• 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

People who have been following this kind of nonsense longer than me would beg to differ.

As you contribute to the erosion of respect for Constitutional governance and join with the rabble pressing for mob rule, be sure to turn out the lights as you leave common sense.
 
I watched the video.

A) It's impossible to accurately read the numbers listed on that video, as blurry as they are. You see UAL 175; I see UAL 178. It's a matter of perception as to which of us is accurate.

B) What on God's green earth is a Boeing 762? The airplanes that crashed that day were either Boeing 757's or 767's. This merely proves my previous point; you saw that number as 762, when no such plane exists, to my knowledge. You cannot be in the least accurate when you are presented with such, if you'll forgive the pun, fuzzy data. It isn't clear-cut; it's open to interpretation. Your interpretation is not supported by any evidence I'm aware of; my interpretation, on the other hand, is supported by mountains of evidence. So I'm sorry, but quite frankly, I think you are grasping at straws in order to force the data to fit your interpretation, and that just isn't going to happen so long as the evidence to contradict it exists.
 
JSSTyger said:
Alot of you were calling me a kook because you were saying the Flight Explorer data may have been a projected data for UAL flight 175.

I am here to prove this wrong.

In the very same video I showed yesterday, one of the planes still hovering over the WTC has a United tag as well. The orientation of that "stuck" plane is Northwest (well the plane was more due north...I think)...the orientation of the plane that hit tower 2. The elevation of that plane that is "stuck" over the WTC is about 700 feet. Thats about half the WTC height...seems about right.

You were all just looking at the flight near the Connecticut border which clearly labels itself as flight 175 with all the departure, arrival, serial number, etc info that we know is indeed flight 175's.

So indeed the plane that is shown heading NE is NOT the plane that hit the tower. The limitations of the program and lags, amount of info not given us, really does not matter.

So again I ask you to watch this video and hopefully the responses will not be as ummm...like they were last night...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UuH6D4pob8
Click to expand...

Why did you start a new thread about the same crap? Just post in the other thread. Can you people get anything right?

Now...what book do you want us to read you for a bedtime story?
 
I've requested this thread be merged with JSST's other nonsense thread.
 
JSSTyger said:
Alot of you were calling me a kook because you were saying the Flight Explorer data may have been a projected data for UAL flight 175.
I am here to prove this wrong.

In the very same video I showed yesterday, one of the planes still hovering over the WTC has a United tag as well. The orientation of that "stuck" plane is Northwest (well the plane was more due north...I think)...the orientation of the plane that hit tower 2. The elevation of that plane that is "stuck" over the WTC is about 700 feet. Thats about half the WTC height...seems about right.

You were all just looking at the flight near the Connecticut border which clearly labels itself as flight 175 with all the departure, arrival, serial number, etc info that we know is indeed flight 175's.

So indeed the plane that is shown heading NE is NOT the plane that hit the tower. The limitations of the program and lags, amount of info not given us, really does not matter.

So again I ask you to watch this video and hopefully the responses will not be as ummm...like they were last night...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UuH6D4pob8
Click to expand...

Why are you embarrassing yourself like this? Let me say this again and make it as simple as I possibly can. Flight Explorer is a web-based TSD. It is based on flight plan and other data, NOT actual aircraft radar returns. Please, go do some study on how the FAA system is set up and the difference between radar and a TSD. The only "proof" you are offering is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
 
WOW is he still pushing this Flight Explorer stuff?
A software he admitted he knows nothing about!
:big:
 
JSSTyger said:
What I can't leave the thread to watch a basketball game?
Click to expand...

... You have proof (or at least solid evidence as you claim today) that Flt175 did not hit the WTC, thereby showing that at the very least the government lied about the single most horrific terrorist attack on American soil, at worst was involved in the attack... And you went to watch a basketball game? Wow...
 
You do realize that the discussion in the first thread you started to tout your video was focused was on UAL 175 near the NY/CT border because that's what you focus on in your video as abolute proof UAL 175 didn't hit the South Tower, right?
So, I take it you're abandoning that position in favor of some other bit of abolute proof? Or is it just a good old-fashioned troofer goalpost shift?

For what it's worth, the United tag doesn't even show up in your video; and not to be too nit-picky, but what you claim is stuck over WTC is really more in line with being stuck at Newark Airport.
 
911files said:
Why are you embarrassing yourself like this? Let me say this again and make it as simple as I possibly can. Flight Explorer is a web-based TSD. It is based on flight plan and other data, NOT actual aircraft radar returns. Please, go do some study on how the FAA system is set up and the difference between radar and a TSD. The only "proof" you are offering is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

OK genius...fine...you are right that its based on flight plans. But this flight plan was updated post impact time...well holy cow...there are two planes surrounding the WTC post impact time....were they still scheduled to be flying near Manhattan when F-16's were in the area? I don't think so. The two planes shown are the downed aircraft.
 
JSSTyger: Didn't you look at that link about TSD I sent you yesterday?

JSSTyger said:
The two planes shown are the downed aircraft.
Click to expand...


On what basis? I notice that the anchor did not highlight these two flights of the bunch he highlighted. How do you know that these aren't flights landing at Newark or JFK? You do realize that there are airports in the area?
 
Last edited:
JSSTyger said:
OK genius...fine...you are right that its based on flight plans. But this flight plan was updated post impact time...well holy cow...there are two planes surrounding the WTC post impact time....were they still scheduled to be flying near Manhattan when F-16's were in the area? I don't think so. The two planes shown are the downed aircraft.
Click to expand...


wow. you just dont get it do you?

and this above reply proves YOU have no clue about what you are talking about.
 
JSSTyger said:
OK genius...fine...you are right that its based on flight plans. But this flight plan was updated post impact time...well holy cow...there are two planes surrounding the WTC post impact time....were they still scheduled to be flying near Manhattan when F-16's were in the area? I don't think so. The two planes shown are the downed aircraft.
Click to expand...

Look Bozo...I have THE RADAR DATA! There is NO DAMN PLANE in that area! Do your homework! Radar data = "absolute proof" you don't have a clue.
 
911files said:
Why are you embarrassing yourself like this? Let me say this again and make it as simple as I possibly can. Flight Explorer is a web-based TSD. It is based on flight plan and other data, NOT actual aircraft radar returns. Please, go do some study on how the FAA system is set up and the difference between radar and a TSD. The only "proof" you are offering is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
He only believes in 911Truth videos, not the written word of someone who researched extensively to come to rational conclusions.
 
JSSTyger said:
Alot of you were calling me a kook because you were saying the Flight Explorer data may have been a projected data for UAL flight 175.

I am here to prove this wrong.

In the very same video I showed yesterday, one of the planes still hovering over the WTC has a United tag as well. The orientation of that "stuck" plane is Northwest (well the plane was more due north...I think)...the orientation of the plane that hit tower 2. The elevation of that plane that is "stuck" over the WTC is about 700 feet. Thats about half the WTC height...seems about right.

You were all just looking at the flight near the Connecticut border which clearly labels itself as flight 175 with all the departure, arrival, serial number, etc info that we know is indeed flight 175's.

So indeed the plane that is shown heading NE is NOT the plane that hit the tower. The limitations of the program and lags, amount of info not given us, really does not matter.

So again I ask you to watch this video and hopefully the responses will not be as ummm...like they were last night...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UuH6D4pob8
Click to expand...

So, you were so confident of the veracity of your position regarding the video that it compelled you to start a thread which included in the title the term (though misspelled) "absolute proof."

Now you start a new thread about the very same video (unaltered and with nothing added) with the theme of (essentially) "no wait, this is the actual absolute proof."

Pardon me if I'm less than overwhelmed.
 
There is no reason for this thread to exist. It should be merged with your original thread, and therefore I am reporting it to have it merged.

TAM:)
 
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