• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Abolute proof UAL 175 never struck WTC tower 2

JSSTyger said:
well thats exactly what you said...which is probably why your response is so short.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I'm guessing. I've already admitted I don't know how the program works. It's just that "last known" or "last projected" flight path make far more logical sense than anything you've presented.
 
T.A.M. said:
He thinks it is the easiest...because on the surface that would appear so. But in reality, the implication of his suggestion is the most complex.

Here are two choices:

(A) The appearance of the icon we saw was due to a projected path for UA175 before the software was updated with the crash data (termination of flight I guess).

OR

(B) The appearance of the icon, on national TV, being manipulated by announcers, and being witnessed by the shows producers, and entire crew, was actually showing that UA175 had not crashed and was instead on route back to Logan to land...proof positive that the crash witnessed by hundred live at or near GZ, and by millions on TV, was an elaborate hoax, using CGI and other new sekrit technologies. Yet no one in the studio picked up on it. No one but some investigoogler 7 years later.

Griffin's (David Ray) Law!

TAM:)
Click to expand...


Good lord man. I don't know how many times I have to say that I'M NOT SAYING A PLANE DIDN'T HIT THE TOWER!!!!! ***** strawman debunker. I would beg to differ though that we have proof positive it was UAL 175!! Zero conclusive video evidence (which to me is fishy in and of itself). I mean several angles and nobody got a clear shot? I see planes flying overhead everyday. Colors, logos, and everything. And the only people that I know of that clearly identified the airlines were media personnel.

Anybody want to take up the challenge of going outside and videotaping an overhead plane? Can you identify it after several thousand views from several different angles? Yes I think you could. As I said I see planes flying overhead all the time, much higher than 1400 feet. They are always identifyable.

Do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to wonder what steps the OP took to inform himself about how Flight Explorer obtains the information it displays- did he simply assume that knowledge of the whereabouts of all the commercial flights in the air is magically transferred to their server, or did he consider the possibility that it is provided with information by human beings and that if that information is incorrect its output will inevitably also be incorrect.

I also wonder if he had or has any sense of the sheer confusion that prevailed in the air traffic control and air defense systems on the morning of Sept. 11th. For example, did he know that even after AA11 had impacted WTC1, controllers were still looking for it and thought that it might still be airborne and headed towards Washington DC?

Did he know that the hijackers changed UA175's transponder squawk code twice within a few minutes of taking over the cockpit and that this meant that while controllers continued to receive a secondary radar contact from UA175, that target could not be positively identified?

Or that the controller working UA175 was also responsible for AA11 and was so preoccupied with trying to find it on radar (AA11's transponder had been turned off) that he didn't discover that UA175's squawk code was gone for approximately 4 minutes after the hijackers changed it? (The changes were preserved by the radar data recordings which allowed the flight paths of the hijacked airplanes to be reconstructed after the fact.)

Or that it took long enough for the realization that it was UA175 which had hit WTC2 to truly sink in that United Airlines was still sending ACARS messages to UA175 warning about cockpit intrusions more than 15 minutes after it crashed?

This page and this one should be helpful in getting a feel for how little the FAA really knew about UA175 at the time.

Under these circumstances the probability that any information provided to Flight Explorer by the FAA about UA175 was extremely unreliable seems very high.

Perhaps if the OP had informed himself about these facts and tested his assumptions against reality instead of rushing right off to "pwn the shills", he might not have stepped in the cachunga so badly.
 
when you think about it though, for truthers, the idea of a big evil NWO being responsible for everything they don't understand or don't like, is like morphine...It makes them feel better.

Kind of like religion in many ways.

TAM:)
 
I think it's time to start posting pictures of cats.

medium_906466309_da2fef0649_o.jpg
 
JSSTyger said:
Good lord man. I don't know how many times I have to say that I'M NOT SAYING A PLANE DIDN'T HIT THE TOWER!!!!! Fking strawman debunker. I would beg to differ though that we have proof positive it was UAL 175!! Zero conclusive video evidence (which to me is fishy in and of itself). I mean several angles and nobody got a clear shot? I see planes flying overhead everyday. Colors, logos, and everything. And the only people that I know of that clearly identified the airlines were media personnel.

Anybody want to take up the challenge of going outside and videotaping an overhead plane? Can you identify it after several thousand views from several different angles? Yes I think you could. As I said I see planes flying overhead all the time, much higher than 1400 feet. They are always identifyable.
Click to expand...
Sure, I'll tape a plane.

You have to send me a camera first, though. I don't have one, myself. But I would consider it fair compensation for going outside and doing this. After all, I'll have to leave the comfort of my basement and the warm glow of my monitor to do this. Also, it's kinda cold out, and dark at the moment, and Bigfoot might eat me, or I might get abducted by anal-probing aliens. Oh, wait, that's one I like, actually. I guess I could drink the Bigfoot Repellent (it's homeopathic, so it's sure to work), and put on a jacket.

Most of the airplanes around my house are pretty easy to identify, though. Especially the black helicopters with the NWO markings. Of course, we do have the odd UFO, which they always want to tell me is swamp gas. Ha! I have gas, and it doesn't smell like a swamp! Most swamps smell lots better! And it sure isn't visible, either!

Now, since flight 175 didn't hit the tower, what plane did, and where are the people that were on 175?

Oh, sorry, I forgot. You have Absolut proof. What is it, like 100 proof? I never was a vodka man, myself, I always liked rum, Bacardi especially, with Coke. Maybe when you come over with the camera you can bring the Absolut with you, and I can see if it's any better than the others I've had.

See you soon!
 
Redtail said:
Oh no, I'm guessing. I've already admitted I don't know how the program works. It's just that "last known" or "last projected" flight path make far more logical sense than anything you've presented.[/QUOTE

Keep being an *******. You can't project a flight path of orientation NE based on last known transponder signal giving orientation SW. The data would have to be dependent on something else other than transponder data and I'm sure the FAA was so willing to F with the media over this that they shared with them some "back up plan" software (does not rely on transponder and much more difficult tracking) when they were supposedly just trying to get things together themselves. If the FAA loses the plane, how then do they forward such information to the media in such little time??? Remember also that the FAA could only observe blots on their radar to guess which was flight 175. There would have been no flight information transmitted though. Well...the media has flight information in that video.
Click to expand...
 
JimBenArm said:
Sure, I'll tape a plane.

You have to send me a camera first, though. I don't have one, myself. But I would consider it fair compensation for going outside and doing this. After all, I'll have to leave the comfort of my basement and the warm glow of my monitor to do this. Also, it's kinda cold out, and dark at the moment, and Bigfoot might eat me, or I might get abducted by anal-probing aliens. Oh, wait, that's one I like, actually. I guess I could drink the Bigfoot Repellent (it's homeopathic, so it's sure to work), and put on a jacket.

Most of the airplanes around my house are pretty easy to identify, though. Especially the black helicopters with the NWO markings. Of course, we do have the odd UFO, which they always want to tell me is swamp gas. Ha! I have gas, and it doesn't smell like a swamp! Most swamps smell lots better! And it sure isn't visible, either!

Now, since flight 175 didn't hit the tower, what plane did, and where are the people that were on 175?

Oh, sorry, I forgot. You have Absolut proof. What is it, like 100 proof? I never was a vodka man, myself, I always liked rum, Bacardi especially, with Coke. Maybe when you come over with the camera you can bring the Absolut with you, and I can see if it's any better than the others I've had.

See you soon!
Click to expand...



Any reason a you think a 911 truther believes in all that other crap? Don't get me wrong...I do think some conpiracies ehhh or legends are real. After all...the word conspiracy would never have been derived if some weren't real.
Edited by Lisa Simpson: 
Edited to remove inappropriate remark.


Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JSSTyger said:
Redtail said:
Oh no, I'm guessing. I've already admitted I don't know how the program works. It's just that "last known" or "last projected" flight path make far more logical sense than anything you've presented.[/QUOTE

Keep being an *******. You can't project a flight path of orientation NE based on last known transponder signal giving orientation SW. The data would have to be dependent on something else other than transponder data and I'm sure the FAA was so willing to F with the media over this that they shared with them some "back up plan" software (does not rely on transponder and much more difficult tracking) when they were supposedly just trying to get things together themselves. If the FAA loses the plane, how then do they forward such information to the media in such little time??? Remember also that the FAA could only observe blots on their radar to guess which was flight 175. There would have been no flight information transmitted though. Well...the media has flight information in that video.
Click to expand...
Keep being a what? Bulldog? Fireman? Hatrack? I have to know!

Now they were using projectors? Transponders? Blots? Man, all these here technical terms! I'm glad I never had to work around anything complicated like that! All we had to do on the subs was push two buttons. "Up" and "Down" just like an elevator. It was fun! Sometimes we'd mess with the tender, and keep pushing them, up, down, up, down! They didn't like us very much.

But I like you! You're obviously a very nice person, without any anger issues. That's why you wanted to give Redtail a special nickname, right?

Can you come up with one for me, too? Then we can be special friends!
Click to expand...
 
It should be apparent to everyone that JSSTyger, or whoever he is, is merely attempting to bait other members into violating their Member Agreements. He's violated his at least five times in my completely amateur estimate.

Don't rise to his bait. He's more than willing to sacrifice his account in an attempt to take you with him. If he does, that's your fault. Just put the little revolutionary on Ignore and let him prattle on.
 
JSSTyger said:
Any reason a you think a 911 truther believes in all that other crap? Don't get me wrong...I do think some conpiracies ehhh or legends are real. After all...the word conspiracy would never have been derived if some weren't real. I actually think its very very naive for a moron to believe everything he is told. Is that what you are?...A moron who never questions popular opinion?
Click to expand...
Yay! I have a new playmate!

We're going to be very special friends, we will.

So, is that my new nickname? I don't think I like it very much. It doesn't sound very friendly. Maybe you should read the membership agreement again, just to be sure you want to say things like that.

And you don't believe in Bigfoot? Or homeopathy? Or UFOs? Really? They have even more evidence for them than you have. Really, they do. If you go into the other threads, they'll tell you so!

Anyway, I have to go now. I'll make sure the mods are aware of you, though, so you don't get lonely till I come back.

Sleep well!

Your special friend, Jim
 
R.Mackey said:
It should be apparent to everyone that JSSTyger, or whoever he is, is merely attempting to bait other members into violating their Member Agreements. He's violated his at least five times in my completely amateur estimate.

Don't rise to his bait. He's more than willing to sacrifice his account in an attempt to take you with him. If he does, that's your fault. Just put the little revolutionary on Ignore and let him prattle on.
Click to expand...
I just want to help him in his sacrifice.

We need to sacrifice more virgins around here, in my opinion!
 
JSSTyger said:
You can't project a flight path of orientation NE based on last known transponder signal giving orientation SW.
Click to expand...


I still don't know where you're getting this idea that the plane was oriented to the southwest. Like others have said, it was approaching from the southwest, which means it was traveling northeast.

Here's the flight path: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UA175_path.svg

Borrowing your own arrogance, everything is a lot easier to understand if you'd just realize that you've either 1) somehow managed to confuse UA175's direction of approach with it's direction of travel, or 2) somehow confused AA11's direction of approach with UA175's direction of approach.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom