The best site for 911 research

[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?

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

 

[Baylor]

pwned

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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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.

 

[Baylor]

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.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.