Please cite your best evidence of "no-planes"

Not the pitch, distance or angle of photo capture. Once again, 7-11 brings oranges when we ask for apples.

 

What she saw and described live on-air matches the ball, nothing else. There is no need to find the first generation recording because that is the first generation. Because she described an object, not a plane or helicopter.

 

FLIGHT 175 WAS STILL IN FLIGHT 20 MINUTES AFTER THE SOUTH TOWER EXPLODED

The last message sent at 9:23AM, routed through Pittsburgh, has been completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission as well. Although important to know whether the messages were received, it is equally if not more important to understand how they are routed, received or not.

Based on Flight Tracking protocol, the only reason the Central Processing System would choose to route messages through the ground stations located at MDT, then later PIT, over the numerous ground stations much closer and surrounding NYC, is due to the aircraft being in the vicinity of MDT, and then later, PIT. This means that the aircraft observed to strike the south tower, was not United 175.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html

Was there a technical acknowledgement time stamp for the 9:23 message?

It's great to see such a quick response to such a relevant question.


Hi,

The instructions on how to decode the data is in our article.


"The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane. "


DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574

So to answer your question... yes. It was received according to the data.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
Full member list at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Photos here http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots

 

I am not interested in what she saw, what she thought she saw. I want you to explain resolution vs magnification. You can either do it or you cant. Full stop

 

A lie is just as easy as the truth with you,isn't it?

 

What you care about is of no consequence. Your vapid posts are irrelevant. When she said the ball 'could be a police helicopter', was she right? How could an object with no propeller or any visible parts matching a chopper really be a chopper? The antenna on the north tower's in focus as well as the buildings north of them, and so is the ball that looks nothing like the other fake planes or a real chopper. It's impossible to explain away, and you know it.

"I believe that could be a police helicopter"





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obt-1d9POXM

 

'in focus'?........are you kidding?..being able to rudementarily tell what the antenna and buildings are is NOT 'in focus'

 

I will take your avoidance of the question I have asked as a tactile admission you dont know the relationship of resolution Vs magnification. Given that knowledge is critical to the claims you are making, I will assume you fit the standard profile of truthers I have encountered over the last 8 years

But please understand that your calls for a new judicial inquiry, or the desire to have charges brought against those you believe responsible for the events that day will will flounder as a consequence of that ignorance.

 

You're suggesting something without showing how it could be true. Everything's in focus except the ball as you'd somehow claim with 0 evidence or experiment. You aren't making a claim, not even an excuse, really. They added a fake plane image on live-air 24 minutes after calling a ball a twin engine jet. That's what you are left with, an impossible feat to ever overcome. NO PLANE was filmed or photographed by anyone, media or amateur on 911 near any building before it exploded.

 

Why is the sky in your video a muddy brown when the skies on 9/11/01 were bright blue? (*gasp* CHEMTRAILS??)
Also, where are the windows on the WTC? ... who replaced the WTC with a solid block of steel in your video?

 

Oops - you mean you really are unaware of this footage

[video=youtube;XNJu-JofS5A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNJu-JofS5A[/video]

 

They are also unaware that Fox Boobs even got a good image of the second plane and aired it in real time with the reactions of witnesses. This was at the same time that Bryant Gumbel was on the phone to a witness in Chelsea who saw the second strike and was talking about it when it hit.

Losers.

[video=youtube;1lKZqqSI9-s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lKZqqSI9-s[/video]Best images are at 0:14 and 5:54.

 

There is no wingspan. It was plainly and simply a ball-shaped object. It's a similar width as the antenna on T1. Not a plane, never will be. It's not about convincing you guys, it's about showing you that some people can focus on the right evidence that cannot be refuted, such as this live clip. She logically didn't acknowledge it because she didn't know what it was, but surely saw it, and she said WOW immediately after it showed fire. She was looking south, nowhere else, no distraction because she was in the studio getting groped by her male co-host or whatever. Flight 175 would have been filmed coming entirely, behind or south of the towers. It wasn't there because no plane was really there, truly and factually there was some weird object that some actually laughed at, or commented on how small a plane it was.




This is the best live footage from anything on 911 involving the supposed planes impacting. Nothing looks more real or feels more real because we have an honest woman bewildered by how it exploded.

In the past year I listened to the extended clip, around an hour or more and she never mentioned the ball or a plane. She (April Amonica) said something like, 'I assume it was hit by a plane at some point." They didn't have access to tv, like that wnyw clown who said that many times in his extended clip. WATCH AND LISTEN. 'WOW', that's all she really says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIF9OT7GeW4

 

there are countless videos showing the 2nd plane hit the south tower.

 

Until you show you understand the relationship between resolution and magnification we really have nothing to discuss. I deal with this problem almost on a daily basis, so it is not some special argument designed for 911 debates

 

You should post certified accounts of your gifs.

 

Better than gifs.

[video=youtube_share;EFiEgwLQVJk]http://youtu.be/EFiEgwLQVJk[/video]

 

Let's be honest and clear: The NPT "No Planes Theory" is either dishonest or delusional.

There are no other options.

 

You don't believe him that the Fox News Channel broadcasts their live programs on Youtube?

 

The ball isn't a plane and never will be. That's the only thing that aired live and was really there. It passed east of the north tower less two seconds before it exploded. A plane could not and did not perform those turns.

 

None of them are real planes. They have no markings, are shown for only a few seconds, have no chain of custody, and have unknown origins. Start interviewing all those who you claim filmed black plane images with no windows.

 

Did flight 11 bump into tower 1? I have an eyewitness who said those words while talking to Gumbel. He saw it BUMP from a Soho restaurant. All you have is a blob for the first tower.

 

Sure you stick to that argument, but dont be surprised when an expert shreds you on your first day in court

 

Except for all the other videos that aired live.