• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The best site for 911 research

Also implies the FlightExplorer gets to *see* controller ghost tracks.

Controllers do not use FE or any other TSD/ASD system, they use radar. Radar data show that there was no UA 175 50 miles NE of WTC at ~10:26, let alone a low-flying N-whatever flight at or near the WTC, except NYPD and news helicopters (which are VFR aircraft, and therefore not displayed at FE), and the Otis fighters (which will not be seen on FE as well). NYC was "ATC zero" at this time.

If you listen to Herndon Tapes, you´ll notice that the entities looking at the TSD were seeing several ghost tracks, at least for AA 77 and UA 93. Also, by listening to ATC Tapes, you´ll see that entities looking at radar did not watch UA 175 flying north of WTC at any time. It´s really something about FE, not about what controllers saw on 9/11.
I can´t explain how the tracks seen on FE came up, but IMO there is no question that these tracks are indeed ghost tracks.
 
Last edited:
Personally progress on interpreting the out put of a 2001 computer simulations?

Wow, you *********** truthers are genius at wasting our time. I'll just leave this here No Planers:

You did not read the first thread, you did no research, you have no clue what the data you were looking at actually shows, and you have no clue how the program you were looking at actually works.

Anger management perhaps halfof33 ?

Quite where you get *no-planer* from any of this is quite bizarre. There's zero suggestion of *no plane*.

When I first noticed the anomoly, I dug into it as deeply as I could, but as I said, I got no response from FlightExplorer. Without that further information, yeah, it's not really possible to progress with it. I did read the other thread, and it's was pretty funny watching all the erronious claims of a solution, all of which suffer from exactly the problem you are highlighting...namely no-one knows exactly how FlightExplorer works. I thought UnlovedRebels suggestion that it was an F-16 was quite funny. I've highlighted a few issues with the *final* suggested explanation in my previous post on this thread.

You'll note I didn't start this thread, and have repeatedly stated that there's not likely to be any progress. I've tried getting the extra information from FlightExplorer to no avail. No-one else seems likely to try.

The anomoly is present on the officially released FlightExplorer flightpath images, and the N175F/UAL175 positional anomoly has not been definitively explained.

Ho hum.
 
Controllers do not use FE or any other TSD/ASD system

I was highlighting that the suggestion that N175F was a manually entered *ghost track* carries the implication that FE ends up getting and displaying that data. I was highlighting that as a problem for the suggestion.

That suggestion was from user *Cheap Shot*.
 
Yes, thats about the size of it, that is why my area of expertise is in group psychopathology.

I would dispute whether another 767 was used however.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc5inmZqGu8

Ah ok, I understand. So that's why you like delve so deep into trutherland! It's rich hunting grounds for your study interests! :)

Your problems with these conflicting witness testimonies are easily explained:
Every time several people witness an accident, there will be several versions of what they saw, and some will be mutually exclusive. A great concern every time is that the mind fills in the blanks within the recorded memory. People saw a plane. Upon being asked for specifics, they kinda "roll back the film", and when there is no distinct memory of what the plane looked like - markings, windows, colour - they are likely to fill in something, whatever seems likely to the. The second time around, those imagined fill-ins have become part of the recorded memory.

I was once knocked over by a car while riding my bicycle, was rendered unconscious for close to a day, and had no memory of the accident. But I was asked many times up until what moment I do remember. Today, I clearly remember the guy behind the wheel of his red car, squinting because the sun was low, turning towards me.
Of course in reality the car wasn't red.

It is very easy to understand why people would not consciously see windows on a plane flying around 500mph about 800-1000ft above street level: depending on bank, you can see the sides of a plane sufficiently clear only when you see it from the side; in which case you are either a long distance away (one of the witnesses in the above video was in Brooklyn), or more likely than not the flight path will be obscured most of the time by other buildings, and you only have fractions of a second to see. Or you are closer to the flight path, in which case you mainly see the belly of the plane.

I live about 25km away from an airbase that is home to the NATO E-3A wing. The planes are mostly 707-based: AWACS with a very pronounced radar "mushroom" on their back, tankers, and rather ordinary cargo- and personell transporters. It is not rare that one of them flies low by my house en route to landing. Just the other day, I and a friend saw one maybe 2500ft away, and we discussed it (how far, how noisy), and guess what: neither of us remembered if it had radar or not, and we both had doubts whether they have 2 or 4 engines. Ask me for markings? Windows? I could not tell from any of the many fly-bys I have witnessed. They are grey. That much I am sure.


By the same reasoning I would be very skeptical towards any witness who reports having seen a "United Airlines" plane, or one with AA-markings. I'd suspect most filled that information in hours if not days and weeks after the event.
 
I was highlighting that the suggestion that N175F was a manually entered *ghost track* carries the implication that FE ends up getting and displaying that data. I was highlighting that as a problem for the suggestion.

Right, I misunderstood your point, my excuses. But then I don’t see the problem. We know that ASD/TSD occasionally shows ghost tracks entered by controllers. ZOB controller Linda Justice entered a new flight plan for UA 93 into the system at 09:58 (to reflect the course change towards D.C.).
ZOB lost UA 93 on radar at ~10:03 EDT. The flight symbol for UA 93, however, continued to move on the TSD screens until 10:28. So there was a ghost track (= there was no associated radar track) and it was based on controller intervention. This is how TSD works, sometimes.
I still don’t know where the UA 175 and N 175 symbols came from, but a manually entered ghost track is definitely not excluded from the range of possibilities (while real planes are excluded, as radar data show).
 
Anger management perhaps halfof33 ?

The anomoly is present on the officially released FlightExplorer flightpath images, and the N175F/UAL175 positional anomoly has not been definitively explained.

Ho hum.

**** anger management, champ.

You ever try reading the OP's posts? He is a no planer through and through.

Gee, a commercially available software package produced an anomaly? What ever shall we do? That HAS to be the first time EVER that has happened.

Hey champ, maybe flight explorer did not answer your questions because they view you as an anonymous jerk off from the internet.

Why don't you BUY the *********** package, hmmm? I bet they would answer you questions then, right? DO IT! Stop JAQ’ing off and buy the *********** package, money talks, right sport?
 
...

The anomoly is present on the officially released FlightExplorer flightpath images, and the N175F/UAL175 positional anomoly has not been definitively explained.

Ho hum.
8 years and your evidence is, "Ho hum". The RADAR data proves where Flight 175 was, the FlightExplorer track does not. Explained and solved.
 
Let me try to get this straight:

On the one hand, we have the testimonies of several ATCs, the radar data analysis of the NTSB, debris of a United Airlines 767 found on the roof of WTC5, the remains of UA175 passengers Peter Hanson and Lisa Frost found in the rubble at Ground Zero and identified by DNA analysis, all other passengers and crew disappeared after having boarded UA175, plenty of videos that show a 767 crash into WTC2, tens of thousands of eye witnesses seeing the same, United Airlines presumably missing their plane that was departed Boston Logan.

On the other hand we have a surprising blip on a computer map, generated second or third hand from dumbed-down FAA data, and shown time-delayed on TV by non-experts.

Suppose I can't explain any of all that. I have 2 theories at hand.
A: UA175 crashed into WTC2.
B: Something else crashed (?) into WTC2, while UA175 flew happily off into the blue sky and diappeared forever.

Let's see which theory needs more unproven assumptions:
A: Flight Explorer displayed some errant data record from whoknowswhere.
B: Shareholders, pilots, maintenance crews and managers of United Airlines all conspired to hide the fact that they did not lose their plane; Evidence (debris, human remains) was planted by conspiring investigators; FAA personel lied; dozends of videos and thousands of eyewitness reports are forged, or a second 767 of unknown origin was flown from wedontknowwhere by wedontknowwhom into WTC2; radar data has been forged by either FAA or USAF or NTSB, or all. The 60 people on board UA175 were either murdered or are agents of the conspiracy; they either abandonden their families and social ties, or their families and employers are also in on it.


Can someone help me here and decide, what Occam's razor would suggest in a complicated case like this? LGR maybe?

Nominated. :D
 
**** anger management, champ.
Riiight.

Gee, a commercially available software package produced an anomaly? What ever shall we do? That HAS to be the first time EVER that has happened.
Well, perhaps not make up crap to explain it until someone actually has answers. Nowt wrong with there being no answer, but hilarious to see folk champing at the bit to provide a (BS) definitive answer with absolutely nothing in their hand.

Hey champ, maybe flight explorer did not answer your questions because they view you as an anonymous jerk off from the internet.
Maybe. Perhaps someone else may be inclined to approach them and clear up the anomoly.

Why don't you BUY the *********** package, hmmm? I bet they would answer you questions then, right? DO IT! Stop JAQ’ing off and buy the *********** package, money talks, right sport?
I already have it, however, that does not provide you with any kind of information about it's internal workings. Through usage of the actual application, I was able to confirm that it doesn't predict position, but beyond that observation none of the other questions can be answered.

Oh, and by the way, you can go and download it right now for a short period of time, for freeness. If you'd even bothered to visit their site before going on a, er, rant, you would, of course, already know that. Nice one, champ. lol.
 
8 years and your evidence is, "Ho hum".
er, nope. My opinion is *ho hum*. Anomoly unresolved. I won't lose too much sleep about it, but it's still unresolved.

The RADAR data proves where Flight 175 was, the FlightExplorer track does not.
Capitalised RADAR eh. Nice. RADES, er, RADAR data proves to be a bit *odd* for the UAL175 track when originally played., but ho hum.

Explained and solved.
In context, no, and.....no.
 
femr2, is there somewhere I can read your hypothesis about the events of 9/11, or are you ... just asking questions? If there is a place, this thread seems reasonably on-topic for you to post a link. Thanks! :)
 
The 9/11 Forum
Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues


Top Posters
...
...
...
Heiwa
 
The 9/11 Forum
Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues


Top Posters
...
...
...
Heiwa

Point ?

OneWhiteEye 1964
femr2 1469
Major_Tom 1219
David B. Benson 897
Dr. G 517
T_Szamboti 437
.
.
.
Heiwa 427

He faced much opposition, but of course posted much.

My opinion, as per the request, is found in that place.
 
Scrolling through the posts over there, I can't find it. Given that you have a hundred-something posts here, would it be too much trouble to post your hypothesis about 9/11 in a few short sentences? There are at least two topics open for just that. Latest one here, but selfishly, I prefer my old topic that I started for this purpose.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom