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

[Sabretooth]

Here's a useful perspective on the point G from the radar data:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/flightsimvideo/flightsim2651.jpg?t=1282928710[/qimg]

I'm quite sure that the issue of radar data will never again be raised by the likes of, say, Beachnut, claiming that data supports the common storyline of 9/11.

Radar data claims are simply one more element of the common storyline of 9/11 that this thread has shown to be an illusion.

I'm not really sure what you're attempting to point out here.

Based on the radar data:

08:57 - At point "G" - UA175 is at about 24,500 ft.
09:02 - last bit of data records UA175 at approx 2000 ft. according to the graph.

So a drop of approx 22,000 feet in 5 minutes...or rate of decline of approx 4,400 ft per minute. Considering that airliners typically decend at 2,500 to 3,000 fpm out of comfort for the passengers, 4,400 fpm is really not that big of a deal for a pilot that doesn't give a **** about the comfort of passengers.

And this picture you put up is very misleading. It attempts to make the flight look like a nosedive just before leveling off over the bay. But the data is very clear that it took 5 minutes to decend to that height. So point "G" should be rather far off in the horizon based on that time.

So the only "illusion" here is the data you are manipulating.

 

[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

Mother and daughter, Ruth Magdaline McCourt, 45, and Juliana Valentine McCourt, 4, were passengers on Flight 175. They lived in New London, Connecticut. Ruth McCourt was the founder of Clifford Classique, a day spa business in Boston. Ruth was travelling with Juliana and a friend on a week-long pleasure trip to Los Angeles the trip was to include a surprise vist to Disneyland for Juliana. They were to meet up at LA airport with Juliana's godmother, Paige Farley-Hackel. The best of friends, Ruth and Paige had originally planned to fly from Boston together but Paige decided to take advantage of her frequent-flyer miles and took American Airlines Flight 11 instead. Flight 11 was also hijacked and flown into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

Born Ruth Clifford in County Cork, Eire, her family emigrated to America in 1973. Ruth was the only girl of 6 children, her brother Ron said Ruth was the peacemaker amongst them, "She was always the one to sit down and negotiate with us when there was conflict in the family. She was the one who could find a place for us to agree."

In a remarkable coincidence Ron Clifford witnessed the events of that day in New York. On a business trip, he was about to enter the WTC complex when the first plane struck the North Tower. In the lobby of the Marriot Hotel he heard "an incredible explosion" and smelled the pungent odor of aviation fuel.

"It created an immediate haze, engulfing everything," he recalled. Through that haze, Clifford saw someone coming in through the revolving doors that he had passed through just moments before.

"She was ghastly white, " he said. "Her clothes were gone except from her front, where her sweater was welded to her chest. Her arms were completely swollen, her hair melted away."

Ron Clifford grabbed a fresh garbage bag from the men's room, filled it with water and doused the woman. "She said, 'Holy Mary, Mother of God,'" he recalled, "and I knew she was Catholic, so we said some prayers."

That badly burned lady was Jennieann Maffeo of Brooklyn, a 40-year-old senior associate in systems development at UBS PaineWebber. Ron Clifford and others aided Ms Maffeo and stayed with her until she was evacuated by ambulance. She had been standing on the sidewalk and doused with burning jet fuel. She died 6 weeks later.

As Ron Clifford made his way to Battery Park and caught the ferry on his journey home he thought of his sister and phoned his family. Knowing that she was headed to Los Angeles for a few days' vacation, and knowing the first plane commandeered in the attack was an American Airlines jet, he was relieved to discover Ruth, 45, and 4-year-old Juliana were on a United flight.

But to be sure, his family checked with officials at Boston's Logan Airport, where the hijacked flights originated.

Their worst fears came true with word that their loved ones' plane was the second jet to hit the towers.

"My brother-in-law is still trying to process it all," Clifford said. "He says things are OK until he closes his eyes and visions of their life together float in his mind."

The whole family gathered, as it always does in times of joy and sorrow, at the McCourts' home in New London, Connecticut.

"My daughter is trying to figure this all out," he said. "When we came to visit, she stayed with her in (Juliana's) bedroom, a picture-perfect bedroom with beautiful twin beds. And now one is empty," he added, choking over the words.

Source: HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE HERE
HERE

Immutable facts. Unassailable reason.

Compus

 

[CompusMentus]

More on the story of the terrible fate of Jennieanne Maffeo (see my last post)
From HERE

I've been following this story on 1010WINS for the past several weeks... a woman who was standing on the sidewalk outside the WTC was doused with burning jet fuel and burned over 90% of her body. The doctors told her family that she wouldn't survive more than 36 hours but this Monday, when I finally told Eric about the story, 6 weeks had passed and she was still fighting to survive. She died Monday night. She was from our neighborhood and her name is Jennianne Maffeo 40 yrs. old. She found her way into the Marriott Hotel and collapsed. The people in the hotel wanted to help her but because her body was so burned, they didn't know where to touch her to help her get up. She told them that she would get up on her own -- which she did. Here is the story from today's Daily News..... WTC Burn Victim Loses Fight To Live A Brooklyn woman who survived a flaming cascade of jet fuel in the World Trade Center disaster and asked her family to thank the man who first helped her died after a struggle to recover from head-to-toe burns. Jennieann Maffeo of Brooklyn, a 40-year-old senior associate in systems development at UBS PaineWebber, died Monday night at the burn unit of Weill Cornell Medical Center. "I am saddened to tell you that, after a six-week battle to overcome the injuries she suffered on Sept. 11, our colleague Jennieann Maffeo has lost her fight for life," UBS PaineWebber Chairman Joseph Grano said in a memo to employees at the brokerage giant. Maffeo's ordeal began when she was engulfed by burning fuel and debris from the hijacked airliner that hit the north tower as she waited for a bus on West St. Architect Ronnie Clifford, who had just stepped into the lobby of the Marriott hotel alongside the north tower, narrowly avoiding the shower of burning fuel, saw what happened to Maffeo and rushed to her aid. Clifford, 47, later described how Maffeo struggled to stand though her face was entirely burned, her fingernails were melted and her clothing was charred onto her skin. He shielded her with his coat, prayed with her and administered oxygen from a hotel medical kit, then helped her to an ambulance, he told Time magazine. After she had been taken away, shreds of Maffeo's seared flesh clung to his coat, he said. In a further cruel turn of events, Clifford, of Glen Ridge, N.J., would learn that his sister, Ruth McCourt, 45, and his niece Juliana, 4, had been on United Airlines Flight 175, which crashed into the World Trade Center's south tower. A family friend, Paige Hackel, 46, also was killed. She was supposed to meet McCourt in Los Angeles but traveled separately — on the American Airlines flight that crashed into the north tower. Though Maffeo's burns were so severe that her family had to wear hospital scrubs to visit her, she insisted they reach out to thank the man who had helped her, Clifford said. Maffeo was an enthusiastic cyclist and had been very active in volunteer work. She helped students at Thomas Edison School in Union, N.J., as part of a company-sponsored reading program and worked with the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. "She will be greatly missed," Grano said. "Her family has suffered a great loss, and our prayers and support are with them." Maffeo is survived by her mother, father, sister and brother. A wake will be held from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. tomorrow and Friday at Scarpaci Funeral Home, 1401 86th St., Brooklyn. A Mass will be said Saturday at 9 a.m. at St. Mary's Catholic Church, 23rd Ave. and 85th St., Brooklyn.

Perhaps the "bus" that dumped burning aviation fuel all over that poor lady was the same one that passed by Dick Oliver?

It takes a special kind of person to disrespect the memories of the people who suffered that day in the manner seen here. It really does.


Compus

 

[jammonius]

I'm not really sure what you're attempting to point out here.

Based on the radar data:

08:57 - At point "G" - UA175 is at about 24,500 ft.
09:02 - last bit of data records UA175 at approx 2000 ft. according to the graph.

So a drop of approx 22,000 feet in 5 minutes...or rate of decline of approx 4,400 ft per minute. Considering that airliners typically decend at 2,500 to 3,000 fpm out of comfort for the passengers, 4,400 fpm is really not that big of a deal for a pilot that doesn't give a **** about the comfort of passengers.

And this picture you put up is very misleading. It attempts to make the flight look like a nosedive just before leveling off over the bay. But the data is very clear that it took 5 minutes to decend to that height. So point "G" should be rather far off in the horizon based on that time.

So the only "illusion" here is the data you are manipulating.

Debunkers are not ever going to concede that the radar has shadow thingy at 1000ft instead of 2000ft, or so it would seem.

Typically, whenever a debunker around here makes an accusation of "manipulation" one can be very nearly certain that manipulation by the debunker has just occurred.

So it is here, lurkers and victims family members.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Here's a useful perspective on the point G from the radar data:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/flightsimvideo/flightsim2651.jpg?t=1282928710[/qimg]

I'm quite sure that the issue of radar data will never again be raised by the likes of, say, Beachnut, claiming that data supports the common storyline of 9/11.

Radar data claims are simply one more element of the common storyline of 9/11 that this thread has shown to be an illusion.

Actually it is an almost useless perspective as one cannot tell how steep the dive is. A view at 90 degrees, ie a side view would be much more useful. As I have already show the flightpath did not exceed 25 degrees from the horizontal. The RADAR data does not overlap any of the videos and descent seen in the videos matches a pull out from about 25 degrees.
Both RADAR and videos clearly indicate planes hitting the buildings

 

[TJM]

Debunkers are not ever going to concede that the radar has shadow thingy at 1000ft instead of 2000ft, or so it would seem.

Typically, whenever a debunker around here makes an accusation of "manipulation" one can be very nearly certain that manipulation by the debunker has just occurred.

So it is here, lurkers and victims family members.

Sorry, haven't been keeping up on the thread but question about the radar data; does this somehow change the fact that thousands of people saw flight 175 crash into 2 WTC with their own eyes and millions more saw it in real time on live television?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You might deny everything Jammy, but we know that you know, that what you're saying is complete junk.

Thousands of NYers saw 2 massive airliners crash into 2 huge 110 story buildings & you say that it was an "illusion"? Dude, what drugs are you taking?

Not the right ones thats for sure.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Debunkers are not ever going to concede that the radar has shadow thingy at 1000ft instead of 2000ft, or so it would seem.

Typically, whenever a debunker around here makes an accusation of "manipulation" one can be very nearly certain that manipulation by the debunker has just occurred.

So it is here, lurkers and victims family members.

The Radar data graph stops at 2000 feet so no inference can be made of what happened below that height unless you have the raw data. Do you?
Also I showed you that the angle of descent, ie the angle of the flightpath relative to the ground was no more than 25 degrees and probably nearer 20 degrees so no steep, near vertical, dive, no huge pull up required........in fact just what we see in the videos. I have shown you this. Why do you keep lying?

any lurkers and family members agree with Jammo????

 

[Sabretooth]

Debunkers are not ever going to concede that the radar has shadow thingy at 1000ft instead of 2000ft, or so it would seem.

Typically, whenever a debunker around here makes an accusation of "manipulation" one can be very nearly certain that manipulation by the debunker has just occurred.

So it is here, lurkers and victims family members.

Um...the radar data I found shows 2,000 ft. As referenced here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf

But, whether it is 1,000 ft or 2,000 ft...it's rather insiginificant in your argument.

We are talking an additional rate of decent of 200 fpm. Still well within the flight envelope and characteristics of a Boeing 767.

Just because you choose to ignore the facts that debunk your little hissy-fit, it doesn't make them any less true.

And, again, that picture you posted is a manipulation and misrepresentation of the facts. Anyone with the correct data, a 99 cent calculator, and 8th grade math skills can figure that out.

Keep on trolling, Jammy...

 

[jammonius]

Um...the radar data I found shows 2,000 ft. As referenced here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf

But, whether it is 1,000 ft or 2,000 ft...it's rather insiginificant in your argument.

We are talking an additional rate of decent of 200 fpm. Still well within the flight envelope and characteristics of a Boeing 767.

Just because you choose to ignore the facts that debunk your little hissy-fit, it doesn't make them any less true.

And, again, that picture you posted is a manipulation and misrepresentation of the facts. Anyone with the correct data, a 99 cent calculator, and 8th grade math skills can figure that out.

Keep on trolling, Jammy...

The source you claim as "radar data [you] found" was not lost and has already been cited as the source for the 1000ft claim. I recognize, of course, that the mental blind spot, the emotional requirement to adhere to the common storyline, as well as something about debunkers that defies easy explanation simply prevents you from seeing what the source says about altitude and 1000ft in the same paragraph on the same page, so there's no point in requoting it here.

I have elsewhere posted it, quoted it, framed it and otherwise highlighted it and still you post the same source and fail to grasp what it actually says.

Look, if it helps, let me again remind you that you may continue to believe a Boeing 767 hit the South Tower for as long as you can. I am not seeking to challenge what you believe.

All I am doing is showing that you have almost no empirical data upon which to base your belief.

You are not ever going to produce much in the way of empirical data. Instead, you are likely to remain stuck in a cycle of epithets, put downs and reliance on stupid debunker claims sourced to Pennysaver and such like.

good luck

 

[Sabretooth]

The source you claim as "radar data [you] found" was not lost and has already been cited as the source for the 1000ft claim. I recognize, of course, that the mental blind spot, the emotional requirement to adhere to the common storyline, as well as something about debunkers that defies easy explanation simply prevents you from seeing what the source says about altitude and 1000ft in the same paragraph on the same page, so there's no point in requoting it here.

I have elsewhere posted it, quoted it, framed it and otherwise highlighted it and still you post the same source and fail to grasp what it actually says.

Look, if it helps, let me again remind you that you may continue to believe a Boeing 767 hit the South Tower for as long as you can. I am not seeking to challenge what you believe.

All I am doing is showing that you have almost no empirical data upon which to base your belief.

You are not ever going to produce much in the way of empirical data. Instead, you are likely to remain stuck in a cycle of epithets, put downs and reliance on stupid debunker claims sourced to Pennysaver and such like.

good luck

If you wanna hang your hat on piece of insignificant "evidence" because the cover page of the report says 1 and the graph shows 2, go ahead.

You're attempting to carry on this no-plane nonsense based on the lies in your head and are wasting the time of everyone here that continuously proves you wrong. The inaccuracy you're trying to beat your gavel on is useless in your argument.

I am pointing out that whether it's 1 or 2, it doesn't make a difference. The data still shows UA175 operating within its abilities.

Again, just because you don't want to admit it, that doesn't make it invalid.

 

[TJM]

The source you claim as "radar data [you] found" was not lost and has already been cited as the source for the 1000ft claim. I recognize, of course, that the mental blind spot, the emotional requirement to adhere to the common storyline, as well as something about debunkers that defies easy explanation simply prevents you from seeing what the source says about altitude and 1000ft in the same paragraph on the same page, so there's no point in requoting it here.

I have elsewhere posted it, quoted it, framed it and otherwise highlighted it and still you post the same source and fail to grasp what it actually says.

Look, if it helps, let me again remind you that you may continue to believe a Boeing 767 hit the South Tower for as long as you can. I am not seeking to challenge what you believe.

All I am doing is showing that you have almost no empirical data upon which to base your belief.

You are not ever going to produce much in the way of empirical data. Instead, you are likely to remain stuck in a cycle of epithets, put downs and reliance on stupid debunker claims sourced to Pennysaver and such like.

good luck

Just a reminder lurkers, the above post is simply a hand wave from somebody who is completely invested in a delusion that involves the application of technologies that don't exist.

 

[Bell]

More on the story of the terrible fate of Jennieanne Maffeo (see my last post)
From HERE




Perhaps the "bus" that dumped burning aviation fuel all over that poor lady was the same one that passed by Dick Oliver?

It takes a special kind of person to disrespect the memories of the people who suffered that day in the manner seen here. It really does.


Compus

This story brought tears to my eyes. Thank you for posting, Compus.

 

[CompusMentus]

This story brought tears to my eyes.

Bell, you're not alone feeling that way.

Compus

 

[TJM]

It takes me back to the day and my blood boils all over again. That's one reason why I'll rarely pass on an opportunity to show my contempt for truthers.

 

[Sabretooth]

It takes me back to the day and my blood boils all over again. That's one reason why I'll rarely pass on an opportunity to show my contempt for truthers.

...and it was my primary reason for joining the JREF boards

 

[EventHorizon]

Please document and source your claim that Ellen Mariani is not a no-planer.

I think you are mistaken in that claim, at least in part. I say that because Ellen Mariani has called attention to the lack of any other confirmed family members from Flight 175 in situations where such persons would be expected.

Granted, that claim is not iron-clad. I mention solely in conjunction with the claim that Ellen Mariani is not a no-planer. She might well be a NO PLANER, or someone who's train of thought and involvment in 9/11 matters places her on her way to being one. More than that, I cannot say.

all the best

You're not even really trying anymore are you?

 

[beachnut]

Here's a useful perspective on the point G from the radar data:

I'm quite sure that the issue of radar data will never again be raised by the likes of, say, Beachnut, claiming that data supports the common storyline of 9/11.

Radar data claims are simply one more element of the common storyline of 9/11 that this thread has shown to be an illusion.

You ignore the dead from jet fuel; you disrepect those who died and apologize for the terrorists you just proved flew Flight 175 into the WTC.

You just proved with radar data Flight 175 impacted the WTC. You can't be a better debunkers except you post delusions and lies; but you see, those posts debunk your lies and deluisons.

The luckers, which are actually articulate critical thinkers and skeptics, know you post excluslively delusions based on your fantasy conspracy theories which remain fuzzy and undefined.

Are you aware you proved with RADAR data 175 impacted the WTC?

Does your mom know you have delusions on 911, and disrespect those who died on 911 by propagating lies? How is the weather in Brazil?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

The source you claim as "radar data [you] found" was not lost and has already been cited as the source for the 1000ft claim. I recognize, of course, that the mental blind spot, the emotional requirement to adhere to the common storyline, as well as something about debunkers that defies easy explanation simply prevents you from seeing what the source says about altitude and 1000ft in the same paragraph on the same page, so there's no point in requoting it here.

No one is denying that the radar data is said to end at 1000ft! You use the graph to try to show there was no pull out of the dive but the graph ends at 2000ft (almost twice the height of the towers and certainly well above the impact point and before any of the videos capture the impact. Stop lying about this!

I have elsewhere posted it, quoted it, framed it and otherwise highlighted it and still you post the same source and fail to grasp what it actually says.

we grasp exactly what you are saying! It is simply wrong.

Look, if it helps, let me again remind you that you may continue to believe a Boeing 767 hit the South Tower for as long as you can. I am not seeking to challenge what you believe.

Then why are you here????? Go away and find yourself somewhere like 911OZ.

All I am doing is showing that you have almost no empirical data upon which to base your belief.

Only in your imagination. The evidence is overwhelming and beyond any reasonable doubt.

You are not ever going to produce much in the way of empirical data. Instead, you are likely to remain stuck in a cycle of epithets, put downs and reliance on stupid debunker claims sourced to Pennysaver and such like.

Its you that's making assertions in this thread not us. ITS UP TO YOU TO PROVE THEM! You cannot do this without answering questions and by pretending things mean what they do not.
You are the prosecution, we are the jury.

 

[jammonius]

It takes me back to the day and my blood boils all over again. That's one reason why I'll rarely pass on an opportunity to show my contempt for truthers.

You are confused, and that is understandable. There's little point in trying to help you out as you might well revel in your confusion.

It should be obvious, but isn't, that there is no conflict between assertions that what happened on 9/11 has not ever been properly explained and that the common storyline of what happened is utterly false, on the one hand; and, expressions of sorrow, sympathy, dismay and utter contempt for what was done to us, on the other.

Calling attention to the fact that neither what happened, let alone who did it, has ever been explained has not got a darn thing to do with sympathy for victims.

And, as I have frequently said, neither you nor anyone else who clings to belief in the common storyline of 9/11 is in the least bit more sympathetic to victims than I am.