Ed All 43 videos "Second Hit"" [Explosion]at WTC 2: Plane or No Plane?

[Bell]

Wait...

Jammonius posted a video which uses a 747 simulator to replicate the flight of a 767.
Because the person who made the video claims (in the video) that a 747 is similar to a 767, Jammonius takes this as being correct.
The skeptics here, understandably wary of the claim that a 747 is the same as a 767, ask for proof that the two are sufficiently similar for the flight simulation to be accurate.

Jammonius responds by saying that the video claims the 747 and 767 are the same, and anyone who object has to provide the evidence for their objetction.

WTF?

Burden of proof, ever hear of it?
Also: bare assertion.


Why is Jammonius so willing to accept such an absurd claim, while demanding massive amounts of evidence from those who make much more logical claims?

Is it because the video supports his delusion?


Pssst... Jammo...
Your bias is showing...

Seems like the new ct/truther doctrine here. Make an incredible claim and refuse to back-up and debate this claim, rather demanding from the debunker he needs to proof the opposite. I could claim an alien piloted UA175 and then demand a photo that proves Marwan al-Shehhi was at the stick. As long as the debunker fail this, the incredible claim holds true

 

[dafydd]

Seems like the new ct/truther doctrine here. Make an incredible claim and refuse to back-up and debate this claim, rather demanding from the debunker he needs to proof the opposite. I could claim an alien piloted UA175 and then demand a photo that proves Marwan al-Shehhi was at the stick. As long as the debunker fail this, the incredible claim holds true

Perhaps the truthers could adopt ''The World Turned Upside Down'' as their theme song.

 

[jammonius]

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.

The NTSBs graph lacks detail. However, as to the 1000ft claim, I am quoting the NTSB Flight Path Study. I have said this now several times. I am beginning to recognize that this is simply yet another example of the blind spot to actual data that appears to be essential to maintaining belief in the common storyline of 9/11.

I note, too, that supporters of the common storyline, including you, perceive me as being "blind" or, as you say in the quoted post "completely blind." OK, I get it. I do not see things the way you do therefore I am blind. You do not recognize or acknowledge the NTSB data confirming the tracking of the alleged radar data of alleged Flight 175 to the 1000ft level that contradicts the ALL43 video, thus confirming falsity of both data sets.

You are blind to that and the "that" which is being referred to here is data, not belief. But, as we all know, belief (emotion) trumps data (reality). I have consistently said, and I still mean it: You can belive a jetliner hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center for as long as you can. You can also believe the radar data ended at 1500 to 2000ft above sea level for as long as you can.

Meanwhile, I will here post, for the final time, the link to the NTSB study and say that the reference to the radar hit at 1000ft is found at page 2 of the study. That is NTSB's declaration. You, on the other hand, are oblivious to that fact and are likely to remain that way for a long time.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_ Path _Study_UA175.pdf

all the best

 

[excaza]

Posted at 9:11am

Coincidence?


I THINK NOT!

 

[jammonius]

Posted at 9:11am

Coincidence?


I THINK NOT!

Ah, so, Excaza! Your post reveals that you are a CTer.

You know what's coming next, right?

Do Better

 

[DGM]

You are blind to that and the "that" which is being referred to here is data, not belief. But, as we all know, belief (emotion) trumps data (reality). I have consistently said, and I still mean it: You can belive a jetliner hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center for as long as you can. You can also believe the radar data ended at 1500 to 2000ft above sea level for as long as you can.

Meanwhile, I will here post, for the final time, the link to the NTSB study and say that the reference to the radar hit at 1000ft is found at page 2 of the study. That is NTSB's declaration. You, on the other hand, are oblivious to that fact and are likely to remain that way for a long time.

Do you know what "mode C pressure altitude returns" means?

 

[CompusMentus]

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

James E. Hayden, 47, was a passenger on Flight 175. He lived in Westford, Massachusetts. He left behind his wife, Elizabeth Gail Fox, a daughter, Elizabeth Kaitlin, a son, John, his father, James F. of Pawtucket; and a brother, Barry of Lincoln.

James Hayden was vice president of and chief financial officer for Netegrity, an Internet security company in Waltham, Massachusetts.

James Hayden loved to cook. The Hayden family ate dinner together every night. James liked to cook on weekends, frequently making salmon on Saturday nights. He sought out new restaurants to try, and when he travelled he chose exotic foods. He even got his wife to try them, too. "He made me feel like I was 18," she said. "I loved that."

Source: HERE

Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.


Compus

 

[djlunacee]

All credit goes to Compus for starting with writing down these stories.

That goes without saying.

 

[Oystein]

Posted at 9:11am

Coincidence?


I THINK NOT!

3:11pm in my time zone

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The NTSBs graph lacks detail. However, as to the 1000ft claim, I am quoting the NTSB Flight Path Study. I have said this now several times. I am beginning to recognize that this is simply yet another example of the blind spot to actual data that appears to be essential to maintaining belief in the common storyline of 9/11.

So what? That is not the NTSB graph in the video. Why have you not told us what the actual angle of descent was?

I note, too, that supporters of the common storyline, including you, perceive me as being "blind" or, as you say in the quoted post "completely blind." OK, I get it. I do not see things the way you do therefore I am blind. You do not recognize or acknowledge the NTSB data confirming the tracking of the alleged radar data of alleged Flight 175 to the 1000ft level that contradicts the ALL43 video, thus confirming falsity of both data sets.

You keep saying the graph ends at 1000ft when it clearly does not. NTSBs data and graph do, so why is your friends graph wrong? Please get it corrected before making rash statements about what it shows.

You are blind to that and the "that" which is being referred to here is data, not belief. But, as we all know, belief (emotion) trumps data (reality). I have consistently said, and I still mean it: You can belive a jetliner hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center for as long as you can. You can also believe the radar data ended at 1500 to 2000ft above sea level for as long as you can.

I did not say that. I said the graph in the video ends at 1500 feet so cannot be used to support the assertions made both by your friend or you.

Meanwhile, I will here post, for the final time, the link to the NTSB study and say that the reference to the radar hit at 1000ft is found at page 2 of the study. That is NTSB's declaration. You, on the other hand, are oblivious to that fact and are likely to remain that way for a long time.

Jammo, get it into your thick head. I am not disputing that the NTSB data ends at 1000 feet. I am saying your friends graph ends at 1500 ft, why I don't know but since it clearly does it cannot be used to support the assertion made by you and him.

 

[jammonius]

Do you know what "mode C pressure altitude returns" means?

Your post is BS rhetoric. You are not making a claim in any direct sense; rather, you are being obtuse, obscure and basically engaging in withholding of information, all the while making it seem as if you have something that challenges the NTSB report that says the altitude was 1000ft, all as I have quoted.

You did not post your BS rhetoric in response to the unsubstantiated claim posted by Sheeples and others that the radar data ended at 1500 to 2000ft, something that is specifically contradicted by the NTSB data, itself, that I have quoted, posted, requoted, reposted, sourced and resoourced, including on this page.

Yet, the dogmatic belief in something that posters don't even source continues.

So, as I said, I get it. We are here dealing with an emotional belief. And, as we all know, belief doesn't depend on reason. Belief depends on emotional attachment.

The data are mutually contradictory, thereby falsifying both the alleged radar data and the ALL 43 videos. This thread has made real progress in process of documenting that the NO PLANE claim as it relates to Flight 175 is valid.

 

[jammonius]

So what? That is not the NTSB graph in the video. Why have you not told us what the actual angle of descent was?

You have not posted the NTSB graph. Accordingly, your "so what" declaration is meaningless. It actually appears that much of the dispute you and I have may arise from your refusal to source or substantiate your claims with sources and with detail.

You are actually making a very small point, as it turns out. You are merely claiming that the graph used in the video, which I think is derived from the NTSB graph, but only provides some additional detail to it, is not properly scaled. Adding to the confusion here is that other posters seek to make the larger and potentially more important claim that radar was lost at 1500ft. Fess makes that claim in post # 3375, a point that I have also been addressing.

See Fess's posthttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6223069&postcount=3375

The point is, the NTSB data itself says the last radar was at 1000ft. That is the data that counts and the data upon which the video claims relating to radar are based. And, the video uses, I believe, the NTSB chart, but merely adds detail to it that it does not have in the NTSB publication. Whether the chart is to scale or not is a claim that is up for grabs as far as I am concerned. Graphs can be accurate, some are some aren't. I am not going to allow you to attribute significance to scale in this context because that is not essential to the claims made in the video. Your is a strawman argument.

This is pg. 4 of the NTSB report:

Source (yet again): http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_ P...tudy_UA175.pdf

As you can see, it does not provide scale. However, the NTSB report does say that the last radar was at 1000ft.

So, if we are agreed that the last radar was at 1000ft, then we can move on as far as I am concerned.

Of course, we are "moving on" from a point that shows that the radar data and the ALL43 videos contradict one another and that there was no Flight 175 hitting the South Tower.

You keep saying the graph ends at 1000ft when it clearly does not. NTSBs data and graph do, so why is your friends graph wrong? Please get it corrected before making rash statements about what it shows.

I am not saying the graph ends at 1000ft. I quoted the information source says the radar ends at 1000ft. I am not making a point about the graph. The graph is just that, a simple chart. The data that matters is the radar hit at 1000ft.

I did not say that. I said the graph in the video ends at 1500 feet so cannot be used to support the assertions made both by your friend or you.

That misses the point of the data and of the video. The video shows that the ALL43 videos show a level flight while the data indicate a steep dive ending at 1000ft "in the vicinity of the WTC" if I may paraphrase the data. The videos, with, perhaps, a few exceptions, show no such thing. That is why there is an essential contradiction that serves to falsify the claim a jetliner hit the South Tower, which claim is based largely on stupid videos showing a shadow thingy.

Jammo, get it into your thick head. I am not disputing that the NTSB data ends at 1000 feet. I am saying your friends graph ends at 1500 ft, why I don't know but since it clearly does it cannot be used to support the assertion made by you and him.

Your above assertion contains an important admission; namely, that the NTSB data ends at 1000ft. That clearly contradicts the claim made by Fess. As to the chart claim, that is a strawman construct of your own creation that makes a claim that has nothing of significance to do with either what the video claims or what the data shows.

 

[TJM]

There are thousands of people who saw flight 175 crash into 2 WTC with their own eyes. Perhaps you'd like to quibble with them over your interpretations?

 

[CompusMentus]

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


Herbert W. Homer, 48, was a passenger on Flight 175. He lived in Milford, Massachusetts. He left behind his wife Karen, his parents, William and Winifred of Framingham and a brother, Stephen.

Herbert, "Herb" Homer was a high-ranking official with the US Department of Defence. He coordinated government work by Raytheon in Burlington. He began his 27-year federal career at the Defense Contract Management Agency's Raytheon office in 1974.

Herb was very active in the activities of his local church (First Congregational Church of Milford) He was also a generous contributor to charity and commited to voluteer work, serving as a Special Olympics coach, and was a member of the Jaycees International Senate.

Said a work colleague of Mr Homer, Linda Rusk, "Herb Homer was one of the finest people I have ever known. He loved his god, his country, and for certain his wife and family. He certainly exhibited the highest professionalism and dedication. But it was more than that, no matter how busy he was, he always took time to make sure you knew he cared about you as a person".

Another colleague, Brigadier General Edward Harrington said "Herb was one of the good ones and will certainly be missed," Harrington said. "My heart goes out to his wife, and his family. He was a fine man and will never be forgotten. We lost a good one".

No image available.

Source: HERE HERE

Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.


Compus

 

[Andy_Ross]

WHat happened to the aircraft if they didn't crash into the buildings?

 

[jammonius]

Illusion demonstrated

Greetings Lurkers and Victims Family Members,

The preceding posts, 3454-5, combine to form an interesting demonstration of the power of illusion.

Post # 3454 is a continuation of Compus' project of posting up eulogies and memorial posts for persons who are presumed to be missing and presumed to be dead and presumed to have been passengers aboard a jetliner that has not been proven to have either flown or crashed. That would be alleged Flight 175.

We have seen on this very page that radar data that had, in the past, been trumpteted as a key element proving the common storyline of 9/11 is, in actuality, bogus data that confirms only that if a jetliner had done what the data suggests, then the jetliner would have broken apart and crashed. Secondly, even assuming for sake of discussion that the jetliner did fly as the radar data would have it, then, in that event, almost all of the videos depicting a shadow thingy gliding through the South Tower are, of necessity, false images. Which, of course, they are.

So, on the one hand empirical data confirms that Flight 175 did not crash into the WTC. That is data. But, Compus proceeds, willy nilly, to continue to post up eulogies staunchly reinforcing the illusion that such a thing occurred. Illusion is advanced by reliance upon emotional appeal which clouds reason.

Mind you, I am not here saying "reason" is the be all and the end all. It isn't. Reason is corruptible. In a social context, reason can be used to advance illusion almost just as easily as emotion can.

Note, "reason" is the basis for all of us being made to be very afraid of Al Qaeda and for being willing to undergo X-Ray scanning, rendering us naked, in order to get on an airplane. Nevermind that 9/11 was a psyop.

Following closely on the heels of post # 3454 is a continuation of the favorite tactic of posters here; namely, that of presuming a jetliner crash and mandating an alternate explanation on the basis of acceptance of the presumption that a jetliner crashed.

It is sad that there exists this demonstrated inability to differentiate illusion from reality. However, let me be clear and candid. There exists "reason" to advance the illusion of 9/11. If the illusion becomes distrusted, then, in that event, people will likely feel betrayed at a very deep level, such that a threat to the already fragile state of social cohesion might materialize.

However, that is a risk well worth taking as a continuation of the illusion we are currently being controlled by will lead to more and more deadly 9/11s.

Compus, Captain, I am willing to continue pitting reality against illusion for as long as it takes.

You are obviously seeking to further an illusion by using eulogy information as a means of proving an event not otherwise shown to have happened. You may be comfortable in doing so, but your comfort comes at great cost to your ability to discern the real from the unreal.

take care

 

[TJM]

The thousands of people who saw flight 175 crash into 2 WTC with their own eyes have no illusion.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You have not posted the NTSB graph. Accordingly, your "so what" declaration is meaningless. It actually appears that much of the dispute you and I have may arise from your refusal to source or substantiate your claims with sources and with detail.

Why would I post the NTSB graph? You already did. However as you know thats not the graph in the video and neither end at 1000 feet but rather at 1500 feet plus. The data may well do but since the graph does not reflect the data down to 1000 feet and statements that the graph does not reflect the videoed flightpath is null and void as none of the videos have the plane at 1500 feet.

You are actually making a very small point, as it turns out. You are merely claiming that the graph used in the video, which I think is derived from the NTSB graph, but only provides some additional detail to it, is not properly scaled. Adding to the confusion here is that other posters seek to make the larger and potentially more important claim that radar was lost at 1500ft. Fess makes that claim in post # 3375, a point that I have also been addressing.

I don't care if it was lost or not. Until the graphs end at a height that the videos include then it is impossible to say if that the videos do not match the radar data.

The point is, the NTSB data itself says the last radar was at 1000ft. That is the data that counts and the data upon which the video claims relating to radar are based. And, the video uses, I believe, the NTSB chart, but merely adds detail to it that it does not have in the NTSB publication. Whether the chart is to scale or not is a claim that is up for grabs as far as I am concerned. Graphs can be accurate, some are some aren't. I am not going to allow you to attribute significance to scale in this context because that is not essential to the claims made in the video. Your is a strawman argument.

Its not me thats comparing a graph with a video when there is no overlap between the two.

This is pg. 4 of the NTSB report:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/flightsimvideo/ntsbpg4graph.jpg?t=1282184528[/qimg]

Source (yet again): http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_ P...tudy_UA175.pdf

As you can see, it does not provide scale. However, the NTSB report does say that the last radar was at 1000ft.

I never said it did not.

So, if we are agreed that the last radar was at 1000ft, then we can move on as far as I am concerned.

Oh I am sure you would like to move on
but sorry but you don't get off the hook that easy. The claim in the video is that the graph shows no levelling off so there fore the leveling off shown in the videos is false so therefore the videos are faked.
But as I have shown the graphs of the radar data end at 1500 feet plus (about twice the height of the impact point) and all the videos start after that so the shape of the graph is utterly irrelevent.

Why do you keep dodging my request to know the actual descent angle? The graphs X axis is time, not distance so the angle of descent shown on the graph is not the actual angle. Your friend likes to suggest that the plane was in a steep, near vertical dive when in fact that is not the case. (one can easily see that whilst the descent angle is steeper than the ascent ones earlier no one really thinks those are the real ones either as no airliner can climb at anything like that angle.

Of course, we are "moving on" from a point that shows that the radar data and the ALL43 videos contradict one another and that there was no Flight 175 hitting the South Tower.

Nope the are all consistent and all show a plane hitting the building. You saying otherwise changes nothing.

I am not saying the graph ends at 1000ft. I quoted the information source says the radar ends at 1000ft. I am not making a point about the graph. The graph is just that, a simple chart. The data that matters is the radar hit at 1000ft.

OK then show that the radar data shows no leveling out and further that leveling out had to have started by altitiude of 1000 feet

That misses the point of the data and of the video. The video shows that the ALL43 videos show a level flight while the data indicate a steep dive

No it doesn't, it shows a dive....no dive angle is given so we do not know how steep it was.

ending at 1000ft "in the vicinity of the WTC"

It says that but does not SHOW that.

if I may paraphrase the data. The videos, with, perhaps, a few exceptions, show no such thing. That is why there is an essential contradiction that serves to falsify the claim a jetliner hit the South Tower, which claim is based largely on stupid videos showing a shadow thingy.

So it fails to show a dive past 1500 feet, it fails to show there was a steep dive at all and it also fails to show that any leveling out could not have occurred below 1500 feet...............so in actuality your friends video show nothing at all

Your above assertion contains an important admission; namely, that the NTSB data ends at 1000ft. That clearly contradicts the claim made by Fess. As to the chart claim, that is a strawman construct of your own creation that makes a claim that has nothing of significance to do with either what the video claims or what the data shows.

[/QUOTE]

I never said it didn't. I said that your friends (and the NTSBs) GRAPH ends at 1500 feet so any shape of those graphs cannot be used to say videoed flight well below that height does not match the NTSB flight data. There simply is no overlap.

 

[GlennB]

Why do you keep dodging my request to know the actual descent angle? The graphs X axis is time, not distance so the angle of descent shown on the graph is not the actual angle. Your friend likes to suggest that the plane was in a steep, near vertical dive when in fact that is not the case.

Forgive me for not having the stomach to plough through loads of Jammo's stuff, but is he or his friend really suggesting that the slope on the graph represents the actual descent angle of the aircraft? Surely not?

 

[progge]

[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.

No. The NTSB radar track ends at 09:02:40 EDT (cf. UA 175 Flight Path Study, p. 2; cf. Radar Data Impact Speed Study, p. 4), which is some 20 seconds before UA 175 impacted the south tower, and well before any of the known videos picked up UA 175.
There is no contradiction. Both data sets complement each other.