Ntsb Report On Ua 175 Indicates Mach I Speed, Buried Report Reveals Secrets

To sum what we have:

1. We have one .rs3 file obtained by John Farmer to FOIA (+ software) (Anyway did you download it and launched the viewer and studied it?)

2.The file contains allegedly all fligt's radar records of air trafic in the area that morning and as obtained on FOIA and given all that government story they maintain the data are real and untampered.

3. The radar height there for "UA175" differs from transponded Mode 3 altitude significantly more, than the radar margin of error allows - so there is a very probable suspicion the UA175 data are partialy or fuly a fake, if, then made probably by injection. - But this could alone prove the "UA175" wasn't what it pretended to be.

4. In the same set of data the alleged B757s seem disappear in mid air and then reappear many miles away, which is impossible - given the principle a radar is working on - and then either the data were tampered or faked by injection (that there are not the blips the air traffic controlers allegedly minded even during the flight), or later faked, or the objects were not the civil B757s. This alone could prove the data are at least partialy faked in the sense of events they recorded or meaning of what they pretend to have recorded.

5. The rogue maneuvers of the UA175 on the beggining of the flight radar data were recorded only by ONE radar so they could not be crosscorroborated with anything. (but still is there the huge anomalous and proven beyond the radar margin of error altitude difference)

6. The alleged "above Mach1" speeds aren't in the data crosscorroborated by the other radar records than is the Riverhead (there are radar records from two other radars for the events, they don't show above Mach 1 speeds), in fact they are dismissed by that comparison. So there is an inner possition data inconsistency which attends to be checked if the Riverhead data are or aren't in the margin of the positioning error of that radars. If they are not, then the data are probably faked or arbitrarily changed, either by injection or postproduction.

(You can add more points. Especialy the AA11 is still not yet covered.)

So as far as I know, the allegations about the Mach 1 speed exceeded by "UA 175" didn't prove true.
But the data contain inner and also outer inconsistencies - they are either forged, OR are real but pretending in meaning multiple objects they logicaly and technicaly could'nt be what is alleged they were, OR both. So the speculation about what the object indeed was is senseless based on this data, because the proof which bears the inner and outer inconsistencies would and should be dimissed as unreliable to prove anything about what is innerly describing as the facts representation. It could be anything one could imagine. -But still, the inconsistencies in the data can heavily prove the story of the government is not plausibly consistent with the possible reality neither itself, either the data are real or faked, and thus the story is false and must be as false dismissed, because if the story is proven false in some important aspects, one needn't and shouldn't rely on it anymore in general. And moreover if somebody from the politicians is plausibly suspected being a voluntary liar in the question of such a crime as 9/11, its coverup and its goals, he/she should be regarded and tried as an accomplice. The nation or society or state which fails to do so would be and should be regarded as the part of the evil.


-----
Unfortunately the sheer logic is not what the people want. They want the black project supermissiles and an action story. The logic is nothing they like, because it forces them to think and it hurts most of them, and the modest facts - as the couple of numbers without a realy spectacular meaning like "Mach1" - using its scope show to them too fade colors.
They like the magic of a beyond reality imagination - like the TV learned them from the very childhood - they wish at least to for an instant identify in their minds with the evildoers as they don't want to permit themselves to admit they secretly admire them and envy their mysterious E4-Bs, the ability to fool them again and again throughout the history...their real or imagined "supranatural" powers ... as for example to let disappear the multiple B757s from the radar (whose inconsistent records paradoxicly then some praise as reality), then make them reappear and make them then do other things the reason stalls when see it... or... are not easily prone to admit the large steel structures could be brought completely down using some banal three, four hundred HMX charges or a dirty truck of a termate. Or on contrary they even identify themselves with the impossible story of a jetfuel fire, forged for them by their secretly or openly admired rulers - for their money and in multiple versions... If not, they wish holograms, mysterious energy beams or mininukes as they have the destructive evil deep intruded or embeded in their souls.

And that's why I'm afraid the real 9/11 truth will probably never win the lie of the core evildoers and their conscious or inconscious helpers, because the ridiculous imitation of the real truth quest will be even more inconsistent (even maybe in moral sense: for that neverending treason of the reason and its principles) with itself - especialy when the wider public will prevail - then the rulers lie.
- As this footnote: they in fact don't much enjoy to find the truth, especially not the one about themselves.

The engagement of new people in the 9/11 truth movement becomes, except the mostly exceptions, more and more rather the question of the identification with the stary leaders or prefabricated expositions of the inconsistent speculations underveiled by credits and rates, not exposed using the logical interpretations of undoubtful or obvious facts, or even visibly tending to voluntary bias, either to be soft and popular or manipulative and distracting.
For an carefuly choosen example: when Eric Hufschmid made his Painful deceptions the speculations in form of the logical questions were in place, and until now I find this work be one of the best pieces in the 9/11 truth quest. But he then was subjected to the furious campaign for his political opinions of such a caliber, that in Europe he would be probably imprisoned for the holocaust denial even he is more the anti-zionist, yet the questions he was bravely posing and discussed in the Painful deceptions has nothing to do with the question of his political belief. From that time the margin of aceptance of the 9/11 truth considerably wided, the new facts were brought to the table and much more people started to doubt the official version. Yet the form of Hufschmid's reasoning never was beaten since, although he became since mad.
For the simmilar example could serve the so called "NPTs", they in fact almost never discussed an idea of "no plane", but the idea of the possibility the planes were not the ones the official story alleges. An deception by generalized meaning shift - widely accepted strawmans argument non plus ultra - so are now dismissed by the majority of the "truthers" despite the fact the number of indicies and even direct proofs for the video, data and witness reports fakery became during the time overwhelming. In spite of that f.e. the long attended Loose Change FC finaly cuted the questioning of this matter almost out and became an impotent mainstream in pejorative sense. So the 9/11 movement became widespread throughout the American people, but in the same time became weak and confused using the same manipulative techniques as the ones against it was originaly aimed, or even became a part of it.
So guys, we are sort of the last mohycans, not a growing movement, we must have a look this fact in the eyes and stick only to the facts.
In general sense I'm sceptical, because it always comes one sentence from the Who Killed John O'Neil to my mind: The only people they can stop United States government are the people of the United States. But they mostly, instead of neverending babbling, don't. And but I'm just a poor European.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien on Nov 15 2007, 07:57 AM

Halt, who goes there, friend or foe?

Now I am having an "Orwellian" feeling. Tume, you arrive here on this thread, apparently in support of the topic, spend a couple of days corroborating things, then suddenly do an about turn faster than a black project missile. I neither appreciate nor understand your condescending and insulting tone that you seem to have developed.

Firstly, no one here is "alleging" that UA175 flew above or near Mach 1 speeds. The title of the thread conveys the understanding that there are indications of Mach 1 speeds contained in the NTSB report. Whether the reports collated by the NTSB are faked, in error or authentic, or combinations of all three, the fact still stands that there is data within them indicating Mach 1 speeds. I've repeatedly asked why you (and amazed!) think they might have been faked/forged and you have not given me an answer on this issue for whatever reason.

Secondly, the work being done here is not being done in a vacuum. Speculation on what the penetrating objects might've been is based on all kinds of other evidence other than that presented here, this evidence being the result of some involved and arduous research.

Thirdly, I do not "want" black project missiles or mini nukes to have been deployed on September 11 2001, but the evidence that I am assessing is leading me to suspect that on that day, whether I like the idea or not, the perps unleashed their unholy arsenal on us all.

Fourthly, I am sorry that you feel that there is an imitation quest for the truth prevailing here. I most graciously beg to differ and kindly ask you to desist with your insults and condescension. Let us stay objective here, please.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General on Nov 15 2007, 07:17 AM

Hi FFG,

Please don't take my long note personaly. It was not intended to insult anybody in the thread: I just wrote, we are maybe the last mohycans...
But after I had studied thoroughly the radar data another night I must say the Mach 1 wasn't exceeded there, because other radars then Riverhead does not support the assumption, in fact they dismiss that. And because the data are the data the NTSB report was based on, not even NTSB report could support anything like that. We must stick to something else.
To the assumption of the possibility the data are a fake either by injection or by postproductin leads me the fact, that there are not the long coverages of UA93 or AA77 flightpaths. - The B757s can't disappear in mid air in high altitude even they are substituted by the stealth missiles on its path. So the UA93 and AA77 data seem to be fake, because one can hardly imagine a stealth missile fired from the civil airport and not be seen by anybody. And unfortunately the data are in the same only file of radar record as the flight UA175 we have. If something is partly a obvious fake then it cant be regarded as reliable in general.

The other notes was just a cry in the night and was intended not as an insult but as a provocation to come back to the provable facts. Stay cool. We just must not insist on the allegations (anyway I made it first that 1.07 Mach on radar "confirmation") they proved be false or unprovable. And stick to the inner inconsistencies. For example that huge difference between the radar and Mode 3 altitude I find now very significant. The same the radar position anomalies. The same the B757s issues. You must understand, that all are in the very same file - piece of evidence. The inconsistencies are of deep logical nature. And even they would tend to the conclusion the file is a fake it would be even better, because it was obtained to FOIA given that history of acquisitin in the USAF memo and so would prove the military involvement in the coverup, which I find more significant, than any unsupported Mach 1 claims.

It is off-topic, but I must bring you back to the ground>
The mininukes are absolutely out of question, there is a report about the radioactivity on the ground zero measurements and there was nothig which would suggest the mininukes found. Yes, there are wild speculations of some nuts about that fact there was a elevated radioactivity found in the WTC6, but I must say I was studying their arguments and it is a utter crap. I'm absolutely sure, there were no mininukes used to brought down the WTC, the levels of radioactivity would suggest at last speculation there was some litle amount of a radioactive material stored in WTC6 against the regulations, and now it should be covered up, because it would be a political scandal which could cost Silverstein loads of money, even in this he would be paradoxicly most probably innocent. The level measured in WTC 6 was max 55 times the background (a very liberal estimation). In the case one would blast there a mininuke, even a absolutely pure one, just solely the neutron activation would make a radioactivity levels thousands of times of normal background. Please stick to something more real than this absolutely nonsensful claims they are just realy intended to distract the truthers from something meaningful and discredit them then as the utter nuts.

I must add yet, that the only 9/11 related radioactivity levels elevation on ground zero could be the possible use of the DU in the penetrator missiles. Yes it could be a plausible explanation of the actual levels. But mininukes are out of the question.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien on Nov 15 2007, 08:41 AM

Yes, it is off topic.

If you want to discuss this with me please go to this thread.

No, I don't want to discuss it, because the mininukes seem to me as a realy wild nonsense. Even the elevated levels of tritium can be atributed to the exit signs, the fire alarm sensors etc.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien on Nov 15 2007, 08:50 AM

Sorry, Tume, but I'm not done analyzing the significantly anomalous radar returns. Something is up with all this, and though I can't be sure as to exactly what yet, further analysis may yet yield possibilities. I find your attempts to brush it all under the carpet a little surprising, but each to his own. Personally speaking, I believe that a deeper understanding is called for and I intend to give it my best shot. Thank you for all your help up until now, though.

Sincerely, FfG.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General on Nov 15 2007, 08:51 AM

But you are discussing it: On the wrong thread! This is all beginning to look like intentional disruption to me and I do not appreciate this. Kindly keep your comments here to the appropriate subject matter.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General on Nov 15 2007, 08:55 AM

OK, OK, OK. I shut up.

To your previous post, I don't want to brush anything under the carpet, I just constated the "Mach 1 way" is a false direction. I was studied the data from the other radars and they unfortunately strongly don't support such a claim as provable. Also the anomaly of the flightpath on the beggining of the record is for me now a bit doubtful. But I made me understand other inconsistencies they seem to me be even more significant. I was writing about all of that above in the thread, try to go through without presupositions. I think logicaly it is very revealing.
In fact the data and the possibility of the revealing fakery seems to me be even more interesting than any banal unprovable Mach 1 claims. Try please to reconciliate yourself with the fact there the Mach 1+ is improvable, it was a seductive, but false trail.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien on Nov 15 2007, 09:10 AM

For now I am going to stick with the so called

I am not through looking into this quite yet, thank you.

Let's review one of the more intriguing anomalous returns from 84th Rades, collating data from woody and Tume:

So, from reading the two reports above, supplied by woody, it's clear that the two planes that the "object" nearly collided with were Delta 2315 and USAir 542 and it is highly probable that some sort of evasive action was expertly handled by the "object". In this regard the sudden veer NNE as recorded by 84th Rades could well have been one of the "objects" evasive maneuvers and the subsequent rapid acceleration to Mach 1.7 speed could thus be seen as a time-critical adjustment to get back on target strike schedule rather than the product of a data error or inject. The fact that the other two sets of data do not record this anomaly is most probably due to an attempt at cover up by the other agencies.

As a general rule, when things are excluded from the record it is because of cover up. In this regard I believe that, on balance, the fact that there are portions of data left off the other radar return records, in actuality, tends to support the fact that the 84th Rades data is sensitive material that somehow slipped through the net (more whistle blowing?)

It seems to me that a forger wouldn't forge an impossible radar return; he/she would make it credible. Also, forged records are presented as complete not partial. In this regard, the radar return documents do not come across as faked/forged; instead, the whole thing smells very strongly of an intent to cover up sensitive material. At this point I believe that there was an attempt to hide the use of supersonic cruise missiles by obfuscating the data that would otherwise reveal the missiles' tell tale signatures.

Furthermore: (as previously noted) the possibility that "black project" supersonic missiles were used as the penetrating weapons of 9/11 seems to be greatly strengthened by the presence of the E-4B in the skies, concurrent with the impact events.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General on Nov 15 2007, 12:32 PM

I'm not sure this was the same incident. Because 1. the planes in incident I was describing were heading almost south and ascending and not visibly changing neither the course neither the ascend, 2. the incident happened more than 8 minutes after "the terrorists changed" the beacon last time. 3. there are no turns visible in the data of the other planes. 4. the "UA175" was not making the "evasive action", on contrary it descended just in the way of the planes.
But I can of course be simply wrong. It should somebody look at the rades data and say what he thinks. And also somebody confirm the beacons with the flight numbers. I have no idea how to made something like that, or if it is possible after so many years. Some Ideas?

Just a note: If we'll admit the "other agencies" made a coverup of the incident would'nt it be an assumption the data are fake? Why wouldn't they change all the data?

And also, the "acceleration" from ~450mph to almost 1200mph in 12s. ??? Is it possible?

Anyway the incident in the data looks a bit weird, but I don't believe there was provable 1.7 Mach in 12 secs., or even there was a Mach 1., because the other radars data don't confirm it. The blue blip out "of the way" has probably other meaning than this.

Does this mean that if (1) reports something as fact and (2) and (3) report an opposing view you'll categorically discount the report from (1) even though that report might be consistent with the other evidence?

Does this mean that if (1) reports something as fact and (2) and (3) report an opposing view you'll categorically discount the report from (1) even though that report might be consistent with the other evidence?

1. the two other radar records are consistent with each other
2. the third report (your 1) is a striking anomaly
3. it seem to me quite unbelievable such an acceleration (the 1.7 mach would be just the mean speed during that 12 seconds, so there probably might be moments of well above Mach 2 -especially when we consider the 12 seconds later the plane flies again 500 something
4. that sharp angle turn and at that speed? It would destroy probably anything with many many G's

We must stick to the provable and probable things, not with the unprovable unprobable almost nonsenses. This is an investigation with the possible goal of legal prooving against the criminals, not just a play with imagination.
Show me the other "evidence" - I hope you don't mean that reports in newspaper and you didn't want to use a probable covert story to support the speed claims....

but anyway the beacon 2324 does very weird manouevers long before is meeting the 3321. In fact the 2324 looks like be alonging with 1323 and then flying very close with, then meeting the3321 and then spliting the ways again but both flying stright in the same corridor heading to the south...weird

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien on Nov 15 2007, 04:02 PM

Does this mean that if (1) reports something as fact and (2) and (3) report an opposing view you'll categorically discount the report from (1) even though that report might be consistent with the other evidence?

1. the two other radar records are consistent with each other
2. the third report (your 1) is a striking anomaly
3. it seem to me quite unbelievable such an acceleration (the 1.7 mach would be just the mean speed during that 12 seconds, so there probably might be moments of well above Mach 2 -especially when we consider the 12 seconds later the plane flies again 500 something
4. that sharp angle turn and at that speed? It would destroy probably anything with many many G's

We must stick to the provable and probable things, not with the unprovable unprobable almost nonsenses. This is an investigation with the possible goal of legal prooving against the criminals, not just a play with imagination.
Show me the other "evidence" - I hope you don't mean that reports in newspaper and you didn't want to use a probable covert story to support the speed claims....

The anomaly describes an apparent evasive maneuver, albeit an amazing one, but then again the object had two oncoming planes to avoid according to the radar returns and published interviews with ATC.

If such an amazing evasive maneuver took place, I could well understand FAA and JFK accomplices removing the maneuver from the record.

I think it is safe to say that No Plane penetrated either of the Towers. Planes can't do that. I know of only one class of munition that can penetrate in the manner depicted: penetrator missiles. The pyrophoric D.U. tip that is visibly ejected from the impact explosion of WTC2 proves that the munitions used were penetrator missiles, IMO.

When I'm assessing the evidence, I am bearing this in mind.

Black Projects to produce supersonic, high maneuverable cruise missiles have been ongoing for the last few decades.

There was an airborne operations center deployed, which it seems to me would only be necessary in the event of special technology being used.

Let's not forget that the NTSB report designates the start point of the penetrating object's flight path as being in the air and over the ocean.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General on Nov 15 2007, 10:25 PM