-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
-
- Tags
- no plane theory no planes
- Status
Almost every post from the last few pages was entirely off topic, and most consisted of nothing more than personal attacks. If this continues, the thread will likely simply be closed, and suspensions may follow.
Edit: Sorry about that, should be open now.
Edit: Sorry about that, should be open now.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Cuddles
Last edited:
Please let it be so!
Then why have you not shown us it then????? EWhy have you wasted your time and ours on thing s that all clearly show a plane???
who cares?
Now, back to the digest:
Wait just a minute. The quoted claim, namely that the radar data ends at about 1500 to 2000feet high is a claim that has been frequently posted of late by you and by other posters.
See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6222509&postcount=3365
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6223069&postcount=3375
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6225110&postcount=3383
That claim is not supported by the data, to put it no more harshly than that.
The chart, itself, is consistent with 1000ft. And, if that is not enough, the NTSB report says so, specifically, as I have already demonstrated, but will show here again nonetheless:
Anyone who wishes to continue to argue for radar ending at 1500 to 2000 feet should at least explain how they manage to do so in light of the following claim from pg. 2 of 7 page NTSB flight path report that plainly states:
"The final radar return from United Flight 175 at JFK approach control occurred at an altitude of 1000 feet and close proximity to the World Trade Center."
I think it unfortunate that those who, all along, have been listing RADAR as something that supports the common storyline of 9/11 have been doing so on the basis of either no analysis of the actual data, or poor analysis.
Once again, the main thing the video we are now reviewing does is provide a helpful format for actually explaining the radar data.
That data clearly shows a flight path that does not match the video data. Thus, the evidence of fraudulent data is clear and unmistakable. On this basis, standing alone, even though it doesn't have to be considered alone, the common storyline of 9/11 as it relates to Flight 175 is utterly false. This has now been proven. The data prove it. The data that has been demonstrated and posted.
That claim is demonstrably false.
The radar data, by its own content, confirms that the common storyline of Flight 175, as shown in most of the ALL43 videos, is false, when compared with the alleged radar.
In fact, both the radar data that cannot be differentiated between "exercise" and "real world" and the ALL43 videos are each false. Small wonder, then, that they contradict each other.
I have shown the above claim is false.
Your attempt to use rhetoric to disguise the fact that you are making an untenable claim, posed as a question, simply does not pass muster.
Do better.
Perhaps when you invest so much of your time on a CT video you might actually check it carefully first
You have got a lot of nerve.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
The videos show a plane. Witnesses saw and reported a plane. Plane wreckage and DNA that matched passengers was recovered from the scene. No amount of your handwaving or word salad change these facts.
Hey Lurkers and Victims Family Members,
Notice that "radar" is no longer listed as a part of the alleged proof of the common storyline of alleged Flight 175.
Some progress is being made here.
Of course, the falsification of the radar data also serves to destroy the ALL43 video data, as well.
I have already shown that northwards of 90% of what few witness claims that can be found, are not usable as evidence because they are unreliably sourced and are next to meaningless. I have also shown that as far as actual and verifiable witnesses are concerned, there are more, and better, witnesses who support the NO PLANE claim than support PLANE SPOTTING.
It has also been shown that the alleged DNA claims are false and not supported by evidence (only a few BS newspaper articles, here and there and what passes as 'official' reports that do not contain any valid DNA data).
And, by now, it should be realized, even by die-hard supporters of the common storyline of 9/11 that there is no aircraft debris properly and definitively identified as such and that, accordingly, such claims are untenable. Once again, this much is beyond controversy and is no longer even contested by posters: No airplane debris for either Flight 175 or any other alleged 9/11 flight has been or was identified by part number or serial number. Not one single piece. Furthermore, even the number of claimed parts and pieces is almost embarassingly (to debunkers who have to explain it away) small to begin with. Much of what is claimed as debris is sourced to the Fresh Kills dump, no less. That is ridiculous.
The NO PLANE claim, and its proof, has nothing whatever to do with handwaving at all. There is no viable evidence to support the claim jetliners hit the WTC. This thread has shown that to be the case, firmly and properly supported. And, this overwhelming demonstration will continue.
What those who support the common storyline of 9/11 and of alleged Flight 175 have to rely on is teevee. That and nothing more.
People believe what they see on teevee. That is the essential element that allowed the 9/11 psyop to succeed to the point it has.
Hear this: Teevee is BS
Last edited:
Hey Lurkers and Victims Family Members,
Notice that "radar" is no longer listed as a part of the alleged proof of the common storyline of alleged Flight 175.
Some progress is being made here.
Of course, the falsification of the radar data also serves to destroy the ALL43 video data, as well.
I have already shown that northwards of 90% of what view witness claims there really are not usable as evidence and that there are more, and better, witnesses who support the NO PLANE claim.
In addition, the DNA claims are false and not supported by evidence and, by now, it should be realized, even by die-hard supporters of the common storyline of 9/11 that there is no aircraft debris properly and definitively identified as such and that, accordingly, such claims are untenable.
This has nothing whatever to do with handwaving at all. There is no viable evidence to support the claim jetliners hit the WTC.
What you have is teevee.
Just curious as to why you are appealing to the victim's family members, if they never existed? I am also curious as to when you are going to present your evidence of this DEW and hologram projection technology? As far as your claims that the DNA is false, can you please provide a scientific explanation as to how so. As far as your hand waving of the aircraft debris, can you please source where the serial number is stamped, imprinted, or any other fashion of application, is applied to every part? Nevermind, you can't. Think of a car, can you please show me where the VIN number is applied to every single part? You can't because it isn't. Contrary to your made up fantasy, all the evidence that planes hit the towers is viable and stands, you have yet to show satisfactory refutation of any of it much less all of it.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT A DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON WAS USED ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON THE MORNING OF TUESDAY 11 SEP 2001. THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE THAT THE IMAGES SEEN IN ANY VIDEO TAKEN THAT DAY ARE A PROJECTED HOLOGRAM.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
Hey Lurkers and Victims Family Members,
Notice that "radar" is no longer listed as a part of the alleged proof of the common storyline of alleged Flight 175.
Some progress is being made here.
Of course, the falsification of the radar data also serves to destroy the ALL43 video data, as well.
I have already shown that northwards of 90% of what view witness claims there really are not usable as evidence and that there are more, and better, witnesses who support the NO PLANE claim.
In addition, the DNA claims are false and not supported by evidence and, by now, it should be realized, even by die-hard supporters of the common storyline of 9/11 that there is no aircraft debris properly and definitively identified as such and that, accordingly, such claims are untenable.
This has nothing whatever to do with handwaving at all. There is no viable evidence to support the claim jetliners hit the WTC.
What you have is teevee. That and nothing more. People believe what they see on teevee. That is the essential element that allowed the 9/11 psyop to succeed to the point it has.
Hear this: Teevee is BS
It has everything to do with your hand waving. You've hand waved the entire workforce in and around Ground Zero who saw airplanes crash into the World Trade Center. That, much like the question of Ed Felt, whose remains were found in a crater in Shanksville along with his fellows passsenger and crew of Flight 93, isn't going away. No matter how desperately you'd like it to.
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
The crew and passengers of United Airlines Flight 175
On the morning of September 11 2001, United Airlines Flight 175 was flying to Los Angeles from Boston, and was hijacked by Islamic terrorists. Shortly after taking off it was deliberately flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, New York.
There were no survivors.
UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175 PASSENGERS
Gerald F. Hardacre, 61, was a passenger on Flight 175. He lived in Carlsbad, California. Known as "Gerry", he was an environmental engineer before his retirement. Gerry was returning to California after visiting his daughter Colleen Hardacre in Boston. His older brother Larry said, "Gerry was really quite a bass fisherman. I mostly went along to get my line wet". Larry and his brother fished together at least once a week. "We had a lot of fun. This really leaves a big hole in my life," he said. "Words don't begin to describe the hurt and the loss".
In addition to his brother and daughter Colleen, Mr. Hardacre was survived by his wife, Judy Hardacre of Carlsbad, other daughter Kristin Hunter of San Diego, sister-in-law, Gretchen Hardacre of San Diego, and niece, Katie Hardacre of San Diego.
His loved ones remember his generosity and devotion to family. When his mother, Vera, suffered a stroke six years ago, Gerry spent much of his time caring for her before her death in 2000, "He did it willingly, selflessly and without any complaints," his brother said.
No picture available.
Source: HERE HERE HERE
Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.
Compus
On the morning of September 11 2001, United Airlines Flight 175 was flying to Los Angeles from Boston, and was hijacked by Islamic terrorists. Shortly after taking off it was deliberately flown into the South Tower of the World Trade Centre, New York.
There were no survivors.
UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175 PASSENGERS
Gerald F. Hardacre, 61, was a passenger on Flight 175. He lived in Carlsbad, California. Known as "Gerry", he was an environmental engineer before his retirement. Gerry was returning to California after visiting his daughter Colleen Hardacre in Boston. His older brother Larry said, "Gerry was really quite a bass fisherman. I mostly went along to get my line wet". Larry and his brother fished together at least once a week. "We had a lot of fun. This really leaves a big hole in my life," he said. "Words don't begin to describe the hurt and the loss".
In addition to his brother and daughter Colleen, Mr. Hardacre was survived by his wife, Judy Hardacre of Carlsbad, other daughter Kristin Hunter of San Diego, sister-in-law, Gretchen Hardacre of San Diego, and niece, Katie Hardacre of San Diego.
His loved ones remember his generosity and devotion to family. When his mother, Vera, suffered a stroke six years ago, Gerry spent much of his time caring for her before her death in 2000, "He did it willingly, selflessly and without any complaints," his brother said.
No picture available.
Source: HERE HERE HERE
Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.
Compus
Your claims are disjointed. It might interest you to know that the NYPD succeeded in identifiying all cars that were declared "totalled" and did so by properly identifying them, that is, by VIN number. There was no need to remind them that that is how vehicles are properly identified. They just did it and did it completely.
I have sourced this claim elsewhere and will not source it here. It is contained as an entry in, I believe, one of the 9/11 museum websites and mentioned in other contexts as well, including in connection with attempts to sell as used cars some that were declared totalled as a result of the destruction wrought by DEW on 9/11.
As to your desire to change the subject to that of DEW, please see the proper threads on that subject.
all the best
AJM,
Let me check for accuracy of understanding. You do understand, do you not, that the reptitive, rhetorical questioning about Ed Felt and/or Shanksville and/or Flight 93 have not got anything at all, in logic, reason or otherwise, to do with alleged Flight 175? You understand that, right?
Do you also grasp that by seeking to change the subject from the ALL43 videos purporting to show an alleged jetliner, and claims related to Flight 175, you are showing a sign of weakness?
You are literally trying to change the subject instead of refuting the NO PLANE evidence as it relates to alleged Flight 175.
The ALL 43 videos can only accurately be said to show a shadowy, unidentified flying object. You are allowing that claim to go unrefuted by repitition of the Ed Felt mantra.
In refusing to deal with the ALL43 video or the other aspects of alleged Flight 175 that are being posted in this thread, you are conveying a message that you haven't got anything to refute the claim that alleged Flight 175 was a psyop based on false imagery.
86 pages on the ALL43 videos associated with Flight 175 and the most common reply is "what about Ed Felt". That is a complete capitulation and admission of failure to refute could a few of you but realize it.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
The witnesses saw a plane. When this is brought up you try to handwave it away and post a ton of word salad.
There are videos and photographs of the plane. You call it a shadow thingy, but it is clear to anyone but you that it is, in fact, a plane.
There is physical evidence of a plane and its passengers recovered from all attack sites.
You have yet to show how any of the evidence could be faked, nor will you ever.
The evidence exists no matter how much you don't want it to. The evidence will not go away no matter how much word salad and weasel words you throw at it. The evidence stands up to the wind generated by your handwaving. That you cannot see this is not our, lurkers, or family member's problem.
There are videos and photographs of the plane. You call it a shadow thingy, but it is clear to anyone but you that it is, in fact, a plane.
There is physical evidence of a plane and its passengers recovered from all attack sites.
You have yet to show how any of the evidence could be faked, nor will you ever.
The evidence exists no matter how much you don't want it to. The evidence will not go away no matter how much word salad and weasel words you throw at it. The evidence stands up to the wind generated by your handwaving. That you cannot see this is not our, lurkers, or family member's problem.
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
...did you just compare cars to planes?
Holy baby blue spider monkey Jesus! You actually did... never mind that cars are not tracked by radar, never mind that cars rarely if ever have passenger lists, never mind that you believe that investigators did their job in this case "completely" but botched it on the dna, never mind that you've been shown all of the above and hand waved it away, never mind that you have shown 0.0 proof of a dew... Wow, why are you so scared of being wrong?
Last edited:
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
Why are you still appealing to people that don’t want to talk to you?
You have failed to notice that half the crap you have brought up has been laid to the wayside. Unfortunately for you, the radar data still stands.Notice that "radar" is no longer listed as a part of the alleged proof of the common storyline of alleged Flight 175.
None that I have noticed from your side, unless hand waving is progress.
Your All43 video data was a complete falsification long before the radar data was introduced.
Another falsification.
More falsification.
FTFY
Your All43 video did nothing but prove beyond a "shadow" of a doubt that Flt 175 did indeed hit Tower 2.
So, every "teevee" network that covered 911 is part of the "psyop"?
Does 911 truth have this no plane insanity in their big tent?
Your delusion does not have planes. By mentioning the passengers, proved to be in the plane you say don't exist, it makes your delusion one of the dumbest delusions on 911 right behind DEW and Plymouth wheel-covers. You refute your delusions as fast as you make them up. How many families have you contacted to explain their loved ones were fake?
People, a few, to be sure, have acknowledged posting up in response to my request for dialogue.
I am very interested in how you come to the conclusion, on this page, page 86, a few posts underneath my most recent demonstration of what the radar data shows, that "the radar data still stands."
See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6233361&postcount=3405
I have come to understand that it is pointless to ask posters to source their claims, because they won't, so I won't ask for that. Nonetheless, I would be interested in knowing by what mechanism you can claim the radar data still stands despite what the 9:44 video shows and what the NTSB report shows, that I have posted, quoted and provided a visual copy of?
You know, I think I can believe that you have not noticed any of the data or information I have posted.
Fess, do you think your observation, quoted above, is adequate refutation of a claim I have made?
To be sure, I fully understand that you think you have refuted a claim I have made by use of that two word sentence.
Do you understand that I do not think you have refuted anything?
It might be nice if every once in awhile you sought to support your claims.
No you didn't.
Well, progess at last! I am quite sure your reference to "shadow" as seen in your quoted statement is an acknowledgment that what is seen in the ALL43 videos is, indeed, SHADOW THINGY!
That is progress.
No need to generalize. Look at each segment and determine where it aired and go from there. That is what the data in this thread allows you to do, if you are interested.
Last edited:
First off, the cars were not slammed into two steel towers at 500 mph, and torn to shreds. A car may be totaled but still remain pretty much in tact, and by the way totaled when speaking of an automobile, means simply that it would cost more to repair it, than what it is worth. And since NYPD did such a thorough job putting an ID to all of those vehicles, why would it stop there?
They just said screw the planes? And no, the DEW is right up this alley, because if as you say, planes didn't create the destruction, something did, and your theory is some super duper secret weapon.
I understand that the reality from which you obviously suffered a break from is slowly closing back in on you, your posts bleed desperation, it is okay, we all had to learn that Luke Skywalker, and Captain Kirk are just fictional characters.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Jammo are you completely blind. The y axis on that graph is linear, if you divide the section of the graph below the 7000ft line into seven equal segments the graph quite clearly ends at between 1500 and 2000 feet.
It is because the graph on the video is not an accurate representation of the radar data. That is not the NTSBs graph, its your friends
Since you seem unable to do so I'll work out the true flight angle in that dive, this again will show that yours friends representation of a near vertical dive is a not a true view of what happened.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
It is not and you know it
Of course the data can be differentiated. You simply call in court the people who were on the radar duty that day and they testify that it is genuine and it shows what they saw. Are you saying the radar operators are all lying too??
Your attempt to use rhetoric to disguise the fact that you are making an untenable claim, posed as a question, simply does not pass muster.
Do better.
You have got a lot of nerve.
- Status