911 Flight 175 radar data 3D analysis by Richard D Hall -- Proof of 9/11 illusion - Page 10

Dave Rogers · 24th May 2012, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by BCR

I think he answered that one at some point. If I understand it correctly (and that is a big if), the military plane projecting the hologram or controlling whatever it was could only be detected by civilian radar. The hologram or whatever it was could only be detected by military radar.

I thought it was the civilian data that he used to show that the hologram appeared to hit the tower, and the military data to show that the stealth plane missed it. Or something like that. The whole thing is so absurd, it's difficult to fathom what was going on in the mind of anyone who could take it seriously.

Dave

BCR · 24th May 2012, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I thought it was the civilian data that he used to show that the hologram appeared to hit the tower, and the military data to show that the stealth plane missed it. Or something like that. The whole thing is so absurd, it's difficult to fathom what was going on in the mind of anyone who could take it seriously.

Dave

You know, I think you are right

SpitfireIX · 24th May 2012, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by WTC Dust

Mathematical modeling isn't done in isolation. Purdue's starting point was a plane crash, so they modeled a plane crash. They, like so many others, were led astray by the 9/11 cover story of airplanes.

Evasion noted. The question is whether the simulation disproves your contention that the fact that United 175 appears to penetrate the building with no noticeable deformation or slowing proves that there's not really a plane in any of the videos. You are attempting to reframe the question to ask whether the simulation proves that there was actually a plane. Please adress the question I asked, rather than the one you wish I'd asked.

Cl1mh4224rd · 24th May 2012, 09:20 AM

[deleted in light of Dave Rogers' possible clarification above]

BenjaminTR · 24th May 2012, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by BCR

I think he answered that one at some point. If I understand it correctly (and that is a big if), the military plane projecting the hologram or controlling whatever it was could only be detected by civilian radar. The hologram or whatever it was could only be detected by military radar. I am not sure how that works since the same radar is fed into the RADES and FAA systems and monitored by both.

I as well, am confused by this one. But that is my understanding of it.

Given the way Jamm keeps trying to call into question the source of the "NTSB" data, I interpret him this way: The fact that the two lines do not coincide to within a few meters proves that they cannot be tracking the same object. The fact that he thinks RADES has a more reliable source means that it was tracking a real object (an invisible stealth plane equipped with mist-spraying holo-projector). The fact that the "NTSB" data lines up with videos of 175 impact--but does not line up with RADES--proves that the NTSB data was faked to match the path of the fake plane that everyone saw on teevee.

So we have military radar tracking a real invisible plane, and faked data to match a faked plane. And all of the other radar data BCR mentions... um... You all just accept anything the gubmint tells you based on the flimsiest evidence. Planes and multiple data sets. Ridiculous.

Anyway, that is what I have been able to gather while lurking.

jammonius · 24th May 2012, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

I thought it was the civilian data that he used to show that the hologram appeared to hit the tower, and the military data to show that the stealth plane missed it. Or something like that. The whole thing is so absurd, it's difficult to fathom what was going on in the mind of anyone who could take it seriously.

Dave

Hello Dave,

In an around about way, I think your quoted post is a form of double checking for accuracy of understanding. As you know, that is a form of posting that I think works well.

Most recently, I did that in post #346

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=346

In #346, I asked posters who had clearly adopted as true the proposition that the accuracy of radar decreases as the distance from the radar site increases, all as more fully set out in #346, whether they'd like to re-think their adoption of that proposition in any way.

So far, there have not been many responses to my request that posters re-think their agreement with the error factor in radar. We'll see how that develops.

Meanwhile, as to your request for understanding, let me say this:

Yes, the proposition put forward by RDHall is that the military radar, RADES, tracked a stealth aircraft. That aircraft did not hit the South Tower.

The civilian radar showed an object hitting the South Tower.

Furthermore, the civiian radar accurately tracked the teevee imagery right into the tower and did so along the full path of the radar data Hall relied on, which radar data, as stated, was based on the civilian data, compiled from various sources, including airports and including RADES. The name "civilian" radar is, then, a misnomer because Bower, the author of the NTSB study, acknowledges using radar inputs from BOTH civilian and military sources.

The important point that has been missed, and that you missed, is that Hall claims there was no object, other than a projection, that hit the South Tower. So, it is not that two objects were tracked. Only one was. And, the actual object that was tracked did not hit the tower.

I hope this serves to clarify what is claimed by Hall, as shown in his video.

Thank you for double checking.

Blessings

ps

If there are those who intend to reply to post # 346, please try to do so within 60min of this post, plus or minus at least 1/4 nmile.

Dash80 · 24th May 2012, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

Hello Dave,

In an around about way, I think your quoted post is a form of double checking for accuracy of understanding. As you know, that is a form of posting that I think works well.

Most recently, I did that in post #346

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=346

In #346, I asked posters who had clearly adopted as true the proposition that the accuracy of radar decreases as the distance from the radar site increases, all as more fully set out in #346, whether they'd like to re-think their adoption of that proposition in any way.

So far, there have not been many responses to my request that posters re-think their agreement with the error factor in radar. We'll see how that develops.

Meanwhile, as to your request for understanding, let me say this:

Yes, the proposition put forward by RDHall is that the military radar, RADES, tracked a stealth aircraft. That aircraft did not hit the South Tower.

The civilian radar showed an object hitting the South Tower.

Furthermore, the civiian radar accurately tracked the teevee imagery right into the tower and did so along the full path of the radar data Hall relied on, which radar data, as stated, was based on the civilian data, compiled from various sources, including airports and including RADES. The name "civilian" radar is, then, a misnomer because Bower, the author of the NTSB study, acknowledges using radar inputs from BOTH civilian and military sources.

The important point that has been missed, and that you missed, is that Hall claims there was no object, other than a projection, that hit the South Tower. So, it is not that two objects were tracked. Only one was. And, the actual object that was tracked did not hit the tower.

I hope this serves to clarify what is claimed by Hall, as shown in his video.

Thank you for double checking.

Blessings

ps

If there are those who intend to reply to post # 346, please try to do so within 60min of this post, plus or minus at least 1/4 nmile.

No jammy it clarifies nothing.

Where are your STEALTH PLANE SPOTTERS?

We can use your "eyewitness method" if you like?

Dave Rogers · 24th May 2012, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

Hello Dave,

In an around about way, I think your quoted post is a form of double checking for accuracy of understanding. As you know, that is a form of posting that I think works well.

It's very clear to me that you and Hall have decided that the trace that superficially supports your claim is accurate to a much greater level than its known margin of error, and the trace that fails to support your claim is simply discarded without explanation, despite the fact that the two sets of information can be reconciled on the basis of additional information to produce a result that contradicts your claim. This form of argument is known as "cherry-picking", and is a reliable way to reach a false conclusion. It's clear that you have started from a presumption that no plane hit the towers, have distorted whatever subset of the evidence can be distorted in order to support this fallacy, and discarded any evidence to the contrary. On this, at least, there is no need for me to check the accuracy of my understanding.

Dave

Oystein · 24th May 2012, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

In #346, I asked posters who had clearly adopted as true the proposition that the accuracy of radar decreases as the distance from the radar site increases, all as more fully set out in #346, whether they'd like to re-think their adoption of that proposition in any way.

So far, there have not been many responses to my request that posters re-think their agreement with the error factor in radar. We'll see how that develops.

Yep, that is an accurate stance, and it follows directly from middle school geometry and the fact that two components of the values that radar measures are angles. BCR explained it again in a recent post. If you don't understand it, then perhaps you have forgotten all your middle school geometry. Ask your grandchildren then to explain it to you.

Originally Posted by jammonius

Meanwhile, as to your request for understanding, let me say this:

Yes, the proposition put forward by RDHall is that ... civilian radar showed an object hitting the South Tower.

...

The important point that has been missed, and that you missed, is that Hall claims there was no object, other than a projection, that hit the South Tower. So, it is not that two objects were tracked. Only one was. And, the actual object that was tracked did not hit the tower.

I hope this serves to clarify what is claimed by Hall, as shown in his video.
...

May I double check for accuracy: You claim that Hall claims that

civilian radar showed an object hitting the South Tower

AND

there was no object, other than a projection, that hit the South

It is unfortunate that this wording implies a contradiction. I would have thought that a seasoned man of the word by profession like you would avoid such confusion.

Your claims could be construed in two distinct ways:

There was an object that hit the South Tower, and there wasn't an object that hit the South Tower (and civilian radar shows it)
Civilian radar only apparently shows an object that isn't there, i.o.w. the civilian radar data is manufactured, or faked

Now the problem with this seems to be that BCR has got not one but TWO civilian radar data sets, both from source, and both agree on presence and path of said object, and it all is corroborated with all of the other evidence, including, but not limited to, TV images, eye witness testimony, plane debris and human remains from UA 175 found in places consistent with a crash into the ST, and RADES radar.

Your stealth plane however is not corroborated by anything at all - not even the RADES data, which, strangely, shows no plane north of the ST after the object apparently (and, face it, jam, really) slammed into the tower.
Stealth planes, as has been pointed out several times already, are invisible (or nearly so) to radar - so RADED should not have picked up a good signal, but they are not invisible to human eyes and cameras. So it seems that your interpretation of the RADES data seems far-fetches and highly implausible.

I think you need to do better than you have done so far to even begin sounding anything but foolish.

Much better.

jammonius · 24th May 2012, 10:00 AM

Hello again, Mark

Originally Posted by MarkLindeman

Poor jammy! You try so hard to engage in factual discussion, but somehow, somehow, you always end up getting sucked into ad hominem attacks on "debunkers." I wonder if you resent other people for doing this to you?

I think the above is a reach. By definition, as I understand it, an ad hominem attack is directed towards an individual person. Wiki puts it this way:

"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it."

You correctly quote that I had addressed a concern that I linked to "debunkers" which, because of the plural is obviously not directed towards any person in particular; and, just as obviously, does not name any person. In that sense, it is really more of an impersonal statement.

So, with that in mind, let me double check that you still think it proper to accuse me of an ad hominem attack based on what I said about "debunkers'?

Quote:

Or maybe you're just hoping people will forget where the thread started. The fact was then, and is now, that having two disparate radar tracks comes nowhere near proving that Flight 175 didn't strike the South Tower. So, it was predictable that you would end up fuming about the people who pointed this out. It's your last refuge.

In your second quote, you appear to press the accusation of ad hominem attack on the basis of what you claim is an inability to prove a point through other, more legitimate means.

You are mistaken. The point of the RDHall video is that, yes, there are two separate paths, one missing and one hitting the South Tower. But, there appears to be considerable confusion on what he next claims. He claims the RADES data, that show the object missing the tower is the accurate data and that the data showing a hit merely tracks the holographic (or other form of projection) image that is seen to melt into the tower, followed, I would add, by explosions appearing first on the east face, then almost simultaneously on the north and on the south, the latter being the face that was ostensibly hit by the shadow thingy. The explosion timing (east first, north and south next or last) is really a strong piece of visual evidence that the imagery of the shadow thingy was fake.

The essential point is that there is but one track. The data are cooked or are based on false radar blips designed to show that the teevee imagery is correct, when, in fact, it is not.

There are a number of ways this could have come about, including, but not limited to, the military exercises taking place on 9/11 that simulated the hijacking of aircraft and the crashing of them into buildings. A simulation is, by definition, a process that puts out false information; as in false radar blips, by way of one example. And, by way of projected images, for another example.

So, I hope the above paragraph clarifies. Let me know if you still need more clarification.

And, although I do not think it necessary, I will here say that I did not engage in an ad hominem attack. Whether you think there are examples of such attacks in this thread is, of course, for you to determine.

Quote:

I'm left with a familiar question: are you joking?

Let me give you the familiar answer: No.

Quote:

Why wouldn't two sets of measurements with error "traverse different lines, different angles and different turns"? Do you really not understand that a graphic depiction of the data is not "the actual world of what was observed," no matter how gorgeous the 3D rendering might be?

Firstly, what is your answer to your question? Or, put differently, if you have a claim, please make it.

Quote:

(And by the way, has it occurred to you that RDH's depiction of the RADES data includes -- by his own description -- a point that doesn't exist in the RADES data?)

Yes, that has occured to me. The reason it has occured to me is that RDHall says that in the video.

Quote:

That is false. BCR's comments about measurement error can be assessed without looking at the source data at all. However, since you have insisted upon selectively impugning the source data, why shouldn't he tell you where you could find it?

I think we've probably moved beyond the quibble you are engaging in.

Quote:

(LOL)
Counselor, if you can't state your objections coherently, I will be forced to hold you in contempt. Do I make myself clear?

I don't like legal drama, do you?

Quote:

Does evidence of measurement error actually scare you? Are you happier seeing imaginary lines traced in an artificially rendered sky? (I don't object to the rendering, as long as it isn't construed literally.)

Mark, I can assure you measurement error does not scare me. As you may have gleaned by now, I think the issue of measurement error is about to loom large in this thread. That will depend on what posters do in response to my double check for accuracy of understanding set out in post # 346

Blessings

DGM · 24th May 2012, 10:08 AM

Does anyone else find it easier (and more entertaining) to read jammonius posts using the voice of "HAL" from "2001, A Space Odyssey"?

Originally Posted by jammonius

Hello Dave..................................

Dash80 · 24th May 2012, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by DGM

Does anyone else find it easier (and more entertaining) to read jammonius posts using the voice of "HAL" from "2001, A Space Odyssey"?

Lol, yes.

Although I have been imagining this voice before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsBug...e_gdata_player

jammonius · 24th May 2012, 11:11 AM

BCR,

In a much earlier post when you were in the process of going out and then coming back in again, I recall you posting a sign off asking others to tell me that you are a truther. I think I'm here quoting you accurately, if not, please advise.

Based on a number of your posts, culminating in post # 355, quoted below, I agree YOU ARE, INDEED, A TRUTHER.

You have succeeded in making use of 9/11 RADAR DATA utterly and totally inadmissible as evidence. You have shown all of us that radar data is too unreliable, too prone to error and too uncertain to pass muster as admissible evidence.

Here's what you need to do. Write to the Office of Military Commissions, including the prosecutor and the defense. You have likely shown how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other scapegoats who are to be tried in kangaroo court in Guantanamo, will get off scott free.

Your information is needed by the prosecution so they do not present false, unreliable evidence; and by the defense so that they'll be able to demonstrate reasonable doubt.

You have shown, without much doubt, that the ERROR RATE for the 9/11 radar that has been used is too great to be useful. That radar data misses, almost literally, by a mile, according to your own calculation. Not only that, the actual documentation, and in particular the NTSB documentation does a poor job of acknowledging the error rate. True, the NTSB documentation admits the existence of error, but does not disclose its magnitude. You do.

The magnitude of the error factor makes the radar data FUBAR.

Thank you

Blessings

PS
(addresses you should have)

Originally Posted by BCR

Okay, I'll try it one more time. Here is the spec for the 84 RADES ARSR radar sites as given by the operator of those sites, 84 RADES.

The distance from the site to the target is ~= 66 nmi. This is a simple trigonometry problem and they teach it in high school, so this should be very easy to understand.

The error, although angular has a spatial dimension. Lets just denote that E_a and the distance as d. We know from trigonometry that the tangent of our angle (0.2 degrees) error = E_a/d. This means that E_a = the tangent of our angle * d.

E_a = tan(0.2) * 66 nmi = 0.003490672681596250318515686056015 * 66 nmi = 0.23038439698535252102203527969699 nmi ~= 1/4 nmi

So, yes. By the specification of the radar's accuracy, at 66 nmi the "azimuth accuracy is limited to" ~1/4 nmi. This statement is expressed by +/- 1/4 nmi since by definition accuracy is the deviation from "true" (or as I prefer to call it, the mean of the sample population).

That is as simple as I can make it. I will not endeavor to explain it again.

More: The ~= means approximately equal to. The 1/4 is easier to work with than 0.23038439698535252102203527969699 and type.

Clarification:

No, the proposition is that there is AT LEAST that much. We already showed that it could be much more and just looking at the actual RADES screens shots for RIV and GIB posted, it most likely is.

Now it's my turn to say:

/thread

twinstead · 24th May 2012, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

BCR,

In a much earlier post when you were in the process of going out and then coming back in again, I recall you posting a sign off asking others to tell me that you are a truther. I think I'm here quoting you accurately, if not, please advise.

Based on a number of your posts, culminating in post # 355, quoted below, I agree YOU ARE, INDEED, A TRUTHER.

You have succeeded in making use of 9/11 RADAR DATA utterly and totally inadmissible as evidence. You have shown all of us that radar data is too unreliable, too prone to error and too uncertain to pass muster as admissible evidence.

Here's what you need to do. Write to the Office of Military Commissions, including the prosecutor and the defense. You have likely shown how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other stooges who are to be tried in kangaroo court in Guantanamo, will get off scott free.

Your information is needed by the prosecution so they do not present false, unreliable evidence; and by the defense so that they'll be able to demonstrate reasonable doubt.

You have shown, without much doubt, that the ERROR RATE for the 9/11 radar that has been used is too great to be useful. That radar data misses, almost literally, by a mile, according to your own calculation. Not only that, the actual documentation, and in particular the NTSB documentation does a poor job of acknowledging the error rate. True, the NTSB documentation admits the existence of error, but does not disclose its magnitude. You do.

The magnitude of the error factor makes the radar data FUBAR.

Thank you

Blessings

PS
(addresses you should have)
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/...RDHall/omc.jpg

Now it's my turn to say:

/thread

Aren't YOU the one who's claiming that radar data proves YOUR point?

jammonius · 24th May 2012, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

Aren't YOU the one who's claiming that radar data proves YOUR point?

Take another look at the OP. I think the RDHall video serves mostly to undermine the radar data, showing that, in actuality, it tracks an aircraft that didn't hit the South Tower.

An additional benefit of the RDHall video is that it has resulted in an open discussion, involving some self-proclaimed experts, who have conclusively shown that the 9/11 radar data literally couldn't find a jetliner in a hangar.

You guys are lucky I don't play 'gotcha games' or else I could have had a field day.

You agree?

BenjaminTR · 24th May 2012, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

An additional benefit of the RDHall video is that it has resulted in an open discussion, involving some self-proclaimed experts, who have conclusively shown that the 9/11 radar data literally couldn't find a jetliner in a hangar.

To clarify, for you "can locate to within 1/4 to 2 nmi from 66nmi away" is the same as "cannot locate at all, ever."

Does this mean that a device that can measure the size of a bullet wound to within 1% cannot even tell if there a bullet wound? That I cannot tell if someone is standing in front of me because I cannot tell their height to within 2 inches?

Or perhaps you instead mean to say, "jammonius automatically wins no matter what."

Redtail · 24th May 2012, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by jammonius

Take another look at the OP. I think the RDHall video serves mostly to undermine the radar data, showing that, in actuality, it tracks an aircraft that didn't hit the South Tower.

An additional benefit of the RDHall video is that it has resulted in an open discussion, involving some self-proclaimed experts, who have conclusively shown that the 9/11 radar data literally couldn't find a jetliner in a hangar.

You guys are lucky I don't play 'gotcha games' or else I could have had a field day.

You agree?

So radar data proving a plane hit the tower is now proof that a plane didn't hit the tower?

Lol!

Dash80 · 24th May 2012, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Redtail

So radar data proving a plane hit the tower is now proof that a plane didn't hit the tower?

Lol!

It's hardly surprising is it? In Jammy world videos, eyewitnesses and physical evidence of planes "proves" no planes either.

Oystein · 24th May 2012, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by jammonius

BCR,
...You have succeeded in making use of 9/11 RADAR DATA utterly and totally inadmissible as evidence. You have shown all of us that radar data is too unreliable, too prone to error and too uncertain to pass muster as admissible evidence.
...

You might have a point if all we had was the RADES data, and nothing else. Based on that RADES track, it would indeed not be possible to determine if the plane crashed into the South Tower, or crashed somewhere else in the financial district. (It would however be sufficient to establish with great likelihood that indeed a plane crashed into Manhattan!).

What you conveniently disregarded is the matter of corroboration - we have the little issues of people seeing a plane crash into the South Tower, videos capturing the event, a plane-shaped hole in the wall, and parts of both plane and passengers strewn around mostly to the north, in the direction of the plane's momentum.

That's a whole lot of corroboration. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of corroboration?

By the way, I already talked about corroboration earlier today, and pointed out that BCR's claims enjoy a lot of corroboration - your claim (that of a stealth plane) none:

Originally Posted by Oystein

...
Now the problem with this seems to be that BCR has got not one but TWO civilian radar data sets, both from source, and both agree on presence and path of said object, and it all is corroborated with all of the other evidence, including, but not limited to, TV images, eye witness testimony, plane debris and human remains from UA 175 found in places consistent with a crash into the ST, and RADES radar.

Your stealth plane however is not corroborated by anything at all - not even the RADES data, which, strangely, shows no plane north of the ST after the object apparently (and, face it, jam, really) slammed into the tower.
Stealth planes, as has been pointed out several times already, are invisible (or nearly so) to radar - so RADED should not have picked up a good signal, but they are not invisible to human eyes and cameras. So it seems that your interpretation of the RADES data seems far-fetches and highly implausible.
...

Perhaps you'll share with us your - perhaps professional? - opinion on "corroboration" in the arena of using evidence to establish the veracity of claims? That would be swell! Thanks!

Cl1mh4224rd · 24th May 2012, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

That's a whole lot of corroboration. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of corroboration?

I'm sure he is, which would explain his little game of "divide and conquer" with respect to evidence.

Taken together, the available pieces of evidence point to an inescapable conclusion. If, however, he can split each piece of evidence off and show that it, alone, doesn't prove that planes impacted the towers, then he wins by erosion.

Of course, that puts him in the very uncomfortable position of having to conjure up fanciful technology to explain away the strongest individual pieces of evidence (like actual video of the actual planes actually impacting the towers).

X · 24th May 2012, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Of course, that puts him in the very uncomfortable position of having to conjure up fanciful technology to explain away the strongest individual pieces of evidence (like actual video of the actual planes actually impacting the towers).

Yes, but the fanciful technology has the advantage of not having any evidence to support it at all. Therefore there is nothing to split of and nitpick about. Which means it's more true.

So there!

I just proved that in no-planer world, no evidence is more proof than uncountable loads of evidence.

jammonius · 24th May 2012, 02:38 PM

Greetings again, posters, lurkers and others,

I gather it is time to move on to other elements in this thread, unless there are those who would still like to discuss the radar element. I think it fair to say that radar has been lost as an element that supports the common storyline of 9/11.

If there are those who would like to rehabilitate the radar data, or hold onto it, then they can post away.

Basically, the RDHall video turns out to have been a very good catalyst into the intricacies of radar, with the result being that radar is unreliable proof of the common storyline as it relates to Flights 175 and 11, in that order.

Let me here say thank you to RDHall for the video. Splendid.

Some recent posts have raised the issue of other elements of the common storyline of 9/11, presumably to say that there are other ways of proving what happened. Well, it is my view that were we to go through any other aspect of the common storyline, an outcome similar, but perhaps not identical, to the radar outcome would occur.

Just by way of an offhand example, consider DNA. It is harder to get DNA evidence admitted than it is radar; and that for good reason. DNA proof is often unreliable because there is a high error rate brought on by a variety of factors, ranging from innocent technical mistakes, but mistakes nonetheless, to outright fraud.

I don't know that it's fair to call this approach "divide and conquer' as one poster did. Each aspect of the 9/11 story has to be considered on its own merit. It is improper to "buttress" the weaknesses of one piece of evidence or one issue by claiming it (the type or piece of evidence that is improper) is supported by another. And that for good reason. Buttressing of improper evidence produces error. True, one type of evidence can support another type; but, each type has to be independently valid to be worthy of consideration.

Blessings

LSSBB · 24th May 2012, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by jammonius

Greetings again, posters, lurkers and others,

I gather it is time to move on to other elements in this thread, unless there are those who would still like to discuss the radar element. I think it fair to say that radar has been lost as an element that supports the common storyline of 9/11.

If there are those who would like to rehabilitate the radar data, or hold onto it, then they can post away.

Basically, the RDHall video turns out to have been a very good catalyst into the intricacies of radar, with the result being that radar is unreliable proof of the common storyline as it relates to Flights 175 and 11, in that order.

Let me here say thank you to RDHall for the video. Splendid.

Some recent posts have raised the issue of other elements of the common storyline of 9/11, presumably to say that there are other ways of proving what happened. Well, it is my view that were we to go through any other aspect of the common storyline, an outcome similar, but perhaps not identical, to the radar outcome would occur.

Just by way of an offhand example, consider DNA. It is harder to get DNA evidence admitted than it is radar; and that for good reason. DNA proof is often unreliable because there is a high error rate brought on by a variety of factors, ranging from innocent technical mistakes, but mistakes nonetheless, to outright fraud.

I don't know that it's fair to call this approach "divide and conquer' as one poster did. Each aspect of the 9/11 story has to be considered on its own merit. It is improper to "buttress" the weaknesses of one piece of evidence or one issue by claiming it (the type or piece of evidence that is improper) is supported by another. And that for good reason. Buttressing of improper evidence produces error. True, one type of evidence can support another type; but, each type has to be independently valid to be worthy of consideration.

Blessings

I see, even though neither you nor RDHall have proven Radar as unreliable, especially in corroboration with other evidence, you are going to "Declare Victory" and run away to another topic. Is this Charlie Sheen "Winning", or George Bush "Victory"?

BCR · 24th May 2012, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by jammonius

Basically, the RDHall video turns out to have been a very good catalyst into the intricacies of radar, with the result being that radar is unreliable proof of the common storyline as it relates to Flights 175 and 11, in that order.

Wrong bucko. In this case, ONE radar data population cited as evidence of a second plane was discredited. That ONE radar data population did not have the capability (accuracy) to support such a hypothesis. You omit that ANOTHER radar data was also cited as evidence of a plane hitting the WTC. The SECOND did have the capability (accuracy) to make that determination. We added yet a THIRD radar data population with the same capability (accuracy) to make that determination. And, the ONE radar data population, although not capable, did agree with the determination of the SECOND and THIRD radar populations.

Quote:

"It is documented in the Federal Aviation Technical Instruction Manual (TI 6310.24) that the MSP ASR-9 radar provides a range accuracy of 1/32 Nautical Miles and the azimuth accuracy is within .088 degrees."

Both ASR's operated from a range of between 8 and 12 nautical miles from the impact zone. That means the worst case error was 0.018 nmi (112 feet). The footprint of the south tower was 208 feet square, and the complex even larger. So yeah, two of the radar data populations were capable of making that determination.

You are now just being a cry-baby because you had your behind handed to you in a basket.

jammonius · 24th May 2012, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by BCR

Wrong bucko. In this case, ONE radar data population cited as evidence of a second plane was discredited. That ONE radar data population did not have the capability (accuracy) to support such a hypothesis. You omit that ANOTHER radar data was also cited as evidence of a plane hitting the WTC. The SECOND did have the capability (accuracy) to make that determination. We added yet a THIRD radar data population with the same capability (accuracy) to make that determination. And, the ONE radar data population, although not capable, did agree with the determination of the SECOND and THIRD radar populations.

You are now just being a cry-baby because you had your behind handed to you in a basket.

Greetings, BCR,

Thank you for your quoted post. Perhaps it will result in consideration of other radar issues. I welcome that.

Permit me to suggest you take a look at post # 346. There, you will see an image containing blocks or portions numbered 6 and 7 respectively. Each were prepared by Daniel Bower. Do you know him?

In the one, he acknowledges the existence of radar error based on distance, etc. In the other he identifies the radar sources for the preparation of the flight path study that formed the basis for the path attributed to the NTSB. That is the second path, the one that corresponded to the video flight path of shadow thingy in the RDHall video.

If you'll take a look at block 7 in post # 346, you'll see that it includes radar inputs from RADES that you have shown, and others agreed with you, was erroneous to a faretheewell, as in bye-bye radar as evidence. Furthermore, by including data from multiple sources, not just RADES, the flight path that confirms shadow thingy is fraught with multiple errors, with each component of error having a different degree or magnitude of error. At first glance, that might sound helpful. It isn't. In my opinion, it simply means that trying to blend and harmonize various degrees of error causes an even less reliable outcome than if only one data set with one calculated rate of error were used.

Perhaps you disagreee? Perhaps you'll provide a formula for taking into consideration all the varying degrees of error involved and perhaps you'll come up with a calculation that the degree of error for the NTSB flight path is less than that of the RADES data?

If so, all I can say is:

...May the odds be evah in your favah...

The NTSB path used RADES data. Standing alone, that dooms that data as being unreliable.

Thanks again for your post.

jammonius · 24th May 2012, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

I see, even though neither you nor RDHall have proven Radar as unreliable, especially in corroboration with other evidence, you are going to "Declare Victory" and run away to another topic. Is this Charlie Sheen "Winning", or George Bush "Victory"?

Greetings, LSSBB,

Please don't mix apples and oranges. I have already addressed the "corroboration" issue by calling it by its right name "buttressing."

I have plainly said it is improper to buttress impermissible or unrelaible evidence with reliable evidence. You can use one type of evidence to support another. That is fine. But, each piece of evidence must be independently reliable to be considered.

What you proposed, on its face, as I read what you posted, was use of unreliable evidence in the hope it could be supported by another type of evidence.

If I have misunderstood you, please let me know.

Blessings

Dash80 · 24th May 2012, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by jammonius

Greetings again, posters, lurkers and others,

I gather it is time to move on to other elements in this thread, unless there are those who would still like to discuss the radar element. I think it fair to say that radar has been lost as an element that supports the common storyline of 9/11.

If there are those who would like to rehabilitate the radar data, or hold onto it, then they can post away.

Basically, the RDHall video turns out to have been a very good catalyst into the intricacies of radar, with the result being that radar is unreliable proof of the common storyline as it relates to Flights 175 and 11, in that order.

Let me here say thank you to RDHall for the video. Splendid.

Some recent posts have raised the issue of other elements of the common storyline of 9/11, presumably to say that there are other ways of proving what happened. Well, it is my view that were we to go through any other aspect of the common storyline, an outcome similar, but perhaps not identical, to the radar outcome would occur.

Just by way of an offhand example, consider DNA. It is harder to get DNA evidence admitted than it is radar; and that for good reason. DNA proof is often unreliable because there is a high error rate brought on by a variety of factors, ranging from innocent technical mistakes, but mistakes nonetheless, to outright fraud.

I don't know that it's fair to call this approach "divide and conquer' as one poster did. Each aspect of the 9/11 story has to be considered on its own merit. It is improper to "buttress" the weaknesses of one piece of evidence or one issue by claiming it (the type or piece of evidence that is improper) is supported by another. And that for good reason. Buttressing of improper evidence produces error. True, one type of evidence can support another type; but, each type has to be independently valid to be worthy of consideration.

Blessings

Is this the part where you piss on victims jammy?

Another round of jammy's "I win!" game?

Honestly it's like playing a board game with a four year old. No matter the outcome, they win.

Why do you do this jammy? Why are you even here, what are you expecting to achieve exactly? Whatever it is ain't working!

jammonius · 24th May 2012, 03:42 PM

I expect to show that the real can be distinguished from the unreal by thoughtful, respectful, non-accusatory and careful consideration of information.

Bell · 24th May 2012, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Dash80

Is this the part where you piss on victims jammy?

Another round of jammy's "I win!" game?

Honestly it's like playing a board game with a four year old. No matter the outcome, they win.

Why do you do this jammy? Why are you even here, what are you expecting to achieve exactly? Whatever it is ain't working!

Jammonius, known as Jerry Leapheart in real life, is Judy Wood's attorney. He probably gets paid a lot of money, including royalties from the book sales.

BCR · 24th May 2012, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by jammonius

I expect to show that the real can be distinguished from the unreal by thoughtful, respectful and careful consideration of information.

We did. You did not comprehend and what you want does not really matter. Everyone else does.

Dash80 · 24th May 2012, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Bell

Jammonius, known as Jerry Leapheart in real life, is Judy Wood's attorney. He probably gets paid a lot of money, including royalties from the book sales.

Ah, well atleast that is one consolation for constantly making a fool of himself.

tsig · 24th May 2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by BCR

I think he answered that one at some point. If I understand it correctly (and that is a big if), the military plane projecting the hologram or controlling whatever it was could only be detected by civilian radar. The hologram or whatever it was could only be detected by military radar. I am not sure how that works since the same radar is fed into the RADES and FAA systems and monitored by both.

I as well, am confused by this one. But that is my understanding of it.

deleted on further consideration

LSSBB · 24th May 2012, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by jammonius

Greetings, LSSBB,

Please don't mix apples and oranges. I have already addressed the "corroboration" issue by calling it by its right name "buttressing."

I have plainly said it is improper to buttress impermissible or unrelaible evidence with reliable evidence. You can use one type of evidence to support another. That is fine. But, each piece of evidence must be independently reliable to be considered.

What you proposed, on its face, as I read what you posted, was use of unreliable evidence in the hope it could be supported by another type of evidence.

If I have misunderstood you, please let me know.

Blessings

From Merriam-Webster:

Quote:

Definition of BUTTRESS

transitive verb
: to furnish or shore up with a buttress; also : support, strengthen <arguments buttressed by solid facts>

I like the "solid facts", very applicable. Your point? I see much that Supports and Strengthens the common narrative that planes hit WTC1 and WTC2, piloted by terrorists. I see nothing that Supports and Strengthens any proposed alternative.

LSSBB · 24th May 2012, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by jammonius

I expect to show that the real can be distinguished from the unreal by thoughtful, respectful, non-accusatory and careful consideration of information.

Outstanding! When do you propose to start?

MIKILLINI · 24th May 2012, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by The Dark Lord

Let me see if I understand this. Two different radars from different locations had the plane on slightly different paths. Therefore, one of the radars showed a stealth plane which was projecting a hologram of a Boeing 767 and that hologram was picked up by the other radar. Never mind that the two radar paths are within the margin for error. Or that a stealth plane should not be picked up on radar. Or that even if this fantasy projected hologram was possible, it wouldn't be picked up on radar. Or why didn't people see the stealth plane.

I didn't really read jammo's posts. But did I get this right? Is this really what he is arguing? And he wonders why people think he is crazy?

I'm just skimming over them and have reached the same conclusion.

LSSBB · 24th May 2012, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by jammonius

But, each piece of evidence must be independently reliable to be considered.

On this point: I have seen this tactic used before. It is what the Holocaust deniers use to pick apart the historical account that Jews died in the Gas Chambers. They find one little thing to discredit every testimony, and then try to claim you can't find "One valid witness" to the mass murder machine of the Holocaust.
This is not a quest for historical accuracy, it's nitpicking, trying to narrow the argument down to one fact at a time, and cherry picking which ones at that. You know you can't win against the vast bulk of evidence against you, so you use what you think is your only alternative.
When are you going to get around to the real deal? When are you going to prove your alternate theory? You see, as it stands, its all the evidence stacked up for the common narrative, and no evidence for a DEW, no evidence for Holograms. That's the real scorecard here.

twinstead · 24th May 2012, 05:22 PM

You mean Jamm is using a simple debate technique and not addressing the preponderance of evidence at all? I'm SHOCKED! God of the Gaps ROCKS!

MIKILLINI · 24th May 2012, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by jammonius

I expect to show that the real can be distinguished from the unreal by thoughtful, respectful, non-accusatory and careful consideration of information.

What I expect you to do reminds me of what the Ford Motor Company did with the Pinto fuel tank lawsuit. Ford was sued because these fuel tanks would rupture and catch fire after a rear-end collision, which was something Ford had already knew. Ford could have solved this problem by placing a baffle inside the tank, but they weighed the cost of installing the baffle against the cost of a settlement. They decided it would be cheaper to settle.

Here's My point: Ford added meaningless drivel into their report in order to water down this smoking gun. Instead of the report saying "The fuel tank can and will rupture in a rear-end collision" , it became unrecognizable with all the meandering, meaningless drivel added to it.

This is what you, Jerry, compare with: Adding meaningless drivel to a report and then twisting & tweaking it around to slant the argument.
I can see right through your crap..Epic fail, son. Get over yourself.

djlunacee · 24th May 2012, 05:55 PM

Holy Crap! (slowly bows head and exits stage left)......

AJM8125 · 24th May 2012, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by LSSBB

From Merriam-Webster:

He probably confused it with butt-dressing, a term which he might've heard in the emergency room after BCR handed him his ass.

24th May 2012, 09:10 AM	#361
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by BCR I think he answered that one at some point. If I understand it correctly (and that is a big if), the military plane projecting the hologram or controlling whatever it was could only be detected by civilian radar. The hologram or whatever it was could only be detected by military radar. I thought it was the civilian data that he used to show that the hologram appeared to hit the tower, and the military data to show that the stealth plane missed it. Or something like that. The whole thing is so absurd, it's difficult to fathom what was going on in the mind of anyone who could take it seriously. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

24th May 2012, 09:14 AM	#362
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,239	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers I thought it was the civilian data that he used to show that the hologram appeared to hit the tower, and the military data to show that the stealth plane missed it. Or something like that. The whole thing is so absurd, it's difficult to fathom what was going on in the mind of anyone who could take it seriously. Dave You know, I think you are right
	__________________ "Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

24th May 2012, 09:16 AM	#363
SpitfireIX Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA Posts: 2,829	Originally Posted by WTC Dust Mathematical modeling isn't done in isolation. Purdue's starting point was a plane crash, so they modeled a plane crash. They, like so many others, were led astray by the 9/11 cover story of airplanes. Evasion noted. The question is whether the simulation disproves your contention that the fact that United 175 appears to penetrate the building with no noticeable deformation or slowing proves that there's not really a plane in any of the videos. You are attempting to reframe the question to ask whether the simulation proves that there was actually a plane. Please adress the question I asked, rather than the one you wish I'd asked.
	__________________ Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims: 1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage 2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli 3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

24th May 2012, 09:20 AM	#364
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	[deleted in light of Dave Rogers' possible clarification above]
	Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 24th May 2012 at 09:21 AM.

24th May 2012, 09:34 AM	#366
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers I thought it was the civilian data that he used to show that the hologram appeared to hit the tower, and the military data to show that the stealth plane missed it. Or something like that. The whole thing is so absurd, it's difficult to fathom what was going on in the mind of anyone who could take it seriously. Dave Hello Dave, In an around about way, I think your quoted post is a form of double checking for accuracy of understanding. As you know, that is a form of posting that I think works well. Most recently, I did that in post #346 http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=346 In #346, I asked posters who had clearly adopted as true the proposition that the accuracy of radar decreases as the distance from the radar site increases, all as more fully set out in #346, whether they'd like to re-think their adoption of that proposition in any way. So far, there have not been many responses to my request that posters re-think their agreement with the error factor in radar. We'll see how that develops. Meanwhile, as to your request for understanding, let me say this: Yes, the proposition put forward by RDHall is that the military radar, RADES, tracked a stealth aircraft. That aircraft did not hit the South Tower. The civilian radar showed an object hitting the South Tower. Furthermore, the civiian radar accurately tracked the teevee imagery right into the tower and did so along the full path of the radar data Hall relied on, which radar data, as stated, was based on the civilian data, compiled from various sources, including airports and including RADES. The name "civilian" radar is, then, a misnomer because Bower, the author of the NTSB study, acknowledges using radar inputs from BOTH civilian and military sources. The important point that has been missed, and that you missed, is that Hall claims there was no object, other than a projection, that hit the South Tower. So, it is not that two objects were tracked. Only one was. And, the actual object that was tracked did not hit the tower. I hope this serves to clarify what is claimed by Hall, as shown in his video. Thank you for double checking. Blessings ps If there are those who intend to reply to post # 346, please try to do so within 60min of this post, plus or minus at least 1/4 nmile.
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Last edited by jammonius; 24th May 2012 at 09:35 AM.

24th May 2012, 09:23 AM	#365
BenjaminTR Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Location: The Library Posts: 260	Originally Posted by BCR I think he answered that one at some point. If I understand it correctly (and that is a big if), the military plane projecting the hologram or controlling whatever it was could only be detected by civilian radar. The hologram or whatever it was could only be detected by military radar. I am not sure how that works since the same radar is fed into the RADES and FAA systems and monitored by both. I as well, am confused by this one. But that is my understanding of it. Given the way Jamm keeps trying to call into question the source of the "NTSB" data, I interpret him this way: The fact that the two lines do not coincide to within a few meters proves that they cannot be tracking the same object. The fact that he thinks RADES has a more reliable source means that it was tracking a real object (an invisible stealth plane equipped with mist-spraying holo-projector). The fact that the "NTSB" data lines up with videos of 175 impact--but does not line up with RADES--proves that the NTSB data was faked to match the path of the fake plane that everyone saw on teevee. So we have military radar tracking a real invisible plane, and faked data to match a faked plane. And all of the other radar data BCR mentions... um... You all just accept anything the gubmint tells you based on the flimsiest evidence. Planes and multiple data sets. Ridiculous. Anyway, that is what I have been able to gather while lurking.

24th May 2012, 09:39 AM	#367
Dash80 Blitzkrieg Bop Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Home Sweet Home Posts: 1,558	Originally Posted by jammonius Hello Dave, In an around about way, I think your quoted post is a form of double checking for accuracy of understanding. As you know, that is a form of posting that I think works well. Most recently, I did that in post #346 http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=346 In #346, I asked posters who had clearly adopted as true the proposition that the accuracy of radar decreases as the distance from the radar site increases, all as more fully set out in #346, whether they'd like to re-think their adoption of that proposition in any way. So far, there have not been many responses to my request that posters re-think their agreement with the error factor in radar. We'll see how that develops. Meanwhile, as to your request for understanding, let me say this: Yes, the proposition put forward by RDHall is that the military radar, RADES, tracked a stealth aircraft. That aircraft did not hit the South Tower. The civilian radar showed an object hitting the South Tower. Furthermore, the civiian radar accurately tracked the teevee imagery right into the tower and did so along the full path of the radar data Hall relied on, which radar data, as stated, was based on the civilian data, compiled from various sources, including airports and including RADES. The name "civilian" radar is, then, a misnomer because Bower, the author of the NTSB study, acknowledges using radar inputs from BOTH civilian and military sources. The important point that has been missed, and that you missed, is that Hall claims there was no object, other than a projection, that hit the South Tower. So, it is not that two objects were tracked. Only one was. And, the actual object that was tracked did not hit the tower. I hope this serves to clarify what is claimed by Hall, as shown in his video. Thank you for double checking. Blessings ps If there are those who intend to reply to post # 346, please try to do so within 60min of this post, plus or minus at least 1/4 nmile. No jammy it clarifies nothing. Where are your STEALTH PLANE SPOTTERS? We can use your "eyewitness method" if you like?
	__________________ I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.

24th May 2012, 09:44 AM	#368
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by jammonius Hello Dave, In an around about way, I think your quoted post is a form of double checking for accuracy of understanding. As you know, that is a form of posting that I think works well. It's very clear to me that you and Hall have decided that the trace that superficially supports your claim is accurate to a much greater level than its known margin of error, and the trace that fails to support your claim is simply discarded without explanation, despite the fact that the two sets of information can be reconciled on the basis of additional information to produce a result that contradicts your claim. This form of argument is known as "cherry-picking", and is a reliable way to reach a false conclusion. It's clear that you have started from a presumption that no plane hit the towers, have distorted whatever subset of the evidence can be distorted in order to support this fallacy, and discarded any evidence to the contrary. On this, at least, there is no need for me to check the accuracy of my understanding. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member Last edited by Dave Rogers; 24th May 2012 at 09:46 AM.

24th May 2012, 09:55 AM	#369
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,809	Originally Posted by jammonius In #346, I asked posters who had clearly adopted as true the proposition that the accuracy of radar decreases as the distance from the radar site increases, all as more fully set out in #346, whether they'd like to re-think their adoption of that proposition in any way. So far, there have not been many responses to my request that posters re-think their agreement with the error factor in radar. We'll see how that develops. Yep, that is an accurate stance, and it follows directly from middle school geometry and the fact that two components of the values that radar measures are angles. BCR explained it again in a recent post. If you don't understand it, then perhaps you have forgotten all your middle school geometry. Ask your grandchildren then to explain it to you. Originally Posted by jammonius Meanwhile, as to your request for understanding, let me say this: Yes, the proposition put forward by RDHall is that ... civilian radar showed an object hitting the South Tower. ... The important point that has been missed, and that you missed, is that Hall claims there was no object, other than a projection, that hit the South Tower. So, it is not that two objects were tracked. Only one was. And, the actual object that was tracked did not hit the tower. I hope this serves to clarify what is claimed by Hall, as shown in his video. ... May I double check for accuracy: You claim that Hall claims that civilian radar showed an object hitting the South Tower AND there was no object, other than a projection, that hit the South It is unfortunate that this wording implies a contradiction. I would have thought that a seasoned man of the word by profession like you would avoid such confusion. Your claims could be construed in two distinct ways: There was an object that hit the South Tower, and there wasn't an object that hit the South Tower (and civilian radar shows it) Civilian radar only apparently shows an object that isn't there, i.o.w. the civilian radar data is manufactured, or faked Now the problem with this seems to be that BCR has got not one but TWO civilian radar data sets, both from source, and both agree on presence and path of said object, and it all is corroborated with all of the other evidence, including, but not limited to, TV images, eye witness testimony, plane debris and human remains from UA 175 found in places consistent with a crash into the ST, and RADES radar. Your stealth plane however is not corroborated by anything at all - not even the RADES data, which, strangely, shows no plane north of the ST after the object apparently (and, face it, jam, really) slammed into the tower. Stealth planes, as has been pointed out several times already, are invisible (or nearly so) to radar - so RADED should not have picked up a good signal, but they are not invisible to human eyes and cameras. So it seems that your interpretation of the RADES data seems far-fetches and highly implausible. I think you need to do better than you have done so far to even begin sounding anything but foolish. Much better.

24th May 2012, 10:00 AM	#370
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Hello again, Mark Originally Posted by MarkLindeman Poor jammy! You try so hard to engage in factual discussion, but somehow, somehow, you always end up getting sucked into ad hominem attacks on "debunkers." I wonder if you resent other people for doing this to you? I think the above is a reach. By definition, as I understand it, an ad hominem attack is directed towards an individual person. Wiki puts it this way: "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it." You correctly quote that I had addressed a concern that I linked to "debunkers" which, because of the plural is obviously not directed towards any person in particular; and, just as obviously, does not name any person. In that sense, it is really more of an impersonal statement. So, with that in mind, let me double check that you still think it proper to accuse me of an ad hominem attack based on what I said about "debunkers'? Quote: Or maybe you're just hoping people will forget where the thread started. The fact was then, and is now, that having two disparate radar tracks comes nowhere near proving that Flight 175 didn't strike the South Tower. So, it was predictable that you would end up fuming about the people who pointed this out. It's your last refuge. In your second quote, you appear to press the accusation of ad hominem attack on the basis of what you claim is an inability to prove a point through other, more legitimate means. You are mistaken. The point of the RDHall video is that, yes, there are two separate paths, one missing and one hitting the South Tower. But, there appears to be considerable confusion on what he next claims. He claims the RADES data, that show the object missing the tower is the accurate data and that the data showing a hit merely tracks the holographic (or other form of projection) image that is seen to melt into the tower, followed, I would add, by explosions appearing first on the east face, then almost simultaneously on the north and on the south, the latter being the face that was ostensibly hit by the shadow thingy. The explosion timing (east first, north and south next or last) is really a strong piece of visual evidence that the imagery of the shadow thingy was fake. The essential point is that there is but one track. The data are cooked or are based on false radar blips designed to show that the teevee imagery is correct, when, in fact, it is not. There are a number of ways this could have come about, including, but not limited to, the military exercises taking place on 9/11 that simulated the hijacking of aircraft and the crashing of them into buildings. A simulation is, by definition, a process that puts out false information; as in false radar blips, by way of one example. And, by way of projected images, for another example. So, I hope the above paragraph clarifies. Let me know if you still need more clarification. And, although I do not think it necessary, I will here say that I did not engage in an ad hominem attack. Whether you think there are examples of such attacks in this thread is, of course, for you to determine. Quote: I'm left with a familiar question: are you joking? Let me give you the familiar answer: No. Quote: Why wouldn't two sets of measurements with error "traverse different lines, different angles and different turns"? Do you really not understand that a graphic depiction of the data is not "the actual world of what was observed," no matter how gorgeous the 3D rendering might be? Firstly, what is your answer to your question? Or, put differently, if you have a claim, please make it. Quote: (And by the way, has it occurred to you that RDH's depiction of the RADES data includes -- by his own description -- a point that doesn't exist in the RADES data?) Yes, that has occured to me. The reason it has occured to me is that RDHall says that in the video. Quote: That is false. BCR's comments about measurement error can be assessed without looking at the source data at all. However, since you have insisted upon selectively impugning the source data, why shouldn't he tell you where you could find it? I think we've probably moved beyond the quibble you are engaging in. Quote: (LOL) Counselor, if you can't state your objections coherently, I will be forced to hold you in contempt. Do I make myself clear? I don't like legal drama, do you? Quote: Does evidence of measurement error actually scare you? Are you happier seeing imaginary lines traced in an artificially rendered sky? (I don't object to the rendering, as long as it isn't construed literally.) Mark, I can assure you measurement error does not scare me. As you may have gleaned by now, I think the issue of measurement error is about to loom large in this thread. That will depend on what posters do in response to my double check for accuracy of understanding set out in post # 346 Blessings
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Last edited by jammonius; 24th May 2012 at 10:06 AM.

24th May 2012, 10:08 AM	#371
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,347	Does anyone else find it easier (and more entertaining) to read jammonius posts using the voice of "HAL" from "2001, A Space Odyssey"? Originally Posted by jammonius Hello Dave..................................
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Last edited by DGM; 24th May 2012 at 10:10 AM.

24th May 2012, 10:21 AM	#372
Dash80 Blitzkrieg Bop Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Home Sweet Home Posts: 1,558	Originally Posted by DGM Does anyone else find it easier (and more entertaining) to read jammonius posts using the voice of "HAL" from "2001, A Space Odyssey"? Lol, yes. Although I have been imagining this voice before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsBug...e_gdata_player
	__________________ I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.

24th May 2012, 11:11 AM	#373
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Radar data: Error too great to be useful as evidence BCR, In a much earlier post when you were in the process of going out and then coming back in again, I recall you posting a sign off asking others to tell me that you are a truther. I think I'm here quoting you accurately, if not, please advise. Based on a number of your posts, culminating in post # 355, quoted below, I agree YOU ARE, INDEED, A TRUTHER. You have succeeded in making use of 9/11 RADAR DATA utterly and totally inadmissible as evidence. You have shown all of us that radar data is too unreliable, too prone to error and too uncertain to pass muster as admissible evidence. Here's what you need to do. Write to the Office of Military Commissions, including the prosecutor and the defense. You have likely shown how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other scapegoats who are to be tried in kangaroo court in Guantanamo, will get off scott free. Your information is needed by the prosecution so they do not present false, unreliable evidence; and by the defense so that they'll be able to demonstrate reasonable doubt. You have shown, without much doubt, that the ERROR RATE for the 9/11 radar that has been used is too great to be useful. That radar data misses, almost literally, by a mile, according to your own calculation. Not only that, the actual documentation, and in particular the NTSB documentation does a poor job of acknowledging the error rate. True, the NTSB documentation admits the existence of error, but does not disclose its magnitude. You do. The magnitude of the error factor makes the radar data FUBAR. Thank you Blessings PS (addresses you should have) Originally Posted by BCR Okay, I'll try it one more time. Here is the spec for the 84 RADES ARSR radar sites as given by the operator of those sites, 84 RADES. The distance from the site to the target is ~= 66 nmi. This is a simple trigonometry problem and they teach it in high school, so this should be very easy to understand. The error, although angular has a spatial dimension. Lets just denote that E_a and the distance as d. We know from trigonometry that the tangent of our angle (0.2 degrees) error = E_a/d. This means that E_a = the tangent of our angle * d. E_a = tan(0.2) * 66 nmi = 0.003490672681596250318515686056015 * 66 nmi = 0.23038439698535252102203527969699 nmi ~= 1/4 nmi So, yes. By the specification of the radar's accuracy, at 66 nmi the "azimuth accuracy is limited to" ~1/4 nmi. This statement is expressed by +/- 1/4 nmi since by definition accuracy is the deviation from "true" (or as I prefer to call it, the mean of the sample population). That is as simple as I can make it. I will not endeavor to explain it again. More: The ~= means approximately equal to. The 1/4 is easier to work with than 0.23038439698535252102203527969699 and type. Clarification: No, the proposition is that there is AT LEAST that much. We already showed that it could be much more and just looking at the actual RADES screens shots for RIV and GIB posted, it most likely is. Now it's my turn to say: /thread
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Last edited by jammonius; 24th May 2012 at 11:29 AM.

24th May 2012, 11:17 AM	#374
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,578	Originally Posted by jammonius BCR, In a much earlier post when you were in the process of going out and then coming back in again, I recall you posting a sign off asking others to tell me that you are a truther. I think I'm here quoting you accurately, if not, please advise. Based on a number of your posts, culminating in post # 355, quoted below, I agree YOU ARE, INDEED, A TRUTHER. You have succeeded in making use of 9/11 RADAR DATA utterly and totally inadmissible as evidence. You have shown all of us that radar data is too unreliable, too prone to error and too uncertain to pass muster as admissible evidence. Here's what you need to do. Write to the Office of Military Commissions, including the prosecutor and the defense. You have likely shown how Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other stooges who are to be tried in kangaroo court in Guantanamo, will get off scott free. Your information is needed by the prosecution so they do not present false, unreliable evidence; and by the defense so that they'll be able to demonstrate reasonable doubt. You have shown, without much doubt, that the ERROR RATE for the 9/11 radar that has been used is too great to be useful. That radar data misses, almost literally, by a mile, according to your own calculation. Not only that, the actual documentation, and in particular the NTSB documentation does a poor job of acknowledging the error rate. True, the NTSB documentation admits the existence of error, but does not disclose its magnitude. You do. The magnitude of the error factor makes the radar data FUBAR. Thank you Blessings PS (addresses you should have) http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/...RDHall/omc.jpg Now it's my turn to say: /thread Aren't YOU the one who's claiming that radar data proves YOUR point?
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

24th May 2012, 11:20 AM	#375
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Originally Posted by twinstead Aren't YOU the one who's claiming that radar data proves YOUR point? Take another look at the OP. I think the RDHall video serves mostly to undermine the radar data, showing that, in actuality, it tracks an aircraft that didn't hit the South Tower. An additional benefit of the RDHall video is that it has resulted in an open discussion, involving some self-proclaimed experts, who have conclusively shown that the 9/11 radar data literally couldn't find a jetliner in a hangar. You guys are lucky I don't play 'gotcha games' or else I could have had a field day. You agree?
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Last edited by jammonius; 24th May 2012 at 11:29 AM.

24th May 2012, 11:33 AM	#376
BenjaminTR Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2012 Location: The Library Posts: 260	Originally Posted by jammonius An additional benefit of the RDHall video is that it has resulted in an open discussion, involving some self-proclaimed experts, who have conclusively shown that the 9/11 radar data literally couldn't find a jetliner in a hangar. To clarify, for you "can locate to within 1/4 to 2 nmi from 66nmi away" is the same as "cannot locate at all, ever." Does this mean that a device that can measure the size of a bullet wound to within 1% cannot even tell if there a bullet wound? That I cannot tell if someone is standing in front of me because I cannot tell their height to within 2 inches? Or perhaps you instead mean to say, "jammonius automatically wins no matter what."

24th May 2012, 11:39 AM	#377
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by jammonius Take another look at the OP. I think the RDHall video serves mostly to undermine the radar data, showing that, in actuality, it tracks an aircraft that didn't hit the South Tower. An additional benefit of the RDHall video is that it has resulted in an open discussion, involving some self-proclaimed experts, who have conclusively shown that the 9/11 radar data literally couldn't find a jetliner in a hangar. You guys are lucky I don't play 'gotcha games' or else I could have had a field day. You agree? So radar data proving a plane hit the tower is now proof that a plane didn't hit the tower? Lol!
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

24th May 2012, 12:21 PM	#378
Dash80 Blitzkrieg Bop Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Home Sweet Home Posts: 1,558	Originally Posted by Redtail So radar data proving a plane hit the tower is now proof that a plane didn't hit the tower? Lol! It's hardly surprising is it? In Jammy world videos, eyewitnesses and physical evidence of planes "proves" no planes either.
	__________________ I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.

24th May 2012, 12:56 PM	#379
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,809	Originally Posted by jammonius BCR, ...You have succeeded in making use of 9/11 RADAR DATA utterly and totally inadmissible as evidence. You have shown all of us that radar data is too unreliable, too prone to error and too uncertain to pass muster as admissible evidence. ... You might have a point if all we had was the RADES data, and nothing else. Based on that RADES track, it would indeed not be possible to determine if the plane crashed into the South Tower, or crashed somewhere else in the financial district. (It would however be sufficient to establish with great likelihood that indeed a plane crashed into Manhattan!). What you conveniently disregarded is the matter of corroboration - we have the little issues of people seeing a plane crash into the South Tower, videos capturing the event, a plane-shaped hole in the wall, and parts of both plane and passengers strewn around mostly to the north, in the direction of the plane's momentum. That's a whole lot of corroboration. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of corroboration? By the way, I already talked about corroboration earlier today, and pointed out that BCR's claims enjoy a lot of corroboration - your claim (that of a stealth plane) none: Originally Posted by Oystein ... Now the problem with this seems to be that BCR has got not one but TWO civilian radar data sets, both from source, and both agree on presence and path of said object, and it all is corroborated with all of the other evidence, including, but not limited to, TV images, eye witness testimony, plane debris and human remains from UA 175 found in places consistent with a crash into the ST, and RADES radar. Your stealth plane however is not corroborated by anything at all - not even the RADES data, which, strangely, shows no plane north of the ST after the object apparently (and, face it, jam, really) slammed into the tower. Stealth planes, as has been pointed out several times already, are invisible (or nearly so) to radar - so RADED should not have picked up a good signal, but they are not invisible to human eyes and cameras. So it seems that your interpretation of the RADES data seems far-fetches and highly implausible. ... Perhaps you'll share with us your - perhaps professional? - opinion on "corroboration" in the arena of using evidence to establish the veracity of claims? That would be swell! Thanks!

24th May 2012, 01:33 PM	#380
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by Oystein That's a whole lot of corroboration. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of corroboration? I'm sure he is, which would explain his little game of "divide and conquer" with respect to evidence. Taken together, the available pieces of evidence point to an inescapable conclusion. If, however, he can split each piece of evidence off and show that it, alone, doesn't prove that planes impacted the towers, then he wins by erosion. Of course, that puts him in the very uncomfortable position of having to conjure up fanciful technology to explain away the strongest individual pieces of evidence (like actual video of the actual planes actually impacting the towers).

24th May 2012, 01:55 PM	#381
X Slide Rulez 4 Life Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Launching the army, waiting for Hok to commit her forces (then the moles strike...) Posts: 4,082	Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd Of course, that puts him in the very uncomfortable position of having to conjure up fanciful technology to explain away the strongest individual pieces of evidence (like actual video of the actual planes actually impacting the towers). Yes, but the fanciful technology has the advantage of not having any evidence to support it at all. Therefore there is nothing to split of and nitpick about. Which means it's more true. So there! I just proved that in no-planer world, no evidence is more proof than uncountable loads of evidence.
	__________________ It is sad that this is necessary: Argumentum Ad Hominem: "You are wrong because you are ugly." Not Ad-Hom: "You are wrong and you are ugly." [X's posts are] ...as good as having 24 hours of Justin Bieber piped into your ears! - kmortis

24th May 2012, 02:38 PM	#382
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Shall we move on? Greetings again, posters, lurkers and others, I gather it is time to move on to other elements in this thread, unless there are those who would still like to discuss the radar element. I think it fair to say that radar has been lost as an element that supports the common storyline of 9/11. If there are those who would like to rehabilitate the radar data, or hold onto it, then they can post away. Basically, the RDHall video turns out to have been a very good catalyst into the intricacies of radar, with the result being that radar is unreliable proof of the common storyline as it relates to Flights 175 and 11, in that order. Let me here say thank you to RDHall for the video. Splendid. Some recent posts have raised the issue of other elements of the common storyline of 9/11, presumably to say that there are other ways of proving what happened. Well, it is my view that were we to go through any other aspect of the common storyline, an outcome similar, but perhaps not identical, to the radar outcome would occur. Just by way of an offhand example, consider DNA. It is harder to get DNA evidence admitted than it is radar; and that for good reason. DNA proof is often unreliable because there is a high error rate brought on by a variety of factors, ranging from innocent technical mistakes, but mistakes nonetheless, to outright fraud. I don't know that it's fair to call this approach "divide and conquer' as one poster did. Each aspect of the 9/11 story has to be considered on its own merit. It is improper to "buttress" the weaknesses of one piece of evidence or one issue by claiming it (the type or piece of evidence that is improper) is supported by another. And that for good reason. Buttressing of improper evidence produces error. True, one type of evidence can support another type; but, each type has to be independently valid to be worthy of consideration. Blessings
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Last edited by jammonius; 24th May 2012 at 02:50 PM.

24th May 2012, 03:01 PM	#383
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,498	Originally Posted by jammonius Greetings again, posters, lurkers and others, I gather it is time to move on to other elements in this thread, unless there are those who would still like to discuss the radar element. I think it fair to say that radar has been lost as an element that supports the common storyline of 9/11. If there are those who would like to rehabilitate the radar data, or hold onto it, then they can post away. Basically, the RDHall video turns out to have been a very good catalyst into the intricacies of radar, with the result being that radar is unreliable proof of the common storyline as it relates to Flights 175 and 11, in that order. Let me here say thank you to RDHall for the video. Splendid. Some recent posts have raised the issue of other elements of the common storyline of 9/11, presumably to say that there are other ways of proving what happened. Well, it is my view that were we to go through any other aspect of the common storyline, an outcome similar, but perhaps not identical, to the radar outcome would occur. Just by way of an offhand example, consider DNA. It is harder to get DNA evidence admitted than it is radar; and that for good reason. DNA proof is often unreliable because there is a high error rate brought on by a variety of factors, ranging from innocent technical mistakes, but mistakes nonetheless, to outright fraud. I don't know that it's fair to call this approach "divide and conquer' as one poster did. Each aspect of the 9/11 story has to be considered on its own merit. It is improper to "buttress" the weaknesses of one piece of evidence or one issue by claiming it (the type or piece of evidence that is improper) is supported by another. And that for good reason. Buttressing of improper evidence produces error. True, one type of evidence can support another type; but, each type has to be independently valid to be worthy of consideration. Blessings I see, even though neither you nor RDHall have proven Radar as unreliable, especially in corroboration with other evidence, you are going to "Declare Victory" and run away to another topic. Is this Charlie Sheen "Winning", or George Bush "Victory"?
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

24th May 2012, 03:04 PM	#384
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,239	Originally Posted by jammonius Basically, the RDHall video turns out to have been a very good catalyst into the intricacies of radar, with the result being that radar is unreliable proof of the common storyline as it relates to Flights 175 and 11, in that order. Wrong bucko. In this case, ONE radar data population cited as evidence of a second plane was discredited. That ONE radar data population did not have the capability (accuracy) to support such a hypothesis. You omit that ANOTHER radar data was also cited as evidence of a plane hitting the WTC. The SECOND did have the capability (accuracy) to make that determination. We added yet a THIRD radar data population with the same capability (accuracy) to make that determination. And, the ONE radar data population, although not capable, did agree with the determination of the SECOND and THIRD radar populations. Quote: "It is documented in the Federal Aviation Technical Instruction Manual (TI 6310.24) that the MSP ASR-9 radar provides a range accuracy of 1/32 Nautical Miles and the azimuth accuracy is within .088 degrees." Both ASR's operated from a range of between 8 and 12 nautical miles from the impact zone. That means the worst case error was 0.018 nmi (112 feet). The footprint of the south tower was 208 feet square, and the complex even larger. So yeah, two of the radar data populations were capable of making that determination. You are now just being a cry-baby because you had your behind handed to you in a basket.
	__________________ "Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM Last edited by BCR; 24th May 2012 at 03:20 PM.

24th May 2012, 03:29 PM	#385
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	BCR, please consider "double checking" for accuracy Originally Posted by BCR Wrong bucko. In this case, ONE radar data population cited as evidence of a second plane was discredited. That ONE radar data population did not have the capability (accuracy) to support such a hypothesis. You omit that ANOTHER radar data was also cited as evidence of a plane hitting the WTC. The SECOND did have the capability (accuracy) to make that determination. We added yet a THIRD radar data population with the same capability (accuracy) to make that determination. And, the ONE radar data population, although not capable, did agree with the determination of the SECOND and THIRD radar populations. You are now just being a cry-baby because you had your behind handed to you in a basket. Greetings, BCR, Thank you for your quoted post. Perhaps it will result in consideration of other radar issues. I welcome that. Permit me to suggest you take a look at post # 346. There, you will see an image containing blocks or portions numbered 6 and 7 respectively. Each were prepared by Daniel Bower. Do you know him? In the one, he acknowledges the existence of radar error based on distance, etc. In the other he identifies the radar sources for the preparation of the flight path study that formed the basis for the path attributed to the NTSB. That is the second path, the one that corresponded to the video flight path of shadow thingy in the RDHall video. If you'll take a look at block 7 in post # 346, you'll see that it includes radar inputs from RADES that you have shown, and others agreed with you, was erroneous to a faretheewell, as in bye-bye radar as evidence. Furthermore, by including data from multiple sources, not just RADES, the flight path that confirms shadow thingy is fraught with multiple errors, with each component of error having a different degree or magnitude of error. At first glance, that might sound helpful. It isn't. In my opinion, it simply means that trying to blend and harmonize various degrees of error causes an even less reliable outcome than if only one data set with one calculated rate of error were used. Perhaps you disagreee? Perhaps you'll provide a formula for taking into consideration all the varying degrees of error involved and perhaps you'll come up with a calculation that the degree of error for the NTSB flight path is less than that of the RADES data? If so, all I can say is: ...May the odds be evah in your favah... The NTSB path used RADES data. Standing alone, that dooms that data as being unreliable. Thanks again for your post.
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674

24th May 2012, 03:34 PM	#386
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	Originally Posted by LSSBB I see, even though neither you nor RDHall have proven Radar as unreliable, especially in corroboration with other evidence, you are going to "Declare Victory" and run away to another topic. Is this Charlie Sheen "Winning", or George Bush "Victory"? Greetings, LSSBB, Please don't mix apples and oranges. I have already addressed the "corroboration" issue by calling it by its right name "buttressing." I have plainly said it is improper to buttress impermissible or unrelaible evidence with reliable evidence. You can use one type of evidence to support another. That is fine. But, each piece of evidence must be independently reliable to be considered. What you proposed, on its face, as I read what you posted, was use of unreliable evidence in the hope it could be supported by another type of evidence. If I have misunderstood you, please let me know. Blessings
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674

24th May 2012, 03:38 PM	#387
Dash80 Blitzkrieg Bop Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Home Sweet Home Posts: 1,558	Originally Posted by jammonius Greetings again, posters, lurkers and others, I gather it is time to move on to other elements in this thread, unless there are those who would still like to discuss the radar element. I think it fair to say that radar has been lost as an element that supports the common storyline of 9/11. If there are those who would like to rehabilitate the radar data, or hold onto it, then they can post away. Basically, the RDHall video turns out to have been a very good catalyst into the intricacies of radar, with the result being that radar is unreliable proof of the common storyline as it relates to Flights 175 and 11, in that order. Let me here say thank you to RDHall for the video. Splendid. Some recent posts have raised the issue of other elements of the common storyline of 9/11, presumably to say that there are other ways of proving what happened. Well, it is my view that were we to go through any other aspect of the common storyline, an outcome similar, but perhaps not identical, to the radar outcome would occur. Just by way of an offhand example, consider DNA. It is harder to get DNA evidence admitted than it is radar; and that for good reason. DNA proof is often unreliable because there is a high error rate brought on by a variety of factors, ranging from innocent technical mistakes, but mistakes nonetheless, to outright fraud. I don't know that it's fair to call this approach "divide and conquer' as one poster did. Each aspect of the 9/11 story has to be considered on its own merit. It is improper to "buttress" the weaknesses of one piece of evidence or one issue by claiming it (the type or piece of evidence that is improper) is supported by another. And that for good reason. Buttressing of improper evidence produces error. True, one type of evidence can support another type; but, each type has to be independently valid to be worthy of consideration. Blessings Is this the part where you piss on victims jammy? Another round of jammy's "I win!" game? Honestly it's like playing a board game with a four year old. No matter the outcome, they win. Why do you do this jammy? Why are you even here, what are you expecting to achieve exactly? Whatever it is ain't working!
	__________________ I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.

24th May 2012, 03:42 PM	#388
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674	I expect to show that the real can be distinguished from the unreal by thoughtful, respectful, non-accusatory and careful consideration of information.
jammonius Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,674

24th May 2012, 03:42 PM	#389
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,486	Originally Posted by Dash80 Is this the part where you piss on victims jammy? Another round of jammy's "I win!" game? Honestly it's like playing a board game with a four year old. No matter the outcome, they win. Why do you do this jammy? Why are you even here, what are you expecting to achieve exactly? Whatever it is ain't working! Jammonius, known as Jerry Leapheart in real life, is Judy Wood's attorney. He probably gets paid a lot of money, including royalties from the book sales.
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

24th May 2012, 03:43 PM	#390
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,239	Originally Posted by jammonius I expect to show that the real can be distinguished from the unreal by thoughtful, respectful and careful consideration of information. We did. You did not comprehend and what you want does not really matter. Everyone else does.
	__________________ "Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

24th May 2012, 03:59 PM	#391
Dash80 Blitzkrieg Bop Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Home Sweet Home Posts: 1,558	Originally Posted by Bell Jammonius, known as Jerry Leapheart in real life, is Judy Wood's attorney. He probably gets paid a lot of money, including royalties from the book sales. Ah, well atleast that is one consolation for constantly making a fool of himself.
	__________________ I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.

24th May 2012, 04:43 PM	#392
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,791	Originally Posted by BCR I think he answered that one at some point. If I understand it correctly (and that is a big if), the military plane projecting the hologram or controlling whatever it was could only be detected by civilian radar. The hologram or whatever it was could only be detected by military radar. I am not sure how that works since the same radar is fed into the RADES and FAA systems and monitored by both. I as well, am confused by this one. But that is my understanding of it. deleted on further consideration
	Last edited by tsig; 24th May 2012 at 04:50 PM.

24th May 2012, 04:50 PM	#393
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,498	Originally Posted by jammonius Greetings, LSSBB, Please don't mix apples and oranges. I have already addressed the "corroboration" issue by calling it by its right name "buttressing." I have plainly said it is improper to buttress impermissible or unrelaible evidence with reliable evidence. You can use one type of evidence to support another. That is fine. But, each piece of evidence must be independently reliable to be considered. What you proposed, on its face, as I read what you posted, was use of unreliable evidence in the hope it could be supported by another type of evidence. If I have misunderstood you, please let me know. Blessings From Merriam-Webster: Quote: Definition of BUTTRESS transitive verb : to furnish or shore up with a buttress; also : support, strengthen <arguments buttressed by solid facts> I like the "solid facts", very applicable. Your point? I see much that Supports and Strengthens the common narrative that planes hit WTC1 and WTC2, piloted by terrorists. I see nothing that Supports and Strengthens any proposed alternative.
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971) Last edited by LSSBB; 24th May 2012 at 06:14 PM.

24th May 2012, 04:53 PM	#394
LSSBB Devilish Dictionarian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: An elusive house at Bachelor's Grove Cemetery Posts: 4,498	Originally Posted by jammonius I expect to show that the real can be distinguished from the unreal by thoughtful, respectful, non-accusatory and careful consideration of information. Outstanding! When do you propose to start?
	__________________ "Things that never happened before happen all the time." (Scott Sagan, 1993) "Put down the Wite-Out and step away from the dictionary." (000063, 2012) "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." (John Kenneth Galbraith, 1971)

24th May 2012, 04:57 PM	#395
MIKILLINI Incromulent Logic Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Illini State Posts: 2,876	Originally Posted by The Dark Lord Let me see if I understand this. Two different radars from different locations had the plane on slightly different paths. Therefore, one of the radars showed a stealth plane which was projecting a hologram of a Boeing 767 and that hologram was picked up by the other radar. Never mind that the two radar paths are within the margin for error. Or that a stealth plane should not be picked up on radar. Or that even if this fantasy projected hologram was possible, it wouldn't be picked up on radar. Or why didn't people see the stealth plane. I didn't really read jammo's posts. But did I get this right? Is this really what he is arguing? And he wonders why people think he is crazy? I'm just skimming over them and have reached the same conclusion.
	__________________ Attempting to build a case without evidence is just another day spent with no use of common sense. The conspiracist is not merely illogical: he assaults logic.~ Pomeroo Sylvia Browne is not a medium, she's a mediocre.