The best site for 911 research

little grey rabbit

Banned
L
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
3,164
is here, or so I was informed by JREFers.

Some gave me this youtube clip sometime ago. I have never known quite what to make of it, as there seems to be a very good community of anti-truther opponents here, I can depend on you to give me the right debunking and that is exactly what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3PxBF_qmNE

The final screen ends up with this

Position 50 km away from the WTC
UAL 175: United Airlines 175
B762: Boeing 767-200
310 438: 31000ft, 438 knots
BOS 08:15a
LAX 01:44p

N 175 F: Extra Flight 175
007 136: 700ft, 136 knots
????
???? ??? ???
Click to expand...

So as the best place for 911 research on the web, can you tell me if
a) is the clip genuine? It looks genuine and in other versions they go to great lengths to show context and try to show the bona fide of what they present. Perhaps it is all just an extremely sophisticated fake?
b) Have they deciphered the abbreviations correctly?
c) What does it mean, if anything?
 
I suspect that you might get rather more information if you posted the thread under a more informative title; I would suggest you ask the moderators to change it to something like "Flight N175F debunk request". You might also want to try sending PMs to JREF users Cheap Shot, who was an ATC on duty on 9/11, and femr2, who appears to have posted the video in question.

Dave
 
Oh I am sure if there is a debunk for it, it will turn up sooner or later, regardless of the thread title.
And if there isn't, it won't.

I get the feeling that like the anti-revisionists, anti-truthers have an excellent internal intelligence service.

There is no hurry. I am sure the Illuminati is not about to demolish another couple of skyscrapers in the next few weeks.
 
:rolleyes:

I get the feeling that like the anti-revisionists, anti-truthers have an excellent internal intelligence service.
Click to expand...

yes your thread made the alarm bells ring, 1000's of SMS were sent to all the NWO payd shills to show up and denie your truths. Life is a bitch.
 
Good god. How old are you? Illuminati? Go back to playing Deus-Ex and reading trashy Dan Brown fiction novels. There is no level of control like that in the real world, not even close. Your post alone shows this to be true, I never would've seen it if your fantasy was true.

(of course your seeing this post means that the Illuminati approved this post as disinfo so it's all moot. RIGHT?)
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Good god. How old are you? Illuminati? Go back to playing Deus-Ex and reading trashy Dan Brown fiction novels.
Click to expand...

I think you need to distinguish between little grey rabbit's deliberate irony, his deliberate disingenuity, his deliberate evasiveness and his deliberate insubstantial innuendo, and try not to mistake any of them for the illusion of his actually making a positive claim. I think the Illuminati bit was irony, though it's difficult to be sure what someone means when they're trying very hard not to say anything at all because they don't want to open their irrational beliefs up to any kind of scrutiny.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
And I'm sure you'll reject it, regardless of the content.

Dave
Click to expand...

Nope, first I want to know if the video is fake or real. If it is fake, it is an extraordinary good one.
Secondly, I want to know what the meaning of the MSNBC clip showed.

There may, nay almost surely is, an excellent explanation. I just want to know what it is, so no more poor trusting souls will be fooled by this slick presentation.

Can't say fairer than that.
 
That clip already has 2 threads going on this forum in the past. If someone remembers the names of the threads, please bring them forward, so we don't have to waste any more of our time on this crap.

TAM:)
 
Dave Rogers said:
I think you need to distinguish between little grey rabbit's deliberate irony, his deliberate disingenuity, his deliberate evasiveness and his deliberate insubstantial innuendo, and try not to mistake any of them for the illusion of his actually making a positive claim. I think the Illuminati bit was irony, though it's difficult to be sure what someone means when they're trying very hard not to say anything at all because they don't want to open their irrational beliefs up to any kind of scrutiny.

Dave
Click to expand...

To be absolutely honest with you Dave, I don't have any idea. The best analogy I can offer you is with Dark Matter, you can't see it, you can't measure it, you can't describe it, but you know it exists because of the devastating gravitational pull it exerts on our social fabric.

However, one has to give Dark Matter a name and the Illuminati is rather a fun name, so that will do for the time being.
 
Last edited:
T.A.M. said:
That clip already has 2 threads going on this forum in the past. If someone remembers the names of the threads, please bring them forward, so we don't have to waste any more of our time on this crap.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Thanks, but a two or three line summary would be just as good.

I just want to know if its genuine and what the information that the MSNBC part of it shows means.

I have no particular theory about 9/11 I need to defend
 
Last edited:
I think, IIRC, the gist was that the radar data continued along a predetermined flight path, without the real time up date indicating the crash, and this is what was shown.

It was a while ago, and others may remember it better.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I think, IIRC, the gist was that the radar data continued along a predetermined flight path, without the real time up date indicating the crash, and this is what was shown.

It was a while ago, and others may remember it better.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

So genuine. Although 31000 feet seems to be a very speedy ascent for a computer generated estimation. I have no knowledge of either the system or software, so I am not in any position to judge how plausible that explanation is.

and what was N 175 F?
 
After reading through the first page of insults and flames.
I came across the suggestion that the transponder was turned off and therefore the screen showed the last known location. Again I don't know the software, so I can make no comment. I don't know if 31 000 feet to sea level is a reasonable descent rate over that length.

However, if the transponder was turned off, that still doesn't explain why there was a "N 175 F" at 700 feet. It appears to have an automated height value and an automated speed value.
 
little grey rabbit said:
After reading through the first page of insults and flames.
I came across the suggestion that the transponder was turned off and therefore the screen showed the last known location. Again I don't know the software, so I can make no comment. I don't know if 31 000 feet to sea level is a reasonable descent rate over that length.

However, if the transponder was turned off, that still doesn't explain why there was a "N 175 F" at 700 feet. It appears to have an automated height value and an automated speed value.
Click to expand...

I haven't been able to get any further useful information on the subject to be honest.

I've contacted FlightExplorer a few times, as they have a service through which you can request the raw data for all aircraft, and play it back through the client software, but I have never received any replies. (Requested data for all *9/11* flight AND N175F)

The transponder was not turned off. It's frequency was changed twice, which seems to correlate with the reduction in data points.

The altitude data for UAL175 does not match the official altitude data either.

The data is positional, and follows the flightpath deviations correctly, until the large reduction in data-points.

FlightExplorer is not predictive, and only updates when new data for a flight is received.

The FAA pointed all requests for flightpath data to FlightExplorer at that time. Quite a testament to it's accuracy and validity I'd say.

There has been suggestion of manually keyed data being an explanation, but frankly that makes little sense, and the suggested manual figures are in entirely the wrong fields.

Still unclear I'm afraid.

N175F is in the right place, UAL175 is not. Did the FAA mix up flight ID's ? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

eta: The officially released flightpath traces from FlightExplorer also include the *odd* final position of UAL175...
Feaa11ual175static.gif


Oh, and the RADES data for UAL175 seems to suffer from quite a bit of *oddness* then played for the first time. Rewinding it and playing it again *resolves* the odd behaviour...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMubzTgwIkw
 
Last edited:
femr2. I appreciate your response.

The issues are completely outside my knowledge base, so I have nothing informative to add. I was just shown this some time ago and I was interested in what the "response" would be.

My own personal view, to the very minor extent that I pay attention to 911 issues, is that the flight paths the planes took just prior to striking the two towers are psychologically puzzling for two pilots who had never flown an aircraft before. In as much as both planes seemed to have banked suddenly before turning to strike the buildings perpendicular to the face of the building. I have seen in Baghdad that this is the way the military program cruise missiles to strike buildings; I assume to make sure the explosive payload is delivered to the center of the structure.

If I imagine myself a suicide pilot, I think I would just visually line up the buildings and make a straight line for them. The coolness to be able to do those last minute bank and turns surprises me
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom