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

[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

Robert Adrien Jalbert, 61, was a passenger on Flight 175. He lived in Swampscott, Massachusetts. Robert was a top salesman at Rogers Foam Corporation in Somerville.

He left behind his wife of 36 years, Catherine, two daughters, Suzanne McCormick of North Andover and Julie of Seattle, a son, Michael of Swampscott, a brother, Paul, of Lewiston, Maine and three grandchildren.

Robert Jalbert was headed off on a business trip on Flight 175. Work was important to him but his family was his fulcrum. A regular at St. John the Evangelist Church in Swampscott, Robert and Catherine loved to travel and he was a fluent French speaker. Mr Jalbert was a former Marine Reserve.

Catherine Jalbert recounted a story about her husband:-

Robert had a running joke with his son-in-law, John McCormick. When a daughter, Suzanne, first married Mr. McCormick about nine years ago, Catherine Jalbert gave them a brass bear candle holder as a housewarming present. No one liked it, Mrs. Jalbert recalled. It was about the size of a golf ball.

To get rid of it, Mr. McCormick gave it to Mr. Jalbert as a gift. Mr. Jalbert gave it back. The trading went on for years on various holidays. One Christmas, Mr. Jalbert put the bear between two large teddy bear bookends. When Mr. McCormick lifted them out of the box, the bear fell to the floor.

Another year, Mr. McCormick gave Mr. Jalbert the Physicians' Desk Reference, with pages dug out from the center. "When my husband opened up the book," Mrs. Jalbert said, "there was the bear."

Source: HERE

Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.


Compus

 

[Oystein]

Nearly everything jammonius ever writes turns out to be crap. However once in a while he seems to spot something that is valid. We should not automatically assume everytime that something is bunk just because jammo says it.


The NTSB flight path study does in fact claim that the last radar return occurred at 1000ft, at 9:02:50, and that that is also the time of impact.

The 1000ft are at odds with the graph, which ends at 2000ft (and probably closer to 9:02:40. A drop of 1000ft in abouut 10 seconds isn't unreasonable, but why is this not represented in the graph?)
The 9:02:50 crash time is at odds with the common claim that the crash occurred at 9:03:05 - 15 seconds later.

Does anybody know where we can find raw radar data? Or how to reconcile these oddities?

 

[twinstead]

Nearly everything jammonius ever writes turns out to be crap. However once in a while he seems to spot something that is valid. We should not automatically assume everytime that something is bunk just because jammo says it.

Little Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome, I'm afraid.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If the aircraft didn't crash then where are they? If they didn't crash they are missing along with the passengers and crew. That is no illusion.

 

[DGM]

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.

Why didn't you just say you don't understand what "mode c" means instead of flying off the handle accusing me of being "obtuse".

If you want I will explain it to you but, Your claim that the radar return (physical) at 1000' and it's relationship to the chart are wrong.


Hint: Primary/Secondary radar.

 

[CompusMentus]

Does anybody know where we can find raw radar data? Or how to reconcile these oddities?

I'm sure someone could satisfactorily explain any anomalies in the data there.

The catch is would the explanation be accepted by the person aimed at?<<<<real rhetorical question alert>>>>

Compus

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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.

You have alot of room to talk Jam. Your illusions & fantasies have yet to present hard physical evidence. To date, you haven't brought any evidence to the table. So why should we believe a crackpot, paranoid Truther?

 

[CompusMentus]

An example of the mindset we are dealing with here.

This is all from memory btw but I can dig out the actual recording if anyone's interested.

Jim Fetzer "radio" interview with Judy Wood about the effects of DEW at the WTC, exploring the question, "Why use Directed Energy at all?".

In short, Judy Wood reasoned that "they" employed DEW because the bathtub wasn't built to withstand the impact/weight of the two towers as and when they collapsed. She asserted that the evil perps wanted to vapourise the towers mid-air because the bathtub couldn't take it, it would burst under the weight and flood the whole of lower Manhattan causing utter devastation.

OK there we have it, later in the phone-in section of the show a caller (a truther no less) points out that the bathtub was damaged.....Judy's reply? "Ahh but you see! That's part of the cover-up!"

What we've got here is bats in the attic, dragons in the garage and turtles all the way down. It's a zoo, a mad *********** menagerie

Compus

 

[DGM]

Or how to reconcile these oddities?

It has to do with the way radar altitude is determined in different radar "modes".

"Mode C pressure Altitude" is not a direct radar return. This is a reading that is integrated into the data at ATC and it comes directly from the plane. There is lag in the "sort box".

The 1000' is (I suspect) a direct (primary) return (JFK or Newark).


The chart and the quote are two different and distinct things. The chart shows the last "pressure return" and the quote is the last actual physical return. Both can be correct.


He's arguing about two different things and doesn't know it.

 

[djlunacee]

Delusion Demonstrated (bolding mine)

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

Greetings Lurkers and Victims Family Members,

What you see here is one of the most deluded statements I have ever seen. I have bolded the final paragraph, because I believe it to be perfect description of Jammonious' state of mind. Keep in mind readers, this is the same person who believes that planes, trains, and buses all sound the same, in addition to the fact that Jammy also believes that we does not include I, that the planes should have bounced off of the towers, and fallen to the ground. Has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he/she/it will handwave factual evidence to further thier erroneous claims, and will not answer any simple questions under the guise of gotcha games, sweet isn't it?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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?

I don't know if thats what they actually think but its the impression they give on the video and in Jammos "interpretation" of it. In Jammos case I don't think he understands what the graph shows (or he would never have shown it!) so to help him out I had a quick shot at approximating the actual angle of descent.

I assumed a constant ground speed of about 350MPH for the last three minutes of flight. That is a very conservative figure and any increase in this figure would reduce the angle still further.
I then graphed distance covered in feet along the ground versus height in feet AT THE SAME SCALE. The result is as below.

The angle of descent at the point when the NTSB graph ends (about 2000ft)
is around 25 degrees......and would in fact been probably 20 degrees or less as the plane was traveling much faster than 350MPH by the time it hit the towers.
This angle perfectly match the little of the descent that is seen in the video and clearly shows no sudden change in flight angle is required for the plane to pull out of the dive level off and hit the towers. The Videos are perfectly consistent with the NTSB radar data.


Game, set and match....Jammo you just lost.
(but don't worry I know you will just hand wave this away as you do every other fact that gets in the way of your alternative "reality".)

 

[bill smith]

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

Jammonius here's another video you might be interested in..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU&feature=related

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Nearly everything jammonius ever writes turns out to be crap. However once in a while he seems to spot something that is valid. We should not automatically assume everytime that something is bunk just because jammo says it.

I spotted that the graphed data did not match, not Jammo.

He was insisting that because the NTSB said that their data ended at 1000 ft that meant that the graph did also. I corrected him on the point. The graph was the big point of that childish video......they said it showed a steep descent and no pull out. I pointed out that it ended well before impact and I have just calculated that the flight angle was at worst about 25 degrees from the horizontal

Both points make the assertion that the video should have shown the dive and leveling off plainly incorrect. It would be good to plot the height data versus the actual ground speed but we would need the NTSB raw data to do that but the data already provided is quite enough to close this question.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Jammonius here's another video you might be interested in..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz5LuUpcCwU&feature=related

I'd like to know what was so precise about the actual collision? it does not look that way on the videos.....even if we accept that NISTs angles are wrong (and you can never accept ANYTHING on a truther video at face value) so what? The pilots had many miles to line up the plane by sight and had a 200ft wide and 1000ft high target to hit. Can anyone show that this would be tough to do? seems easy enough to me.

 

[Myriad]

Sheeplesnshills, I notice in your graph you have represented the plane's flight path with a reddish line thing. I'm sure you realize that this reddish line thing does not resemble a plane which clearly makes you a NO-PLANE WITNESS!

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[bill smith]

I'd like to know what was so precise about the actual collision? it does not look that way on the videos.....even if we accept that NISTs angles are wrong (and you can never accept ANYTHING on a truther video at face value) so what? The pilots had many miles to line up the plane by sight and had a 200ft wide and 1000ft high target to hit. Can anyone show that this would be tough to do? seems easy enough to me.

Listen to the professional instructor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58...ex.php?showtopic=6819&feature=player_embedded Easy to miss

 

[TheRedWorm]

listen to the professional instructor.
batst insane moron
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm58...ex.php?showtopic=6819&feature=player_embedded easy to dismiss

ftfy

 

[Oystein]

Suppose we accept the no-plane theory as true.

Then the flight path/radar analysis published by the NTSB poses an obvious dilemma:

What did those radar scopes track?

A hologram?
A DEW?
Another plane?



Or alternatively:

Is that radar data / track faked?

Faked by whom? Those who operate the radar devices? The NTSB
How many people does it take to generate the fake track and cover up the faking?
If there was no plane, the fakers would have been at liberty to fake the track any way they liked to. Why then did they not make it look a little less suspicious? Go a bit slower, not descent quite so steeply...

 

[jammonius]

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.

Your claim is not supported by any reference to any authoritative source. However, that is not unusual for debunker-posts. I have said many times the common storyline of 9/11 is a matter of emotional attachment to belief statements. Data does not matter much and reason and rational statements matter even less.

It is within that context that your post is to be considered Progge.

Here you are, several pages after I have first posted a quotation from the NTSB flight path study, including a quotation from that study that says that the reputed "airplane impacted the south tower of the World Trade Center at approximately 9:02:40."

That is what the study that purports to be "official data" says exactly. I have quoted a source that some debunkers have otherwise referred to when it suited their needs to do so.

You, on the other hand, make a claim that contradicts the sourced data and do so without sourcing your claim to anything at all other than your reliance on the common storyline.

Look, you are not unique in doing that. You are doing nothing more and nothing less than most posters here.

I understand.

You may continue to believe a jetliner hit the south tower of the World Trade Center for as long as you can. You may continue to believe the reputed radar data does not contradict the videos for as long as you can.

You can continue to fail to source your claims for as long as that suits your purposes.

Once again, the NTSB report says:

"The airplane impacted the south tower of the World Trade Center at approximately 9:02:40."

The source of the above quote is:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_ P...tudy_UA175.pdf

The place where the quote may be found is pg. 2.

Accordingly, the radar data contradicts the ALL43 video.

 

[jammonius]

I don't know if thats what they actually think but its the impression they give on the video and in Jammos "interpretation" of it. In Jammos case I don't think he understands what the graph shows (or he would never have shown it!) so to help him out I had a quick shot at approximating the actual angle of descent.

I assumed a constant ground speed of about 350MPH for the last three minutes of flight. That is a very conservative figure and any increase in this figure would reduce the angle still further.
I then graphed distance covered in feet along the ground versus height in feet AT THE SAME SCALE. The result is as below.

[qimg]http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu158/thesmith1_photos/descentangle.jpg[/qimg]

The angle of descent at the point when the NTSB graph ends (about 2000ft)
is around 25 degrees......and would in fact been probably 20 degrees or less as the plane was traveling much faster than 350MPH by the time it hit the towers.
This angle perfectly match the little of the descent that is seen in the video and clearly shows no sudden change in flight angle is required for the plane to pull out of the dive level off and hit the towers. The Videos are perfectly consistent with the NTSB radar data.


Game, set and match....Jammo you just lost.
(but don't worry I know you will just hand wave this away as you do every other fact that gets in the way of your alternative "reality".)

Sheeples,

You just made up your own chart, using your own assumptions and then declared your self right.