Discussion in '9/11' started by l4zarus, Jul 2, 2014.
Oh my God.......
You're gonna need a little help. The blue line represents your fake flight path. Was the Verrazano (DRONE APPROACH) bridge east or west of the official flight myth?
Greg Callahan: And I could hear him calling on altitudes. I have a target in sight, hes descending rapidly. And he saidLook out to the southeast, and the gentleman working ground control said, Hey, whos that by the Verrazano Bridge? "And here comes a very large target descending rapidly, very fast."
Welcome to bizzaro world.
On 7forever's planet the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
Of course, Greg was in Newark, and his description was issued from HIS position, not the position of the towers, but that doesn't matter in bizzaro world, does it?
I wonder if 7 gets lost a lot.
Welcome to bizzaro world.
On Fangbeer's planet the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
Of course, Greg was in Newark, and his description was issued from HIS position, not the position of the towers. The bridge is still southeast of the towers. The bridge is also well east of the official flight myth. But that doesn't matter in bizzaro world, does it?
Dude,The bridge is STILL southwest of the tower site,geeze,are you that stubborn?
A is the tower site,below and to the suthwest is the bridge....in the right hand corner we see which way north is
For the directionally challenged.
The red is the direction from the towers to the Verazzano narrows bridge.
The purple is the line of sight from Newark to the flight path.
Red is SW.
Purple is SE.
Hope you're still not lost, 7.
Not according to Google maps it isn't. The yellow pin marks the towers. The red oval is the bridge. The bridge is to the LEFT of the north arrow. That makes it SOUTHWEST of the towers.
I know we're a ways away from the holidays, but I think I have a suggestion for Santa's list for someone here...
It doesn't change the fact that the Verrazano approach is way east of the official flight myth. Nothing will change that. There's a huge distance between the bridge and the strips of land near the SOL. It's a lot further than it appears on a map. Nothing has changed about me being right and you fools being incapable of altering facts.
You're drone flight path has been proven to be fake. That makes you part of the conspiracy.
- - - Updated - - -
Except for the fact you got the part about the bridge being SOUTHEAST of the towers. You failed on that for sure.
Your fake plane path has been exposed because the 911 commission didn't have it that far east.
Because YOUR OFFICIAL FLIGHT FANTASY does not allow for fake 175 to be that far east of the towers in those final moments. You are married to fiction when it comes to 911's fake planes. I'm gonna tell your Mom to get you an etch a sketch for your birfday.
You don't know east from west but we're the fools?
Gotta love that truther mentality...
Why exactly is it a problem that "verrazano approach is way east"?
In anticipation of an expectedly obtuse answer to my question, I'll pose another, completely unrelated question.
Is this aircraft over the volcano?
I'm not talking about the plane path. I'm talking about YOUR "drone" tan colored flight path in the picture below and your story behind it.
I have proved yours as being a fake with MY OWN "drone" flight path shown in red below.
Why'd you make a fake "drone" path and fake the story behind it?
That's your fake diagram. You just made it up out of nothing. There is no plane path. There was an object that apparently flew over Brooklyn and then north of the towers before going into Jersey and finally circled back.
This is about your fake plane path and your refusal to reconcile it with the Verrazano approach.
Your fake plane path is not fake? Is that what you're saying? Did your fake plane path follow the Verrazano approach or the official BS?
Q: Why does truther jargon have to be so strained and convoluted?
A: Because it is the only way to sustain their own confusion.
7, can you please cut out all this babble? You've already proven yourself confused about the physical location of the building. Do you think you could be the slightest bit confused about the path of the aircraft?
Do you think that NY Center and Newark Tower could be the slightest bit deluded about what they saw on radar coming over the Big V? Were they wrong? JUST SAY THE WORDS.
Let's go back a little in that video and see what the REAL context of that quote was and who actually asked the question shall we?
The guy who asked the question was NOT in the Newark control tower, but in New York and on the phone with Bob in Newark. Bob, walked over to the radar and saw the object over the Verrazano bridge for himself. I TOLD THE TRUTH AND SO DID THEY. Check out this killer stock video of the Big V.
Bob Varcadapane was the supervisor in Newark tower that morning, in charge of eight controllers.
At Newark tower, Bob Varcadapane is still on the phone with a controller at the New York center, and learns that a second plane has been hijacked and is almost on top of Manhattan.
Varcadapane: He says to me, As a matter of fact, do you see that target coming over the Verrazano Bridge. "I went over to the radar and looked at the radar. The Verrazano Bridge is depicted on the radar. And I looked over there and I saw the aircraft descending out of 4700 feet, 3600 feet, 2700 feet."
The skies over America - Dateline NBC | NBC News
Traffic / Verrazano Narrows Bridge / New York City / Aerial | HD Stock Video 871-099-242 | Framepool Stock Footage
These posts are so obnoxious. There's really no need for all the bold and capitals.
You're trying to piece together a flight path out of conversions taking place between people in different locations, and you have shown that you have no concept of how their location effects their perspective.
Not to mention the fact that a verbal indication of position is not a precise data point. "over the Verazzano" and "By the Verazzano" in the context of the conversation does not necessarily mean the plane was exactly over the bridge at the time. After all, they also said it was travelling very fast, which contradicts your claim. They said it was coming up the Hudson before it struck which contradicts your odd loopy diagram. I'm sure if you asked any of them they would tell you it was an aircraft, not an orb or a ball... so I'm not exactly sure what you think you're arguing here. Do you think they are deluded? Because they certainly don't agree with you...
It has nothing whatsoever to do with perspective because the bridge was and is a definitive landmark that flight 175 could not have been anywhere near. They said where it was shortly before the explosion and that's never gonna change. Tepper, mentioned the Hudson, not the other two guys. MOD EDIT - Rule 3. It's a stand-alone fact that doesn't fit with the official radar data.
In your false world what someone said might mean something different because the exact meaning exposes certain lies on 911. In no uncertain terms they saw something near the bridge which could not have been flight 175. Those are the facts which you nor anyone can reconcile with fake 175's flight path. They both saw the same object in the same place and were in different locations. Maybe it was just a coincidence.
Varcadapane: He says to me, “As a matter of fact, do you see that target coming over the Verrazano Bridge.” I went over to the radar and looked at the radar. The Verrazano Bridge is depicted on the radar. And I looked over there and I saw the aircraft descending out of 4700 feet, 3600 feet, 2700 feet."
Greg Callahan: And I could hear him calling on altitudes. “I have a target in sight, he’s descending rapidly.” And he said—“Look out to the southeast,” and the gentleman working ground control said, “Hey, who’s that by the Verrazano Bridge?” "And here comes a very large target descending rapidly, very fast." The skies over America - Dateline NBC | NBC News
Tepper: He was in a hard right bank, diving very steeply and very fast. And as was in he was coming up the Hudson River, he made another hard left turn and just heading for downtown Manhattan.
It's painfully obvious seven hasn't a clue about how to read a map,or even read a compass
Comparison between 2D and 3D - Wikiecho
2D and 3D refer to the actual dimensions in a computer workspace. 2D is "flat", using the horizontal and vertical (X and Y) dimensions, the image has only two dimensions and if turned to the side becomes a line. 3D adds the depth (Z) dimension. This third dimension allows for rotation and visualization from multiple perspectives. It is essentially the difference between a photo and a sculpture.
I never denied any such thing, but pointed out a few years ago that the ball passed east of T1 about two seconds before the south tower exploded. That fact was acknowledged by 2 WNBC news anchors and contradicts reality and official radar data. Whether you want to claim it circled around or went between the buildings it does not change that no plane of any size could've made those radical turns at the last second. It's not possible and certainly did not happen in reality.
An authentic view from the south would show the ball wrapping around the towers. There is one altered plane video that depicts those turns. You can provide no evidence to the contrary. The shadow of the object is proof that something was where it could not have been according to official radar data and simple reality. The 911 commission properly and logically concluded that 175 had to fly over New York Bay in its final seconds, therefore, any object that suddenly passed east of T1 in those final few seconds could not have been flight 175.
Nothing but half baked opinion,AA-11 came from the north And hit wtc-1,and
UA-175 came straight in over new york bay,then the mouth of the hudson,from the south and hit wtc-2,simple,it's been verified and proves you're talking out of your ***
Bumping because conspiracy theories, especially 9/11 conspiracies have a history in the fringe alt-right many aren't aware of.
Separate names with a comma.