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

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by jammonius

BCR,
Look, if that is your best shot then so be it. However, you have not tied the margin of error to the particular paths for either the NTSB track or the RADES track. Furthermore, and on a more fundamental level, what really are you trying to say?

Are you rendering the radar useless, are you changing the pathways indicated by the radar? Are you saying radar from the RADES system cannot reliably track an aircraft; or, more specifically, did not track alleged Flight 175? What?

Different Radar systems may have bias from each other. That's why tracks have to be correlated. You keep on ignoring this point for some reason. Why is that, Jammy, or is your answer "Whatevah", an interesting colloqial take on Robert Prey's "Baloney".

[jammonius]

Originally Posted by MarkLindeman

This assertion is incomprehensible. Two different radar can scarcely do otherwise than provide "two separate radar paths." That didn't require proof in the first place.

Now look who's assuming facts not in evidence. The NTSB data set is not properly sourced. What is noteworthy is that it tracks the path of the shadow thingy. Surprise, surprise. The perps of the 9/11 illusion are not dummies. Somethings will undoubtedly add up when put under some scrutiny. Of course, the 9/11 Commission did its job of not looking too deeply because had they done so they would probably have bumped into the radar anamolies, among the many, many other holes in the 9/11 story.

Mark, you do not have to accredit the RDH video. You've seen it. You've discussed it. You've apparently satisfied yourself that it does not challenge the common storyline. I assume, then, that you are breathing easier?

If so, good.

AS for me. I doubt you've heard the last of the RDH information. It will be put to use.

Quote:

Assumes facts not in evidence. You may be able to persuade me that you sincerely believe this, but you are manifestly unable to demonstrate it.

Well, that reply is a bit pedantic. We just did a 1000post thread on eyewitnesses, where one common thread among witnesses was that none heard a jetliner. The RDH video itself is a source for the lack of sound of a jetliner because it features the relevant portion of all 57 known videos, as compiled by NIST, and using NIST as the data source, thus making his informaiton admissible evidence.

So, you can act as if you do not need to address this information, but your acting is just that: An act.

Quote:

Needless to say, "the teevee projection" assumes facts not in evidence.

If it makes you comfortable to avoid the issue by using that tactic, who am I to complain.

I want you to feel good about your posting. I want you to be able to conclude you've got good reason to disregard the radar analysis done by RDH. We want healthy posters around here. Over the last couple days, a number have appeared on the verge of apoplexy over this thread. Some can't decide whether to look or not look, post or not post, sleep or stay up.

Sheesh

Please, Mark, whatevah you do, do not disrupt your sleep pattern over this thread. It's not worth it. Yes, 9/11 was an exercise in deception; and, no, Flight 175 did not smash into the South Tower. However, you needn't fret over it.

Quote:

"Two separate flight paths" is, at best, a semantic equivocation. If you can point to where anyone proposed to "erase" the RADES data, that would be helpful; otherwise, perhaps you could withdraw or clarify the statement.

Not withdrawn; no clarification deemed necessary.

Quote:

Nope, I won't tell you that. Of course, I can't prevent you from putting words in my mouth. And I don't feel any embarrassment about pointing out when you do. If you construe that as a "tactic," perhaps you need to think some more.

The above is about fallacies, right? I'll pass.

Quote:

jammonius, by now I think most of us have figured out that just because you reject something utterly doesn't make it "absolutely false." I can't tell whether you have.

There's room for disagreement, right?

Quote:

I pointed out long before BCR entered the thread that you haven't demonstrated that the difference between the RADES data and the civilian data is relevant to your conclusion. You still haven't. It was predictable that sooner or later, somebody would say something that you could construe as assuming your own burden of proof.* The fact remains that you haven't demonstrated the relevance of the RADES data. It's not for me to say whether that is a problem, but it certainly isn't my fault.

The claim is "I haven't demonstrated the relevance of the RADES data." Well, I'll be darn. I suppose next you'll claim I haven't even mentioned it, right?

Quote:

No part of that assertion, starting with the convoluted passive voice, makes sense.



Assumes facts not in evidence.



I think he has made a strong case that Flight 175 really hit the South Tower. To that extent, I agree with you.

---

*ETA: Where did you take on the burden of proof? I would say at the moment that you used the word "proof" in the thread title. I'm not demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'd like to see substantially more than 'Now, I'm not claiming to have proven that Kris Kringle is the one and only Santa Claus, but I can't help but notice that not a single debunker has presented an authoritative, publicly funded study that demonstrates otherwise -- and by the way, the truth is clear as day. So there. My, this has been a propitious post for the cause of truth!'

Not every block requires a detailed reply. After that one about "I haven't demonstrated the relevance of the RADES radar data" I thought it might be best to leave things at that.

It would appear that you have the capacity to see what you want to see.

[MarkLindeman]

Originally Posted by jammonius

Now look who's assuming facts not in evidence. The NTSB data set is not properly sourced.

As I already pointed out, you haven't demonstrated anything about the sourcing of either the civilian radar data or the military radar data.

Originally Posted by jammonius

What is noteworthy is that it tracks the path of the shadow thingy. Surprise, surprise. The perps of the 9/11 illusion are not dummies.

Well, they seem pretty stupid to me if they only thought to rig one data set. But, hey, whatevah. Your lack of a substantive response to BCR is noted.

Originally Posted by jammonius

I want you to feel good about your posting.

I want you to feel profoundly dissatisfied with your posts. You seem far too focused on discrediting people who confront you with unpleasant facts. It's sort of painful for me to watch.

[Dash80]

Jammy... You can't answer my questions?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jammonius

...
So, now you're out. You haven't done anything except create doubt about the usefulness of RADES data in a context where creating doubt about it is a perceived advantage for debunkers
...

This is FALSE, and the exact opposite is true:

BEFORE BCR's work and post, there was some confusion and doubt about the accuracy of the two different radar tracks. As Mark Lindemann pointed out, there was NO doubt that two different radar tracks would be just that: Two different radar tracks; we just couldn't quite assess how much different two radar tracks of the same object can be expected to be.

BCR, by posting facts and supporting them with linked sources, remouved that doubt and gave us a useful measure of certainty: Two radar tracks of the same object, in the given situation (RADES site being 66 nautical miles away) can be EXPECTED to be 1/4 nautical mile, or more, different from the close-by JFK radar site. This useful and accurate informatin now enables us to assess the two different paths and conmclude that they do in fact track the same object, with the normal an expected margin of error.

BSR stated his claims, and supported them with competent sources.


This in no way undermines the usefulness of radar for military purposes. No doubt the military is aware of the degree of accuracy of their radar tracks, and knows how to employ that information. If you want to make a claim that a margin of error of 1/4 mile renders radat useless, you must make that claim, and support it with evidence. Note that simply doubtung the usefulness must remain an incomplete claim if you donÄt specify what radar ought to be useful for, and what degree of accuracy you think is necessary for that purpose. Then, you need to provide accurate and sourced facts that show your claims to be true or at least plausible.

You have failed to make such claims, and failed to provide any sourced facts towards such claims.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by jammonius

BCR,
...
Are you rendering the radar useless, are you changing the pathways indicated by the radar? Are you saying radar from the RADES system cannot reliably track an aircraft; or, more specifically, did not track alleged Flight 175? What?
....
As is the case with transponders, for debunkers sometimes they need to have been switched off; others time back on; still others, back on for one but not the other three.
...
So, now you're out. You haven't done anything except create doubt about the usefulness of RADES data in a context where creating doubt about it is a perceived advantage for debunkers.
...
of whatever, BCR.

Wow, BCR schooled you on RADAR and you Flunked the final! All you had to do was read and ask a few questions and walk safely out of your delusional fantasy of insane claims and super stupid woo.

MODE 3 - Flight 175 terrorists for some reason changed MODE 3, this is actually a good way to piss off ATC, they hate it when you change or mess up your MODE 3 setting. The only thing worse would be stepping on other MODE 3 codes.

Your RADAR claims are debunked because Flight 175 used a MODE 3 code, and all the RADAR sites tracking 175, as it appears BCR tried to tell you, saw 175's unique MODE 3 code, even when they changed it!

Means you claims are busted before you started, and this INFORMATION is in the data you have, but you have no clue what MODE 3 is. They were also squawking MODE C. Means you could look at both sets of data and see correlation in altitude reporting.

You lost this argument when you started, but you have no clue why.

BTW, the RADARs are used by ATC to keep planes safe in the air, bet you have no clue how wide airways are or the rules on Altitude separation, yet you do fly don't you? These are the RADARs that are used when you fly; do you feel lucky? You will not understand flying and why the accuracies we are discussing work as they do, with great success. Flying is a difficult topic, yet simple. And we have not got to the KIAS, KCAS, KTAS, KEAS, etc, mph, NM, etc. DME, VORs, ADIs, VVI... Good luck.

You are buried so deep in nonsense, there does not seem much hope for you. For me, the discussion, despite your lies and insane claims, reminds me of how much I know, and how lacking I am in explain it. As a flight instructor I had to spend extra time making sure I was ready to explain flying properly - came in handy when I took my ATP (like a PhD for flying).

RDH's article is a big pile of dung, delusional poppycock only believed by someone who can't learn RADAR, math, and some physics.

[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?

[Dash80]

Yup that pretty much sums it up!

[jammonius]

Hello Oystein,

Hope you've been well.

Originally Posted by Oystein

This is FALSE, and the exact opposite is true:

BEFORE BCR's work and post, there was some confusion and doubt about the accuracy of the two different radar tracks. As Mark Lindemann pointed out, there was NO doubt that two different radar tracks would be just that: Two different radar tracks; we just couldn't quite assess how much different two radar tracks of the same object can be expected to be.

BCR, by posting facts and supporting them with linked sources, remouved that doubt and gave us a useful measure of certainty: Two radar tracks of the same object, in the given situation (RADES site being 66 nautical miles away) can be EXPECTED to be 1/4 nautical mile, or more, different from the close-by JFK radar site. This useful and accurate informatin now enables us to assess the two different paths and conmclude that they do in fact track the same object, with the normal an expected margin of error.

In the main, the above accredits BCR with a convincing deduction, consisting in relevant part in this statement:

"...RADES site being 66 nautical miles away) can be EXPECTED to be 1/4 nautical mile, or more, different from the close-by JFK radar site..."

The claim "can be expected" is, at most, a tentative deduction. And hey, it is well understood that in the world of debunkers, all it takes is a deduction and sometimes even less than that to enable many to rest easy.

So, debunkers, as you sit here today, do you really mean to fall all over yourselves with sighs of relief because BCR told you that RADES data "can be expected to..."?

If so, you are easily persuaded. The phrase "can be expected" could have been more concisely phrased as "maybe,maybe,maybe" or as "wish I may, wish I might..." or as "could have".

There is no analysis of factors tending to show what did happen; what did the radar show.

Before getting to the nitty gritty of the matter, BCR defeated himself in a game of chess and went to bed.

In one post, BCR posted up a poorly drawn map showing the divergent paths. But, the observational data that he relied on lacked scale and did not provide a visual image that was comprehensive enough to support his claim with respect to the issue at hand; namely, the divergence amounting to two separate flight paths derived from the RADES radar data and the NTSB whatevah data.

The mystery NTSB data matched the flight path, as observed, of shadow thingy; but the RADES radar data did not.

It is one thing to claim that something can be 1/4 nautical mile or more different, but it is quite another to relate that claim of expected difference to the observed data.

Quote:

BSR stated his claims, and supported them with competent sources.

It is incompetent not to have related his claim and/or sources to the observable information. It is up to debunkers to come to grips with the tentative nature of what BCR did and to go and figure out why they demand so little in the way of competent proof from debunkers, but, at the same time, declare themselves incapable of evah receiving enough proof of a contrary claim.

Here is an example of the RDH 3D datat that show with precision what the two divergent paths actually looked like when plotted in 3D:





You see posters, that graphical, observed information was not addressed by BCR. BCR's claim was one dimensional, or two, at best. He generalized that radar can, or can be expected, or maybe it will or maybe it won't, show a 1/4 nma discrepancy.

In the actual world of what was observed, it is much more than a matter of a possible distance variation. The paths actually traverse different lines, different angles and different turns.

What is seen is clearly not at all consistent with the over simplified declaration that BCR tried to get away with.

As in many instances in debunking, the tendency is to stake out a claim of expertise and superior knowledge, then foist upon us something that is obscure and only supported if you wade through an impossible amount of data. In this instance, BCR linked us to a 47GB source and then told us it was impossible to look at.

That is classical debunker obfuscation.

Quote:

This in no way undermines the usefulness of radar for military purposes. No doubt the military is aware of the degree of accuracy of their radar tracks, and knows how to employ that information. If you want to make a claim that a margin of error of 1/4 mile renders radat useless, you must make that claim, and support it with evidence. Note that simply doubtung the usefulness must remain an incomplete claim if you donÄt specify what radar ought to be useful for, and what degree of accuracy you think is necessary for that purpose. Then, you need to provide accurate and sourced facts that show your claims to be true or at least plausible.

You have failed to make such claims, and failed to provide any sourced facts towards such claims.

The excuses you are making for the error that was only expressed on a "could be expected" basis is, in my opinion, a form of boot-strapping. You appear to be lifting up a poorly sourced claim and making it seem stronger than it actually was.

But hey, I understand. If you need to hold fast to the debunker cause, then, by all means, do so.

Blessings

[jammonius]

Originally Posted by Dash80

Jammy... You can't answer my questions?

No, Dash, I cannot answer your questions. If, however, you want to make some claims about Flight 11,77,93,DEW this or DEW that, do so.

There have been other threads concerning the items you mention that I have participated in. I've taken posters to task over Flight 11 six ways to Sunday. I recall, for instance, showing Flight 93 didn't involve any plane crash at all in a lengthy thread. Same with DEW this and DEW that.

Flight 77 was obviously not a jetliner, so I've nevah felt it necessary to get all that exercised about that one. Only true believers can maintain the suspension of disbelief well enough to overcome the plain as day evidence no jetliner crashed into the Pentagon. And, as to such believers, it is pointless to engage them in discussion.

Blessings

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by jammonius

... Flight 77 was obviously not a jetliner, ...
Blessings

All but one passenger, DNA recovered on the course Flight 77 impacted the Pentagon at.
The FDR shows 77 impacting the Pentagon, the exact course it was on.
RADAR, which you don't understand, shows 5 RADAR sites tracking 77 to impact - gone. Murdered, and you make up lies about it, and say, "Blessings". Poor taste.

You spread lies on purpose, say "Blessings" to the god of lies, and ignore all who died at the Pentagon.

, your OP failed, all that is left, spread more lies.

Why do you lie about 911?

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by jammonius

No, Dash, I cannot answer your questions. If, however, you want to make some claims about Flight 11,77,93,DEW this or DEW that, do so.

There have been other threads concerning the items you mention that I have participated in. I've taken posters to task over Flight 11 six ways to Sunday. I recall, for instance, showing Flight 93 didn't involve any plane crash at all in a lengthy thread. Same with DEW this and DEW that.

Flight 77 was obviously not a jetliner, so I've nevah felt it necessary to get all that exercised about that one. Only true believers can maintain the suspension of disbelief well enough to overcome the plain as day evidence no jetliner crashed into the Pentagon. And, as to such believers, it is pointless to engage them in discussion.

Blessings

You Nevah took anyone to task. You can't even address why your OP is NOPE. You won't answer questions about the whole No-plane Observers vs. Hologram thing, you never proved any DEW or Hologram technology did anything you said, you won't address bias between radar systems. Face it, it all just adds up to blatant trollery. Affectations such as the -ah at the ends of words, "Blessings", its all an act, designed to incite.

There has to be an extra special circle of hell for Lawyer Trolls.

[Dash80]

Originally Posted by jammonius

No, Dash, I cannot answer your questions. If, however, you want to make some claims about Flight 11,77,93,DEW this or DEW that, do so.

There have been other threads concerning the items you mention that I have participated in. I've taken posters to task over Flight 11 six ways to Sunday. I recall, for instance, showing Flight 93 didn't involve any plane crash at all in a lengthy thread. Same with DEW this and DEW that.

Flight 77 was obviously not a jetliner, so I've nevah felt it necessary to get all that exercised about that one. Only true believers can maintain the suspension of disbelief well enough to overcome the plain as day evidence no jetliner crashed into the Pentagon. And, as to such believers, it is pointless to engage them in discussion.

Blessings

Oh boy...

None of this answers my questions.

It's all speculative waffle as usual.

If no plane hit the pentagon, what did?

People did see a plane hit, was this a hologram too? One that was capable of damaging lightpoles.

If no plane hit the pentagon what caused the damage?

Perfectly reasonable questions Jammy.

[beachnut]

In the video, Dr Judy Wood, doctor of woo (there is no d in woo, but there is woo in Dr Wood), says the wing tips of the plane going 590 mph can't damage the WTC facade. Wings made out of aluminum or carbon fiber composites? can they dent Aluminum cladding of the WTC? What a fraud. Video:15:26

The idiot who put the video together says, a Boeing 767 can't go fast enough. Flight 11 was exactly at Vd, the top dive speed, makes that part an Insane Lie. No reason a 767 can't go 590 mph at 700 feet, the engines are have lots of thrust near sea level. No truther has presented equations to show it is impossible to go 590 mph, let alone 590 mph in a steep decent like 175.

I took a KC-135 from 300 KIAS to past 355 KIAS in seconds with engines much weaker than a 767. I exceeded Vmo, where Balsamo puts the RED Structural Damage on his FAKE Vg diagram out of ignorance, and the plane flew better, smoother, faster, ... I knew I could damage the plane and slowed down. The 767 has over 100,000 pounds of thrust available at sea level, I only had 40 to 44,000 pounds.

When he implies the holographic plane leaves a RADAR path he proves his insanity. Got to love a holographic plane has a holographic flight path sound. The insanity of this video, non-stop madness. Like Gage's begging for dollars by spreading lies, there is a market for delusional nonsense.

The conspiracy here is http://www.richplanet.net/911.php, and you find this by following the money, as so many truthers tell us - WHO gains from this... http://www.richplanet.net/more.php Yes, RichPlanet.net is name, that might be a goal for the owner if RichPlanet; take money from idiots too stupid to figure out 911, RADAR, flying, etc.

A fraud, taking money from people who are idiots on 911.

... you can own the video for 8 pounds, delivered worldwide. Paypal...

The conspiracy is? Is jammonius getting paid to SPAM this nonsense?


Has to be one of the dumbest videos on 911, and it is using stuff from Jeff Hill, shure; who has moved on to the political side of 911 truth, where saying shoot down, is proof of stand-down.

There is only one truther, BCR, there can be only ONE!

[swright777]

I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet, but if multiple radars each saw only one plane then why are we looking for two? If they all tracked one plane at a time then there was one plane! There aren't two flight paths, there is one that was tracked slightly different by the radars.

Jammonious' posts are so convoluted that I can't read them. Here is a picture that describes every so called theory put forth by jammonious:

[BCR]

Originally Posted by beachnut

When he implies the holographic plane leaves a RADAR path he proves his insanity.

Makes perfect sense to me beachnut. I'll bet he could really make sense of this one. 5 different radars, 5 different paths. Surely at least 4 are them are holograms.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by swright777

I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet, but if multiple radars each saw only one plane then why are we looking for two? If they all tracked one plane at a time then there was one plane! There aren't two flight paths, there is one that was tracked slightly different by the radars.

Jammonious' posts are so convoluted that I can't read them. Here is a picture that describes every so called theory put forth by jammonious:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting...d8984a9e3d.jpg

Oh, it is more complicated than that. I've patiently waited for him to notice that we are now talking about 3 different paths. He has cited RADES versus the NTSB report based on EWR radar (closer than JFK). I've injected the JFK site data. I thought surely by now someone would have noticed. So which is the real plane? Do we now have 2 holograms and one plane? Or do we have 2 planes and one hologram? I am so confused

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by BCR

Makes perfect sense to me beachnut. I'll bet he could really make sense of this one. 5 different radars, 5 different paths. Surely at least 4 are them are holograms.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wo...2/05/aal77.jpg

Would AWACS be in-charge of all the holographic traffic? If you hit a hologram, do you die? A holographic death?

Ironic people don't understand the accuracy of RADAR, and jammonius seems confused why a target can be that far off. Think he was expecting a few feet or meters of accuracy from RADAR, and it must be confusing how RADAR can that far off yet we can land in poor visibility right on centerline. They are thinking about the wrong abstractions.

The MODE 3 is funny - I have not had time to go back and see what you said, I saw enough, checking for more.

Lucky jammonius is not KING and require all RADARS to be exact. Or will he understand RADAR and flight system have and will get more accurate as needed for operations, maybe not a good thing, but for profit, hopefully safety too.

He is avoiding Flight 77. Now you did it. When he sees all those RADAR tracks! Wait till he adds the C-130, there will be 5.

The video author and jammonius both spent zero time learning flying and RADAR, and make nonsensical claims. There is a market for this crazy junk, and the website is selling junk.

[swright777]

Originally Posted by BCR

Oh, it is more complicated than that. I've patiently waited for him to notice that we are now talking about 3 different paths. He has cited RADES versus the NTSB report based on EWR radar (closer than JFK). I've injected the JFK site data. I thought surely by now someone would have noticed. So which is the real plane? Do we now have 2 holograms and one plane? Or do we have 2 planes and one hologram? I am so confused

I noticed. That's why I wrote multiple radars and not two radars.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by beachnut

The MODE 3 is funny - I have not had time to go back and see what you said, I saw enough, checking for more.

Yeah, I appreciate you being gentle with me on that one. I actually meant Mode C data, not Mode 3. Was running on fumes when I wrote that. Thanks for the save.

[BCR]

By the way, since I only addressed the JFK ASR in my paper and the NTSB used the EWR data, I thought it might be useful to provide the ERIT data used for their path projection. Personally I have no interest in plotting it, but any of you are welcome to convert the data to lat/long coordinates and plot them for comparison with the JFK and RADES.

EWR UAL175 ERIT

Again, the reason I have my paper online is so others can do this stuff for themselves. Happy data mining!

[jammonius]

Beachnut

I won't expect an apology like that you offered up to Mark, but that's ok. Let's see if we can undo some of the damage you've caused.

Originally Posted by beachnut

In the video, Dr Judy Wood, doctor of woo (there is no d in woo, but there is woo in Dr Wood), says the wing tips of the plane going 590 mph can't damage the WTC facade. Wings made out of aluminum or carbon fiber composites? can they dent Aluminum cladding of the WTC? What a fraud. Video:15:26

The Twin Towers did not consist only of aluminum cladding. The towers used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns. The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates.

This is what they looked like:

Quote:

The idiot who put the video together says, a Boeing 767 can't go fast enough. Flight 11 was exactly at Vd, the top dive speed, makes that part an Insane Lie. No reason a 767 can't go 590 mph at 700 feet, the engines are have lots of thrust near sea level. No truther has presented equations to show it is impossible to go 590 mph, let alone 590 mph in a steep decent like 175.

I took a KC-135 from 300 KIAS to past 355 KIAS in seconds with engines much weaker than a 767. I exceeded Vmo, where Balsamo puts the RED Structural Damage on his FAKE Vg diagram out of ignorance, and the plane flew better, smoother, faster, ... I knew I could damage the plane and slowed down. The 767 has over 100,000 pounds of thrust available at sea level, I only had 40 to 44,000 pounds.

As a debunker, you are no doubt committed to a belief in impossible things, including flying a Boeing 767 at 500+ mph and hitting an object 208ft in width.

Of course, for all of those of you who pride yourselves on being expert pilots; apparently you engage in too much praise. Afterall, the Muslim hijackers that your story depends on had only trained, unsuccessfully for the most part, to fly single-engine, piston puddle jumpers. Yet, when it came time, they expertly exceeded the speed capability of a 767; or, at a minimum, made it go faster than most thought possible, after successfully navigating it from cruising altitude to an over the horizon location.

If it's that easy, why do pilots brag so much about how sophisticated they are?

Of course, this really isn't all that mind-boggling, is it. In actuality, the common storyline is based on impossibilities from one of it to the other, could more debunkers stop fooling themselves and realize it.

Quote:

When he implies the holographic plane leaves a RADAR path he proves his insanity. Got to love a holographic plane has a holographic flight path sound. The insanity of this video, non-stop madness. Like Gage's begging for dollars by spreading lies, there is a market for delusional nonsense.

You missed the point entirely. Surprise (not). The point is radar did not detect a hologram. Radar detected the actual flight of whatever plane might have been there; that is to say, the stealth one that flew by the tower. What hit the tower and before that what corresponded to the flight path was the image.

I will continue to post more on the radar data relied on by Bower, and elaborated on by RDHall in his video in due course. There is much to say about the subject.

Quote:

The conspiracy here is http://www.richplanet.net/911.php, and you find this by following the money, as so many truthers tell us - WHO gains from this... http://www.richplanet.net/more.php Yes, RichPlanet.net is name, that might be a goal for the owner if RichPlanet; take money from idiots too stupid to figure out 911, RADAR, flying, etc.

A fraud, taking money from people who are idiots on 911.

... you can own the video for 8 pounds, delivered worldwide. Paypal...

The conspiracy is? Is jammonius getting paid to SPAM this nonsense?


Has to be one of the dumbest videos on 911, and it is using stuff from Jeff Hill, shure; who has moved on to the political side of 911 truth, where saying shoot down, is proof of stand-down.

There is only one truther, BCR, there can be only ONE!

Did you enjoy that rant?

[Humanzee]

erm..which radar return detected 'whatever plane might have been there' are you choosing as real? You have more than one. How do you know which? Preferential selection? Biased hunch? BS?

[jammonius]

Originally Posted by BCR

Makes perfect sense to me beachnut. I'll bet he could really make sense of this one. 5 different radars, 5 different paths. Surely at least 4 are them are holograms.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wo...2/05/aal77.jpg

The above post and the graphic it uses is unfortunate. It obscures and obfuscates. It has nothing whatever to do with adding clarity to this thread. It would appear to be an intentional undermining of the ability properly to assess the information put forward by RDHall.

One thing that I think merits closer attention are the data said to have been relied on by John Bower, the person who prepared the underlying report attributed to the NTSB.

I have already addressed this somewhat back in post # 180.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=180

There, I posted up the map and the hand drawn radar data that Bower used to construct the path of shadow thingy into the South Tower. A point of significance that some have overlooked is that the hand drawn data and map result in a path that matches shadow thingy.

However, the problem is that the underlying data were not made available by Bower. Furthermore, those data are suspect as no one has evah been able to ascertain whether the data inputs were a part of the military exercises taking place that day.

The lack of explanation of what exactly was involved in the military exercises, beyond the disclosure they involved simulation of hijacking of aircraft and of crashing them into buildings simply has not been addressed.

The 9/11 Commission failed to unravel it. Maj Gen Larry Arnold, who was ostensibily in charge of the exercises kept his mouth shut for the most part; and, when he opened it during his interview with the Commission, he simply lied.

He was one of those who was considered for indictment; but, in the event, the whole thing was swept under the rug by passing the information along to the Pentagon and to the DOT OIG with a request that they investigate. Yeah, right.

So, the puny data upon which the actual flight path that the shadow thingy was seen to take consists in two pieces of information:





Now, the fact that the RADES data contradict the path derived from the above depicted pieces of information has been put into its proper context.

BCR, your attempt at obfuscation, that continues with the post to which this replies, will not succeed.

[MIKILLINI]

[quote=jammonius;8312505
Flight 77 was obviously not a jetliner, so I've nevah felt it necessary to get all that exercised about that one. Only true believers can maintain the suspension of disbelief well enough to overcome the plain as day evidence no jetliner crashed into the Pentagon. And, as to such believers, it is pointless to engage them in discussion.

Blessings[/QUOTE]

So you ignore evidence; I'm not surprised.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by jammonius

The above post and the graphic it uses is unfortunate. It obscures and obfuscates. It has nothing whatever to do with adding clarity to this thread. It would appear to be an intentional undermining of the ability properly to assess the information put forward by RDHall.

One thing that I think merits closer attention are the data said to have been relied on by John Bower, the person who prepared the underlying report attributed to the NTSB.

I have already addressed this somewhat back in post # 180.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=180

There, I posted up the map and the hand drawn radar data that Bower used to construct the path of shadow thingy into the South Tower. A point of significance that some have overlooked is that the hand drawn data and map result in a path that matches shadow thingy.

However, the problem is that the underlying data were not made available by Bower. Furthermore, those data are suspect as no one has evah been able to ascertain whether the data inputs were a part of the military exercises taking place that day.

The lack of explanation of what exactly was involved in the military exercises, beyond the disclosure they involved simulation of hijacking of aircraft and of crashing them into buildings simply has not been addressed.

The 9/11 Commission failed to unravel it. Maj Gen Larry Arnold, who was ostensibily in charge of the exercises kept his mouth shut for the most part; and, when he opened it during his interview with the Commission, he simply lied.

He was one of those who was considered for indictment; but, in the event, the whole thing was swept under the rug by passing the information along to the Pentagon and to the DOT OIG with a request that they investigate. Yeah, right.

So, the puny data upon which the actual flight path that the shadow thingy was seen to take consists in two pieces of information:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/...ellowboxes.jpg

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/...75ntsbfig2.jpg

Now, the fact that the RADES data contradict the path derived from the above depicted pieces of information has been put into its proper context.

BCR, your attempt at obfuscation, that continues with the post to which this replies, will not succeed.

Is this like SPAMming your thread, and debunks the crazy claims again? You are doing a paraody, right?

The RADES data proves it was 175, and the MODE 3 is the same as all the other RADAR sites. Same plane with real people, you deny they existed, you deny they were murdered by 19 terrorists.

How many RADAR sites have we seen for 175, is it 3 or 4 now? Have you kept up with your failure rate?

Have you retracted the GPS lie yet? Where did you get the GPS lie from? RD Hall spreads lies, a fraud, selling lies, makes money from gullible people. You were fooled by a fraud, with incredibly failed claims.

The military exercises on 911 had nothing to do with the WTC; you are spreading more lies. You called the NTSB liars.

You debunked yourself. BCR debunked you too.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wo...al175-erit.pdf

Another RADAR set from Flight 175, your failure is growing. Over 3 RADAR sites show 175 arrive at the WTC at the time of impact, at the correct altitude. It would help if you understood math, MODE 3, Mode C, RADAR, and logic. What is the next paranoid claim. A rant about military exercises, a rant about NTSB; what is next?

[cjnewson88]

more jammonius arguments from utter ignorance.

Some leaving hints;
- f=ma
- there is no such thing as total invisibility
- there is no such thing as life sized 767 holigrams
- there is no such thing as orbital invisible death star energy weapons
- there is no such thing as evidence which supports anything you support.

The only real thing here is that you are living in imagination land. Time to wake up Alice.

and on ignore you go.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by BCR

Holograms don't have transponders for the radar signal to poll.

What, not even military holograms?

Dave

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This seems appropriate:

[MIKILLINI]

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

This seems appropriate:

http://images.cl1mh4224rd.com/jref/the-evidence-v2.gif

This is appropriate.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by jammonius

As a debunker, you are no doubt committed to a belief in impossible things, including flying a Boeing 767 at 500+ mph and hitting an object 208ft in width.

Of course, for all of those of you who pride yourselves on being expert pilots; apparently you engage in too much praise. Afterall, the Muslim hijackers that your story depends on had only trained, unsuccessfully for the most part, to fly single-engine, piston puddle jumpers. Yet, when it came time, they expertly exceeded the speed capability of a 767; or, at a minimum, made it go faster than most thought possible, after successfully navigating it from cruising altitude to an over the horizon location.

If it's that easy, why do pilots brag so much about how sophisticated they are?

Of course, this really isn't all that mind-boggling, is it. In actuality, the common storyline is based on impossibilities from one of it to the other, could more debunkers stop fooling themselves and realize it.

Mother of god.

BCR has handed you your ass in this thread, effortlessly demonstrating that you haven't a clue about what you're talking about, now you want to tell a pilot about flying?

Absolutely priceless.

I'm no expert at all but I believe most of the forum's aviation experts would agree it doesn't take any extraordinary skill to crash a plane. But don't take my word for it. Please, do continue.

[BCR]

Okay, I am bored tonight and since I do have my workbook set up for the JFK data already, I might as well set up the EWR data as well. I just transcribed the EWR into a workable format. Thought I would post it for verification. Kind of a "show your work" sort of thing. Now to convert to lat/long.

Time Range (untranslated) ACP Altitude
13:00:04.4 14 37 2595 16800
13:00:09.0 13 63 2590 16200
13:00:13.6 13 24 2584 15900
13:00:18.2 12 49 2577 15500
13:00:22.8 12 10 2568 15200
13:00:27.5 11 37 2560 14900
13:00:32.1 10 62 2550 14400
13:00:36.6 10 24 2539 13700
13:00:41.3 9 48 2526 13000
13:00:45.8 9 9 2512 12500
13:00:50.5 8 33 2496 12100
13:00:55.0 7 60 2475 11700
13:00:59.6 7 22 2451 11200
13:01:04.2 6 50 2421 10800
13:01:08.8 6 14 2385 10400
13:01:13.4 5 45 2342 10100
13:01:17.9 5 15 2290 9700
13:01:22.4 4 51 2227 9300
13:01:27.0 4 26 2152 8900
13:01:31.5 4 5 2063 8500
13:01:36.0 3 53 1961 8000
13:01:40.5 3 43 1847 7600
13:01:45.0 3 40 1728 7200
13:01:49.5 3 46 1614 7000
13:01:54.0 3 57 1509 6700
13:01:58.5 4 8 1417 6200
13:02:03.0 4 28 1337 5600
13:02:07.6 4 51 1267 5000
13:02:12.1 5 13 1208 4500
13:02:16.7 5 41 1157 4000
13:02:21.2 6 7 1114 3200
13:02:25.8 6 38 1078 2400
13:02:30.4 7 8 1045 1700
13:02:35.0 7 42 1017 1200
13:02:39.6 8 12 989 1000

Whoops: When I did my scatter for a comparison with JFK, I found one typo in the range values (bolded corrected value above).

[BCR]

Lat/Long positional data calculated and checked against the JFK data for sanity.

Time Range (untranslated) ACP Altitude Range (Decimal) Range (Alt Adjusted) Azimuth Lat Long
13:00:04.4 14 37 2595 16800 14.58 14.31 215.1 40.47785089 -74.36597431
13:00:09.0 13 63 2590 16200 13.98 13.73 214.6 40.48485027 -74.35672478
13:00:13.6 13 24 2584 15900 13.38 13.12 214.1 40.4921117 -74.34694454
13:00:18.2 12 49 2577 15500 12.77 12.51 213.5 40.49927492 -74.33703812
13:00:22.8 12 10 2568 15200 12.16 11.90 212.7 40.50630061 -74.326634
13:00:27.5 11 37 2560 14900 11.58 11.32 212.0 40.51321616 -74.31719992
13:00:32.1 10 62 2550 14400 10.97 10.71 211.1 40.52035647 -74.30710651
13:00:36.6 10 24 2539 13700 10.38 10.13 210.2 40.52722791 -74.29729222
13:00:41.3 9 48 2526 13000 9.75 9.51 209.0 40.53453494 -74.28691571
13:00:45.8 9 9 2512 12500 9.14 8.91 207.8 40.54186362 -74.27678835
13:00:50.5 8 33 2496 12100 8.52 8.28 206.4 40.54956932 -74.26642411
13:00:55.0 7 60 2475 11700 7.94 7.70 204.5 40.55644664 -74.25587568
13:00:59.6 7 22 2451 11200 7.34 7.11 202.4 40.56368745 -74.2452275
13:01:04.2 6 50 2421 10800 6.78 6.54 199.8 40.57058275 -74.23434567
13:01:08.8 6 14 2385 10400 6.22 5.98 196.6 40.57773858 -74.22326872
13:01:13.4 5 45 2342 10100 5.70 5.46 192.8 40.58457038 -74.21235319
13:01:17.9 5 15 2290 9700 5.23 4.98 188.3 40.5910046 -74.20148346
13:01:22.4 4 51 2227 9300 4.80 4.55 182.7 40.59754216 -74.19050406
13:01:27.0 4 26 2152 8900 4.41 4.16 176.1 40.60412083 -74.17960677
13:01:31.5 4 5 2063 8500 4.08 3.83 168.3 40.61070141 -74.16871892
13:01:36.0 3 53 1961 8000 3.83 3.59 159.4 40.61715972 -74.15791815
13:01:40.5 3 43 1847 7600 3.67 3.45 149.3 40.62372709 -74.14708282
13:01:45.0 3 40 1728 7200 3.63 3.43 138.9 40.63020417 -74.13626498
13:01:49.5 3 46 1614 7000 3.72 3.54 128.9 40.63623902 -74.12527387
13:01:54.0 3 57 1509 6700 3.89 3.73 119.6 40.64246194 -74.11450846
13:01:58.5 4 8 1417 6200 4.13 4.00 111.5 40.64873798 -74.10408185
13:02:03.0 4 28 1337 5600 4.44 4.34 104.5 40.6550624 -74.09342703
13:02:07.6 4 51 1267 5000 4.80 4.73 98.4 40.66173148 -74.08301899
13:02:12.1 5 13 1208 4500 5.20 5.15 93.2 40.66842051 -74.07275421
13:02:16.7 5 41 1157 4000 5.64 5.60 88.7 40.67529511 -74.06266991
13:02:21.2 6 7 1114 3200 6.11 6.09 84.9 40.68214829 -74.05250301
13:02:25.8 6 38 1078 2400 6.59 6.58 81.7 40.68888491 -74.04257433
13:02:30.4 7 8 1045 1700 7.13 7.12 78.8 40.696078 -74.03219884
13:02:35.0 7 42 1017 1200 7.66 7.65 76.4 40.70313776 -74.02221011
13:02:39.6 8 12 989 1000 8.19 8.19 73.9 40.71087575 -74.01280002

[BCR]

And for those of you who wish to follow along, here is the JFK data for the same period.

Time Range (untranslated) ACP Altitude Range (Decimal) Range (Alt Adjusted) Azimuth Lat Long

13:00:01.7 29 34 2996 17100 29.53 29.40 250.3 40.47297124 -74.37286419
13:00:06.3 28 63 3001 16500 28.98 28.86 250.8 40.47952924 -74.3633987
13:00:11.0 28 26 3008 16000 28.41 28.28 251.4 40.48751325 -74.35377464
13:00:15.6 27 54 3013 15700 27.84 27.72 251.8 40.49390943 -74.3436646
13:00:20.2 27 18 3020 15400 27.28 27.16 252.4 40.50149831 -74.33402406
13:00:24.8 26 46 3026 15100 26.72 26.60 253.0 40.50826251 -74.32396786
13:00:29.4 26 10 3033 14700 26.16 26.04 253.6 40.51550295 -74.3140806
13:00:34.1 25 38 3039 14100 25.59 25.49 254.1 40.52192579 -74.30387638
13:00:38.7 25 1 3047 13400 25.02 24.92 254.8 40.52948575 -74.29371143
13:00:43.3 24 28 3054 12800 24.44 24.35 255.4 40.53624205 -74.28313887
13:00:48.0 23 56 3063 12300 23.88 23.79 256.2 40.5439325 -74.2731298
13:00:52.6 23 19 3072 11900 23.30 23.21 257.0 40.55145743 -74.26257438
13:00:57.2 22 47 3082 11500 22.73 22.66 257.9 40.55924997 -74.25234224
13:01:01.9 22 10 3091 11000 22.16 22.08 258.7 40.56627646 -74.24145492
13:01:06.4 21 36 3099 10600 21.56 21.49 259.4 40.57257159 -74.22990056
13:01:11.1 21 0 3109 10200 21.00 20.93 260.3 40.57959968 -74.21913866
13:01:15.7 20 28 3120 9900 20.44 20.37 261.2 40.58687744 -74.20828226
13:01:20.3 19 56 3130 9500 19.88 19.81 262.1 40.59335367 -74.19716631
13:01:25.0 19 20 3142 9100 19.31 19.25 263.2 40.60053374 -74.18605558
13:01:29.6 18 49 3153 8700 18.77 18.71 264.1 40.60688266 -74.17501893
13:01:34.2 18 14 3166 8200 18.22 18.17 265.3 40.61385969 -74.16395552
13:01:38.8 17 43 3179 7700 17.67 17.63 266.4 40.62048722 -74.15268834
13:01:43.5 17 9 3192 7300 17.14 17.10 267.5 40.62675052 -74.1415496
13:01:48.1 16 39 3206 7100 16.61 16.57 268.8 40.63309206 -74.13020125
13:01:52.8 16 6 3222 6800 16.09 16.05 270.2 40.63987612 -74.11904222
13:01:57.4 15 38 3238 6300 15.59 15.56 271.6 40.64624633 -74.10806075
13:02:02.1 15 7 3255 5700 15.11 15.08 273.1 40.65260494 -74.09722191
13:02:06.7 14 42 3274 5100 14.66 14.63 274.8 40.65932341 -74.08678569
13:02:11.3 14 14 3295 4600 14.22 14.20 276.6 40.66633832 -74.07633034
13:02:16.0 13 51 3317 4100 13.80 13.78 278.5 40.67324774 -74.06588739
13:02:20.6 13 25 3340 3300 13.39 13.38 280.6 40.68004131 -74.05548777
13:02:25.2 13 1 3364 2500 13.02 13.01 282.7 40.68675355 -74.04539325
13:02:29.9 12 42 3390 1800 12.66 12.65 284.9 40.69364284 -74.03513262
13:02:34.5 12 21 3429 1300 12.33 12.33 288.4 40.70403773 -74.02359091
13:02:39.2 12 4 3452 1000 12.06 12.06 290.4 40.70935453 -74.01497851

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jammonius

Hello Oystein,

Hope you've been well.

Yep, thanks. I have indeed been well - until I read your inept, and undoubtedly malevolent and deliberately distorted post.

Originally Posted by jammonius

...
If so, you are easily persuaded. The phrase "can be expected" could have been more concisely phrased as "maybe,maybe,maybe" or as "wish I may, wish I might..." or as "could have".
...

Nope. You clearly do not understand the meaning of simple English words in proper technical use.

Everybody here except you understands (and in your case, I suspect you understand, too, but feign stupidity) what it means if measured data can be expected to be off true values by a certain margin. It means if two independent measurements of the same object are taken, and both measurements yield results whose difference lies within that expected margin of error, then no difference in true values can be construed from these measurements.

In other words: Both tracks measure the same object, within the expected margin of error.



Consider this:

Maybe your car has a GPS-based navigation system? Then perhaps you are aware that these systems typically determine your position only with an accuracy of somewhere between 5 and 15 meters, due to several reasons. One important being ionospheric effects on the GPS signals, which are smaller if the satellites you are using are directly overhead, and larger if they are near the horizon.

Now suppose you have a second navigation system that is not based on the American GPS system, but instead polls the Russian GLONASS satellites, which has a similar margin of error.

Suppose further that at this very moment, you are lucky to have several GPS satellites high in the sky, but unlucky to have your GLONASS satellites all low towards the north. Then the GPS receiver will give your position rather accurately and dermine that you are actually driving on the road, while the GLONASS receiver, hampered by a systematic error source that gives it an expected inaccuracy of 15 meters, determines that you are driving off the road.

Plot the GPS- and GLONASS paths. They will look very much like radar plots you and BCR have presented, in that both paths appear to run next to each other, with one showing you off road, and also both wobbling to some lesser degree around their respective mean paths due to further random errors.

Note that BOTH may be incorrect! It is a distinct possibility that one would "see" you off the road on the left, and the other off the road on the right! (And note that these inaccuracies also apply to hight - so one plot may "see" you flying above the road and the other underground).

Now, your actual navigation system always shows you on the road, doesn't it? Well, mostly. Sometimes, when you pull off the street, the system may still show you on the road, and at other times, when you start off the road (perhaps from your private premises) it may take a few seconds for the system to realize when you have entered the road. What happens there? Well, the system has maps and "knows" where the roads are, and assumes that you are probably driving on a road, so whenever it sees you off the road, but there is a road close by, it corrects the measurement error automatically. See, that's how real-world navigation systems properly deal with margin of error: They "know" how wrong they can be, and use that information.

The important point here is: Claiming that GPS has a margin of error so large that it often measures your position off of the road your on is not akin to stating its usefulness is in question!


In the case of planes and radar, there are no roads, but flight control has other means of determining where a particular plane ought to be at any time, and so if radar picks up a return within, say, half a mile of a flight path, the system knows it has the right plane and, implicitly, corrects itself when tracking that plane.


In the case given, both the JFK radar and RADES pick up the same plane. One is more accurate than the other, for simple reasons aptly expained and sourced by BCR and easily understood by everyone except you, while the other appears to exhibit a systematic error well within the expected margin of error, which makes the plane appear to be on a course to miss the WTC (it seems to fly "off the road"). But this mistake can easily be correct by using other, more accurate information. In this case: We KNOW where that plane was headed, and the RADES data corroborates its path and final destination.

The important point here is: Claiming that radar has a margin of error so large that it often measures a plane's position off of its actual path is not akin to stating its usefulness is in question!




Oh, one remark: The RADES data has the feature of also ending in Manhattan - whatever object it picked up must have landed or crashed there at 9:03 am. Where did it go, jammo?

[BCR]

Here is a GE plot. Anyone wanting the kmz file, send me an email (spcengineer2003@yahoo.com) and I'll send it to you. Although both ASR paths are quite similar, there is definitely a little variation between them (as expected). So which o cone is right? EWR is in yellow, JFK in red.



I did learn something however. The plot the NTSB and jammo is posting is based on the JFK data, NOT the EWR data! So here the bozo's are using a plot based on one set of data and graphs based on a completely different set of data. Oh boy, it gets better as we peel back the layers

[Oystein]

One more on holograms.

As I said earlier, a hologram is basically a pattern of closely spaced opaque and transparent regions within a medium. That medium traditionally is a photographic film, but could, in principle, be a lot of other materials, as long as you have transparent and opaque bits.

A hologram creates the illusion of a 3-dimensional object (an "image") by diffracting light from a light source such that rays from different areas on the hologram's surface appear to emenate from a point behind or in front of the hologram.

The important thing here is that, even though a holografic image that we think is behind the hologram may appear to be larger than the hologram itself, this isn't so: Each ray of light that you see comes from the hologram, so if a hologram directly in front of you occupies, say, 30° of your field of view, the image that it shows cannot occupy more than these 30° of your field of view. It is pretty much like looking through a window frame: As you move your head about, the hologram may display parts of a scene that appeared outside the field of view before, but at all times, all of the image is seen inside the frame.

Two people standing more to the left and more to the right looking at a hologram will see different parts of the scene, and there may be no overlap - just what people experience when they look out of the same window, but one stands to left, and the other to the right of the window.


This means, for any holografic "projection" of a plane flying towards the WTC, in order for people from all sides (Brooklyn as well as Hoboken, for example) to see the full image of a plane:

• the hologram has to be larger (wide and high) then the plane
• for the image to move at an apparent speed of 240 m/s, the hologram has to either move at this speed, or it has to occupy the entire length of the visible flight path

At this point, the entire idea would become ridiculous, if it hadn't been already. You need a physical object - a medium with the optical properties of being in part opaque, in part transparent - that is at least as large as a plane, either hovering over a lenght of many miles, or flying at the speed of a plane, and all this in super secret stealth technology, to project in real time a 3D image in a way that is another super secret technology. When instead you could just fly a plane to get the same effect.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by jammonius

Beachnut

I won't expect an apology like that you offered up to Mark, but that's ok. Let's see if we can undo some of the damage you've caused.

I had to apologize to Mark because the comment/post was for you. I was working on cleaning the house, our second 200 pounds of junk to the dump, yard work, and setting up our Goodwill donations - I formed my post while working, on break I accidentally picked Mark's post (like a visual illusion, some key words were present... error) thinking it was yours. Lucky the lawn work did not look like a post to your nonsense, and the insane claims you found from Hall.

Originally Posted by jammonius

... The Twin Towers did not consist only of aluminum cladding.

The part the wingtips of the 767 left a big dent in were aluminum cladding. You should think before you support a nut like Judy Wood who claims to be an engineer and should know physics and would know a 590 mph wing in perfect condition, would leave big marks in the Al cladding at the wing tip. Aircraft are not fragile, they are strong where it counts. The silly crash the idiotic video shows a plane falling apart on landing, you fail to realize the plane was in landing configuration, not a head on impact, the way a plane flies and survives at 550 KTAS. Your knowledge on physics, flying, and material science make it impossible for you to understand Judy Wood makes insane claims, pure nonsense.


Wow, I studied the WTC long before you did, and I understand why a 767 at 470 mph and 590 mph entered the building, and my understanding is confirmed by the chief structural engineer. You posted stuff you don't understand, and posted photos I have studied for years before you made up fantasies about 911.

Originally Posted by jammonius

As a debunker, you are no doubt committed to a belief in impossible things, including flying a Boeing 767 at 500+ mph and hitting an object 208ft in width.

I flew Boeing Jets, I have over 4,000 hours flying heavy jets. I have flown over Vmo at 500 feet MSL, I have fellow pilots who accidentally flew way over Vmo and only suffered minor skin delamination. I flew a Jet with only 40 to 44,000 pounds of thrust and easily exceeded Vmo 355 KIAS in seconds! The plane flew better, smoother, under control. Not a big surprise since the jet I flew was flown at flight test to .95 MACH, and I flew it up to .9 MACH for hours to meet operational requirements.

THE planes on 911, the 767s had 100,000 pounds or more thrust at sea level! The engine have their maximum thrust at sea level, and nothing but total failure or engine limits would stop the 767 from passing speeds past 590 mph, and everyone should be happy the 767 has extra strength at sea level to make speeds as high as 515 KIAS, past the 350 knots Vmo.

BTW, Flight 11 never exceeded Vd, a flight tested speed - your impossible speed for 11 is a big lie. And as seen by 175, your are spreading lies about impossible speed, and you are unable to show the math, the equations proving it is impossible. All you have is lies, trash talk! Failure.

The old hitting a 207 foot object scam - a 911 truth claim from the bag of ignorance on flight issued by Balsamo.
Why is hitting a 207 foot object hard? Wow, maybe this is why Hani, who could not line up properly on a 40 foot wide runway in a small plane got the 900 foot wide Pentagon. Do you pay attention? Wait, you lie and ignore reality and say not plane at the Pentagon, laughing away the murder of those on Flight 77.
You are so funny.
Pilots learn to line up and aim at a target on the runway, flair and land. They have to be on a single course, at a correct airspeed, and in a the correct landing attitude for an instructor to let you land. If you are outside the limits, you are not allowed to land, or crash. Landing is not a head on event, it occurs with the landing gear, you don't crash on the runway, you land, it take extra effort to complete the landing.

Landing in landing attitude vs hitting a building head on.
Single course is used for landing, hitting the building has infinite courses, you can hit it any direction you end up lined up on! Hitting a building is infinitely easier than landing with respect to heading/course.

Winds during landing vs wind hitting building... you must adjust your aircraft to maintain course, but when you are aiming at a building, you can home in on the building, who cares what the course is! (better look up homing vs course, it might be too much jargon for you since you have no clue what RADAR is) Hitting a build, again easier than lining up in winds for landing.

Winds during landing take extra effort to control the plane while you land, when hitting a building you don't care about control as you HIT! Hitting building much easier than landing. I can talk on the Radio, chew gum, and land at the same time with one hand -

Speed on landing vs speed to hit a building. The speed range for landing is usually 5 knots, shooting for a speed with 5 or less knots of variation - lets give them 10! Hitting a building, you can have a variation from stall, to a speed where the plane physically falls apart. 120 knots to over 520 knots.
Landing 5 to 10 knots - hitting a building 400 knots of lead way. over 40 times easier to control you airspeed for crashing into a building head on.

When landing we have to be on course, adjust for winds correctly, be on single speed within 5 knots, be in the correct landing attitude corrected for winds in the type of aircraft. Plus be on the correct GLIDE SLOPE!

You can't come in too steep, or too shallow, you have to be in a window crossing the threshold.

Landing glide slope, 2 or 3 degrees, glide slope to hit building, less than + or - 90 degrees. Hitting a building is 60 times easier than landing for glide slope control. You are not doing well on this issue. Crashing is easier than landing.

Related to glide slope and the rest of the flying stuff - aim point, the place where you land is specific if you want to be a pilot, you must land at a specific point, with in feet, and be on centerline (the old course stuff). Hitting a building you can do it on the entire building, you have the WTC 207 feet wide plus, since you don't have to hit a side directly, you can hit the darn thing diagonally if you want, and you have 1300 feet to choose from, 110 floors. Landing on spot a few feet, on centerline, required, hitting a building anywhere you want. Hitting building easier.

The Pentagon was so big you have to be dead to miss it, or about 20 feet worse than Hani.

Compared to hitting a building, landing is infinitely harder. Exaggeration? Go ahead, put a number to it?

Landing, one course Hit building, infinite courses
Landing, glide slope 2 to 3 degrees; Hit building +-90 degrees
Landing, airspeed exact one, +- 5 mph; Hit building 120 mph to 590 mph
Landing, you have to control the landing; Hit building, no need to control after impact

Hit building - an easy task, infinitely easier than landing.

Originally Posted by jammonius

Of course, for all of those of you who pride yourselves on being expert pilots;

Who is the best pilot... you are looking at him - he is about to take the white rocket for a flight...

Originally Posted by jammonius

apparently you engage in too much praise.

just send more money

Originally Posted by jammonius

Afterall, the Muslim hijackers that your story depends on had only trained, unsuccessfully for the most part,

The terrorist pilots got FAA tickets, you need to do some research and stop exposing your lack of knowledge on all things 911.
The failed terrorists pilots were real pilots, real FAA paperwork!

Originally Posted by jammonius

to fly single-engine, piston puddle jumpers.

Most pilots start with single-engine planes.

Originally Posted by jammonius

Yet, when it came time, they expertly exceeded the speed capability of a 767;

A kid with no training could fly as good as the terrorists did in a 767. What is your point?

Originally Posted by jammonius

or, at a minimum, made it go faster than most thought possible,

The little damage to some skin which might happen when a 767 goes too fast is not a worry when you are going to crash the plane. Use some logic man!

Originally Posted by jammonius

after successfully navigating it from cruising altitude to an over the horizon location.

They were pilots, they studied the 767 flight manual for how long? Did you know the 767 and 757 are similar? NO... next... Pilots use VORs, tune it in an follow it, you can look them up on-line. You tune in a frequency in the VOR, and follow an arrow on an instrument. How far away can you see the WTC towers from 30,000 feet? i could see my home base from over 100 miles away, imagine if my base had two building 1300 feet high!

The terrorist pilots were taught navigation, we all were when we learned to fly little planes. This was a failed issue for you.

Too bad you can't do the math to explain this stuff.

Originally Posted by jammonius

If it's that easy, why do pilots brag so much about how sophisticated they are?

Pilots are trained to be, guess what, type A. Who knew. Even if we are quiet, soft spoken kids, we are trained to be in-charge, type A; I am the best pilot, it is my crew, my plane; my responsibility.

Flying, just flying is easy. Landing in crosswinds at night at minimums is hard. JFK junior was killed by flying, he was not trained to use instruments in weather. When your horizon is not visible you are might be susceptible to illusions. When we first learn to fly our Attitude indicator is the big blue marble, earth. When we learn instruments we pretend we are in a cloud, we wear a hood, or use a curtain sitting the back seat in that jet in my avatar. We fly using instruments only, if you feel disoriented while flying instruments, it only take one peek at mother earth to Instantly realign our internal gyros and fly right! If we do not learn to fly instruments we will did in real weather, the occasional peek can't be a crutch you use long... and after a few years, your instruments, in-fact, it is like your entire plane is your reference, and it is my/your responsibility to keep up and maintain that reference when you are in the weather. Years of work, after a year of school, and we are given check rides constantly, one a year or year and a half in the USAF.

Is flying hard!? YES!

Is flying easy!? YES!

The flying on 911 did not require instruments, it was clear and a million. Flying like on 911, with no rules is the easiest flying in the world. The terrorists were poor pilots; on 911 it was one of the only times they were not hounded for being bad pilots, off speed, bad bank control, going too fast, going to slow, etc. etc, etc. The terrorists must of been in hog heaven not having to obey rules or listen to the infidel instructor; the feeling of flying free most likely feed there goal. Imagine being hounded by instructors, and so many rules. Now gone. The euphoria of flying a jet the first time must of fed their goal, a sign that their job was right - they were wrong it is how you feel when you fly a jet for the first time. The simulators they trained in are harder to fly than the REAL jet; they must of thought God was on their side - nobody yelling about their flying, they can fly anyway they want, it must of been a new feeling for such poor pilots.

I flown single engine prop planes, they are harder to fly than jets, but you are not a pilot. you don't know...

Flying a jet with no rules is easy. If you have a few thousand dollars, you can prove it to yourself with an instructor; but if you talk crazy stuff like you post here, no one will let you touch the controls - fling is easy, and even easier to crash.

Crashing into buildings is the easiest maneuver in the book, most pilots work not to do that. The terrorists wasted money on flight training, my kids were able to fly for the first time and hit targets, no training.

If 911 had been a rainy day, the terrorists would fail.

Originally Posted by jammonius

Of course, this really isn't all that mind-boggling, is it. In actuality, the common storyline is based on impossibilities from one of it to the other, could more debunkers stop fooling themselves and realize it.

I have flown at 500 feet faster than Vmo, the maximum speed of my plane. Did I expect to die, no because I was careful and knew the plane limit was due to airframe life, and the fact the high Q flying low might rip off a gear door ( do I want to pay to fix my plane? NO), or other parts that are not as new as the day the plane was built.
Impossible? There would be a lot of dead people if aircraft magically fell apart above the "maximum" speeds.
You have the impossible story, of holographic planes, from stealth planes, and you don't have clue how RADAR and the real world work.

Originally Posted by jammonius

You missed the point entirely. Surprise (not). The point is radar did not detect a hologram.

You missed the point entirely, your hologram claim is nonsense.

Originally Posted by jammonius

Radar detected the actual flight of whatever plane might have been there;

Wrong, both RADARs detected Flight 175. RADAR data shows normal flight, then erratic flight of 175. You can tell by RADAR when the plane is being flown by terrorists. You can't,

Originally Posted by jammonius

that is to say, the stealth one that flew by the tower.

Stealth planes are not invisible, no stealth plane is on the videos, and no hologram is no videos. You really do debunk yourself. You don't understand that, but then you think jet engine parts are Wheel Covers.

Originally Posted by jammonius

What hit the tower and before that what corresponded to the flight path was the image.

Your hologram airplane has mass. Wow.

Originally Posted by jammonius

I will continue to post more on the radar data relied on by Bower,

You failed and have decided to repeat until you find the next delusion on 911. Got it.

Originally Posted by jammonius

and elaborated on by RDHall in his video in due course. There is much to say about the subject.

RD Hall sells lies and nonsense for a living, it is his job. His video is poppycock.


Good night/morning BCR. BCR has done more work on 911 in few hours, than you have done in 10 years. Googling RD Hall is not work, it was nonsense.

BCR is finding out how bad you and RD Hall are on this topic. Wait till he sees Judy Wood near the end of the video, or the holographic part at the end. Wow, this is nonsense at a special level.

Don't forget, BCR is the only truther, and there can be only ONE!

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Maybe your car has a GPS-based navigation system? Then perhaps you are aware that these systems typically determine your position only with an accuracy of somewhere between 5 and 15 meters, due to several reasons. One important being ionospheric effects on the GPS signals, which are smaller if the satellites you are using are directly overhead, and larger if they are near the horizon.

Now suppose you have a second navigation system that is not based on the American GPS system, but instead polls the Russian GLONASS satellites, which has a similar margin of error.

Suppose further that at this very moment, you are lucky to have several GPS satellites high in the sky, but unlucky to have your GLONASS satellites all low towards the north. Then the GPS receiver will give your position rather accurately and dermine that you are actually driving on the road, while the GLONASS receiver, hampered by a systematic error source that gives it an expected inaccuracy of 15 meters, determines that you are driving off the road.

At this point in the hypothetical, it seems clear to me that jammonius would conclude that he was not in fact driving a car at all, but that a remote-controlled military drone car following a course 15 metres to one side of the road was simulating him driving a car by projecting a hologram of his car travelling on the course he had previously believed himself to be driving along. He would no doubt have no difficulty in discrediting and therefore discarding his own eyewitness testimony to the effect that he was in fact driving his car. He would be left with some difficulty in explaining what exactly he was sitting on, but this would simply be a minor detail of the theory that debunkers should stop being too lazy to work out for themselves.

Dave

[BCR]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Good night/morning BCR. BCR has done more work on 911 in few hours, than you have done in 10 years. Googling RD Hall is not work, it was nonsense.

BCR is finding out how bad you and RD Hall are on this topic. Wait till he sees Judy Wood near the end of the video, or the holographic part at the end. Wow, this is nonsense at a special level.

Don't forget, BCR is the only truther, and there can be only ONE!

Good morning beachnut! Thanks for the kind words of support. To be honest, I really have no clue who Judy Wood is. Also, I have not watched the video in question, nor do I plan to. I deal with numbers and data, not cartoons. I gave them up when Warner Brothers stopped producing Looney Toons.

An Overlay:

The JFK radar data is a match for the NTSB plot that jammo is so fond of. This is an overlay of the JFK positions and the plot positions. The NTSB has got nothing on me, and I know what data is being used because I actually look at the data, not cartoons