The best site for 911 research

[Dave Rogers]

I am so transparent you can read a newspaper through me.

Provided it's the American Free Press.

Dave

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

femr2.

<snip>

for two pilots who had never flown an aircraft before.

WTF?

<snip>

 

[The Big Dog]

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..

That is bull **** and you have proven yourself to be untrustworthy. Here is my first post on the first page:

"Have you discussed your theory with Flight Explorer?

Here is Flight Explorer's flight path for UA 175,

http://www.avweb.com/other/911flightexplorer.html

and the location of that plane corresponds with the last data point Flight Explorer provides in outlining the flight path of UA 175.

So we have two possible explanations: the location shown on the video shows the last data point for UA175 and there was no more data to update the flight explorer because it hit the Tower; or UA 175 was hanging stationary in the air somewhere over New York City.

Talk to Flight explorer and get back to us.

eta: "For example, do you know how Flight Explorer copes when the flow of data is interrupted?" Ding, ding, ding!!!"

So, your question has been previously answered, your search skills suck, and this thread should be merged with the last thread where we blew this insane No Planer theory right the **** out of the water.

Welcome to the best debunking site in the world, champ.

 

[femr2]

So we have two possible explanations: the location shown on the video shows the last data point for UA175 and there was no more data to update the flight explorer because it hit the Tower; or UA 175 was hanging stationary in the air somewhere over New York City.

If you think that the indicated final position is over NYC, take another look.

It's ~50km NE of the WTC.

The accuracy of the data before the reduction in data-points matches very well with RADES data, although as I indicated the RADES data itself has some *quirks* when played directly from the source data.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you think that the indicated final position is over NYC, take another look.

It's ~50km NE of the WTC.

The accuracy of the data before the reduction in data-points matches very well with RADES data, although as I indicated the RADES data itself has some *quirks* when played directly from the source data.

Oh My, you mean it is hanging in the air about 50 klicks from the towers!

Inside jobby job!

 

[T.A.M.]

guys,

lgr has no interest in the issue at hand. He has been telling you throughout, that his purpose is to study our response and conclusions, not the argument or details themselves.

Unless you enjoy some wannabe psychologist/sociologist examining your behavior for kicks, just leave it alone...let the thread die.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

Unless you enjoy some wannabe psychologist/sociologist examining your behavior for kicks, just leave it alone...let the thread die.

At which point lgr will of course declare victory and loudly proclaim that the JREF forum never actually debunks anything. Given that his aim in all this is to maintain his cherished ignorance of anything that might refute his twisted world view, in a sense that is a victory.

Dave

 

[femr2]

Oh My, you mean it is hanging in the air about 50 klicks from the towers!

No, I am saying that the position on the map is very clearly ~50km NE of the WTC, not over NYC as you suggested. I infer from your statement that you think the position is *real*, which is a bigger issue, but I'm sure you can clarify your viewpoint on that eh.

Unless you enjoy some wannabe psychologist/sociologist examining your behavior for kicks, just leave it alone...let the thread die.

Or perhaps a definitive solution to the anomoly could be supplied. The *stabs in the air* on the original thread were far from such.

You can ignore it of course, or assume it's a data anomoly, but it's not going to fully, er, *die* until something definitive emerges, which is pretty unlikely as FlightExplorer don't respond to requests for the raw data on that day.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, I am saying that the position on the map is very clearly ~50km NE of the WTC, not over NYC as you suggested. I infer from your statement that you think the position is *real*, which is a bigger issue, but I'm sure you can clarify your viewpoint on that eh.

Or perhaps a definitive solution to the anomoly could be supplied. The *stabs in the air* on the original thread were far from such.

You can ignore it of course, or assume it's a data anomoly, but it's not going to fully, er, *die* until something definitive emerges, which is pretty unlikely as FlightExplorer don't respond to requests for the raw data on that day.

Uh, no, I don't think the position is "real." I think the whole thing is a joke, it was discussed to death, and it all seems premised on the suggestion that the freaking plane did not hit the freaking tower, which we all know if freaking looney tunes.

So until the mods either relegate this crap to AAH or merge it with the earlier thread that the genius in the OP COMPLETELY missed, i'm done with this thread.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You can ignore it of course, or assume it's a data anomoly, but it's not going to fully, er, *die* until something definitive emerges, which is pretty unlikely as FlightExplorer don't respond to requests for the raw data on that day.

Or you could consider the totality of the evidence for flight UA175 having been the aircraft to hit WTC2, and accept that the simplest explanation of this particular anomaly is that FlightExplorer was doing something we don't fully understand that gave a false impression it was tracking two separate airliners when in fact there was only one physically present. Since that is so far the only reasonably complete hypothesis that has even been suggested, I'm happy to accept it provisionally, until either (a) any new evidence emerges or (b) someone proposes an alternative hypothesis that doesn't contradict more evidence than it explains.

Dave

 

[femr2]

until either (a) any new evidence emerges or (b) someone proposes an alternative hypothesis that doesn't contradict more evidence than it explains.

Aiii.

 

[Baylor]

Spamming his YouTube videos over a year ago, femr said this unidentified aircraft was the one that hit WTC2.

 

[dafydd]

Why would anyone want to do 9/11 ''research''? We know what happened,at least sane people know what happened.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If I may be so bold as to respond to the thread title (it's crazy, I know), the two best sites, IMO, are Gravy's http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ and http://www.911myths.com/ .

 

[little grey rabbit]

Actually it's not true I have no interest in the subject at hand, but rather I use as a guide the responses I get here as important part of determining the value of each particular Truther(TM) claim.

I have over the years in Holocaust denial developed a rather sensitive textual analysis software package that can detect certain patterns and motifs which give a very precise guide as to the collective emotional state of the Illuminati to each particular sub-thesis

No, I am saying that the position on the map is very clearly ~50km NE of the WTC, not over NYC as you suggested. I infer from your statement that you think the position is *real*, which is a bigger issue, but I'm sure you can clarify your viewpoint on that eh.



Or perhaps a definitive solution to the anomoly could be supplied. The *stabs in the air* on the original thread were far from such.

You can ignore it of course, or assume it's a data anomoly, but it's not going to fully, er, *die* until something definitive emerges, which is pretty unlikely as FlightExplorer don't respond to requests for the raw data on that day.

Exactly femr2, without wishing to say this pre-determines the issue, a less than rigorous and, dare I say, hand-waving explanation has been provided.

Would anyone care to be more specific as to how the points that read Flight N 175 F and UAL 175 came to appear on that screen? What was the underlying data and how was it derived.

To play devil's advocate here: I am going to suggest that once a transponder was turned off, it was left hanging in the position where it last sent a signal.

So ghost flight N 175 F last sent a signal just at the WTC before crashing and destroying its transponder (or however these signals are communicated), whereas Flight UAL175 sent its last signal 50 miles NE and then was turned off and it did not signal again. It may be that it had been turned on and off momentarily, as the pattern is extremely intermittent.

So when the TV broadcast live at 10:20, these planes were not suspended in the air, rather the software showed their positions at the last point where a signal received and then was unable to resolve its path further.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have over the years in Holocaust denial developed a rather sensitive textual analysis software package that can detect certain patterns and motifs which give a very precise guide as to the collective emotional state of the Illuminati to each particular sub-thesis

This is starting to look rather more like clinical paranoia. I'd advise you to see a psychiatrist, but no doubt that's just another way the Illuminati control the minds of the sheep, right? In fact, I assume you already have it categorised as a standard response, and the fact that you encounter it frequently is, to you, simply further proof of your suspicions.

Unfortunately, if you're sincere, you have a very unhappy life of fear and self-imposed impotence ahead of you. You have my sympathy, though probably not my attention for much longer.

Dave

 

[little grey rabbit]

This is starting to look rather more like clinical paranoia. I'd advise you to see a psychiatrist, but no doubt that's just another way the Illuminati control the minds of the sheep, right? In fact, I assume you already have it categorised as a standard response, and the fact that you encounter it frequently is, to you, simply further proof of your suspicions.

Unfortunately, if you're sincere, you have a very unhappy life of fear and self-imposed impotence ahead of you. You have my sympathy, though probably not my attention for much longer.

Dave

Mr Rogers, truly my lot in life is much to be pitied. All I can do is quote what I have quoted elsewhere

Two brief last questions. Do you regret the course of your life?
How can I? 'Regret' implies a freely chosen, but erroneous action; free will plays no part in my story.

However, we still have yet to get a rigorous explanation of the Flight Recorder data before we get too emotional and metaphysical.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans, please, I have no secrets. I am so transparent you can read a newspaper through me.

Methinks you may be confusing 'transparant' with 'shallow'.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

To play devil's advocate here: I am going to suggest that once a transponder was turned off, it was left hanging in the position where it last sent a signal.

That is an entirely valid hypothesis, and one that can be confirmed/rejected by people knowing about the way such systems function.

One must, however, bear in mind that the transponder squawks to the radar signal, so even if the transponder stops, the radar keeps updating the position of the radar blib, only now sans the transponder info, so, as a system construction engineer, I find it more likely that the transponder flag will wink off, and the radar blip will fly on. If transponder flags were generally left hanging, it could get very confusing.

Hans

 

[little grey rabbit]

So the best 911 research site on the internet can't do any better than this?

Or you could consider the totality of the evidence for flight UA175 having been the aircraft to hit WTC2, and accept that the simplest explanation of this particular anomaly is that FlightExplorer was doing something we don't fully understand that gave a false impression it was tracking two separate airliners when in fact there was only one physically present. Since that is so far the only reasonably complete hypothesis that has even been suggested, I'm happy to accept it provisionally, until either (a) any new evidence emerges or (b) someone proposes an alternative hypothesis that doesn't contradict more evidence than it explains.

Don't get me wrong, I am patient and very grateful if anyone is actually putting in some serious research to find a more robust explanation.

In the meantime, where do you think the UAL 175 on the screen 50 km NE of New York was heading?
Greenland? Neuschwabenland? Moscow, Idaho?