a precise perpendicular strike on the WTC.

Easy for a computer programmed flight path, however.

It doesn't take an ace to crash a plane into a huge building. The hijacker pilot demonstrated no extraordinary flying skills.

[newton3376]

I am not aware of a truther claim of impossible speed, I made no such claim.

After reading this thread...it's obvious that there are many things you are "unaware" of.....physics being one of them...

I said unusual speed,

Maybe you were sleeping on 9/11 so just in case you were....

There were terrorists trying to CRASH the plane on 9/11....CRASHING is anything but "usual"...especially when you are deliberately trying to hit a building.....maybe try reading my last few comments really really slowly in really large font....perhaps that will help?

speed at which that would be uttermost on the person's mind who made a phone call.

Um yeah....because if someone thinks they are going to die....the first thing they think is "Gee I better accurately report the average downward acceleration and velocity to my loved ones...."

Ever think what was "on the person's mind" was saying goodbye to a loved one and trying to remain as calm as possible during the last conversation they would ever have? Of course you didn't.....you tend to miss things that require critical thinking or common sense...

Moreover speed that would be enormously difficult to coordinate with a precise perpendicular strike on the WTC.

And you know this because........?

How many planes have you tried to crash into high rise buildings lately?

Can you quantify "enormously difficult" or maybe explain "precise perpendicular strike" for us? I mean since you are the "expert" on crashing jet liners into buildings....please enlighten us with your wealth of knowledge.

Easy for a computer programmed flight path, however.

Because you are an expert in software for commercial airliners too? How "easy" is "easy"?

Some of us missed the "9/11 truther canned talking points" videos....so we might need you to explain the things you are saying that seem to be moronic, idiotic, and retarded at face value....

My advice would be to just pretend you never posted anything at all......

[little grey rabbit]

It doesn't take an ace to crash a plane into a huge building. The hijacker pilot demonstrated no extraordinary flying skills.

No one said it took an ace to crash a plane into a tall narrow building.

What it does take an ace to do is time you descent to the last minute, dropping beyond normal commercial parameters to level out just before the WTC, then do a last second bank and turn to hit strike perpendicular.

When you have never flown before.

[Sam.I.Am]

No idea, but will accept your answer without question.

So you say the air traffic controllers were wrong? That this is not an unprecedented descent for a commercial airliner?

No it's not unprecedented, it's unusual because airline pilots care about the safety and comfort of their passengers, a care that the hijackers didn't have. Go look up "Vomit comet" for an example of why it's not unprecedented.

[little grey rabbit]

No it's not unprecedented, it's unusual because airline pilots care about the safety and comfort of their passengers, a care that the hijackers didn't have. Go look up "Vomit comet" for an example of why it's not unprecedented.

I think we have established "unprecendented" was the wrong word. However extreme and highly unusual is not.

The question is would such a rate of descent have been very very apparent to the passengers on their phones?

My opinion is yes. But the record seems to suggest otherwise....

[Bell]

No one said it took an ace to crash a plane into a tall narrow building.

The WTC towers were anything but narrow.

What it does take an ace to do is time you descent to the last minute, dropping beyond normal commercial parameters to level out just before the WTC, then do a last second bank and turn to hit strike perpendicular.

When you have never flown before.

Have you ever seen the WTC? They were the most visible landmarks for miles. All the pilots had to do was line up the airplanes, keep aiming at the towers.

Kind of like what you do if you try to navigate a door opening (i'm assuming you never walk yourself into the doorpost?)

[Bell]

I think we have established "unprecendented" was the wrong word. However extreme and highly unusual is not.

The question is would such a rate of descent have been very very apparent to the passengers on their phones?

My opinion is yes. But the record seems to suggest otherwise....

Your opinion means exactly diddly squat.

Eta: Misread what you said here. But if the passengers noted the descent rate, that is not saying they should have reported it to their loved ones.

[AJM8125]

No one said it took an ace to crash a plane into a tall narrow building.

Nobody except you.

What it does take an ace to do is time you descent to the last minute, dropping beyond normal commercial parameters to level out just before the WTC, then do a last second bank and turn to hit strike perpendicular.

When you have never flown before.

The hijackers had taken flight lessons. They flew before 9/11. That's 9/11 101. You're not very good at this, are you.

[dafydd]

No one said it took an ace to crash a plane into a tall narrow building.

What it does take an ace to do is time you descent to the last minute, dropping beyond normal commercial parameters to level out just before the WTC, then do a last second bank and turn to hit strike perpendicular.

When you have never flown before.

They had flown before.You appear to know very little about this subject.

[Telltale Tom]

I am not aware of a truther claim of impossible speed, I made no such claim. I said unusual speed, speed at which that would be uttermost on the person's mind who made a phone call.

Moreover speed that would be enormously difficult to coordinate with a precise perpendicular strike on the WTC.

Easy for a computer programmed flight path, however.

Yes I am sure Brer Rabbit could be correct.

Everything is controlled by computers these days and we have all seen movies of computers taking over control of planes and trains and security systems and tracking individuals and turning on and off traffic lights to help people escape. Perhaps thats how it was done?

So perhaps thats why we didn't hear much from the cockpit. The transmitter was probably turned off by the computer. I can just imagine the poor terrorists in the cockpit saying, help we were only hijacking the plane for peaceful purposes and it keeps heading straight for the WTC...let me out of this cockpit, some computer has locked the door.

Is that how you imagine it happened Brer Rabbit.?

I am not sure I agree but I can understand why this makes sense to some of the faithful at ae911truth.

[A W Smith]

No idea, but will accept your answer without question.

So you say the air traffic controllers were wrong? That this is not an unprecedented descent for a commercial airliner?

Its things like this is why I just love JREF.


Wassamatter wabbit? Doncha want a carrot? I posted the link up there for ya. Did you see the results and discover your increduilty game was all over? Cmon. tell us all. Whats the angle??
http://www.1728.com/gradient.htm

Do it!

It's evasiveness like this is why I love taunting twoofers. Got anything lil bunny?

While we are waiting for lil bunny to not respond. lets watch a film
kj-xkobaRuE

[dafydd]

Yes I am sure Brer Rabbit could be correct.

Everything is controlled by computers these days and we have all seen movies of computers taking over control of planes and trains and security systems and tracking individuals and turning on and off traffic lights to help people escape. Perhaps thats how it was done?

So perhaps thats why we didn't hear much from the cockpit. The transmitter was probably turned off by the computer. I can just imagine the poor terrorists in the cockpit saying, help we were only hijacking the plane for peaceful purposes and it keeps heading straight for the WTC...let me out of this cockpit, some computer has locked the door.

Is that how you imagine it happened Brer Rabbit.?

I am not sure I agree but I can understand why this makes sense to some of the faithful at ae911truth.

You are having an off day,aren't you? Your reply on another thread wasn't up to your usual standard either.

[beachnut]

I am not aware of a truther claim of impossible speed, I made no such claim. I said unusual speed, speed at which that would be uttermost on the person's mind who made a phone call.

Moreover speed that would be enormously difficult to coordinate with a precise perpendicular strike on the WTC.

Easy for a computer programmed flight path, however.
False, you are not a pilot and have no clue the flying on 911 was not hard. You are wrong and have no knowledge, no skill, and no clue on flying or 911.

There is no way to program any of the planes on 911 to hit a building. Where do you come up with these nut case ideas?

You have no clue what is normal, you have no clue what the decent rates were, you have no clue what Vd of a 767 is, or any clue how fast a 767 can go at sea level. You have nothing, you know nothing, and have failed after 8 years and have no substance to offer on 911.

Bring up the numbers backed with sources, hard data, and explain what it has to do with 911 and your failed delusion.

[fess]

The WTC towers were anything but narrow.

Have you ever seen the WTC? They were the most visible landmarks for miles. All the pilots had to do was line up the airplanes, keep aiming at the towers.

Thanks Bell, as I have said before, these pilots (and yes, they were pilots) were not interested in flying the air craft within the company parameters that make PAX happy about flying with this airline. And no, they weren’t interested in flying the aircraft within its normal operating parameters; in fact, they weren’t interested in flying at all… they were interested in AIMING the aircraft.

[fess]

I think we have established "unprecendented" was the wrong word. However extreme and highly unusual is not.

The question is would such a rate of descent have been very very apparent to the passengers on their phones?

My opinion is yes. But the record seems to suggest otherwise....

I think, if I read correctly, Peter Hanson, during the conversation with his father, said; “I think we are going down”.

[A W Smith]

I think we have established "unprecendented" was the wrong word. However extreme and highly unusual is not.

The question is would such a rate of descent have been very very apparent to the passengers on their phones?



To what Degree?
http://www.1728.com/gradient.htm

[carlitos]

Edited for rule 12.

[Dave Rogers]

I think we have established "unprecendented" was the wrong word. However extreme and highly unusual is not.

The word conspicuous by its absence is "difficult". We know that the hijackers were intending to undertake the extreme and highly unusual act of crashing the airliners into buildings. The fact that they chose, in doing so, to fly them in ways that were dangerous and caused extreme discomfort to the passengers should hardly be surprising.

It's the Hani Hanjour turn all over again. Commercial pilots don't fly their planes like that, not because it's particularly difficult, but because its dangerous and stupid. The fact that a bad pilot flew a plane dangerously and stupidly doesn't sound quite so suspicious, though, does it? So be careful not to mention that.

Dave