The best site for 911 research

[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+...=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=a85ca58d4c72c8fd

 

[The Big Dog]

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?

Best JREF post of the month.

 

[Oystein]

Best JREF post of the month.

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

 

[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, but selfishly, I prefer my old topic 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.