The best site for 911 research

[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.

The only unique information I could extract was the pop-up box content.

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 ?

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 ?
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/2/2/376965454.jpg[/qimg]

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.