ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th May 2012, 06:23 AM   #441
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,307
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Hey Scott,

Why are the self-proclaimed "winners" so sore?
...
Because they don't like it when you tell lies about them in public.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 06:34 AM   #442
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Here is how jammo sees radar data.



He sees (and plots it) as a straight line. Although this image does not show it, the radar path does veer to the left in the final seconds towards the South Tower. This is NOT how a radar path is to be seen.

This is the proper way to see a radar path.



It is NOT some pencil sharp line. A radar path is a block, equal to 2 times the estimated or known accuracy in width. The red (ASR) path is narrow because it has a greater known accuracy than the blue (ARSR) path. The blue path cannot be used alone to say that the plane in question "hit" a specific spot in time and space. What can be said is, if something "hit" a specific spot in time and space, that it's radar path "hit" it (which in this case it did). The plane can be located anywhere inside the path, but the radar path definitely hit the WTC South Tower.

For the red paths (we have two if you recall, EWR and JFK), both the paths AND the plane can be said to have "hit" the spot.

So no, once again you are wrong bucko. the 84 RADES (actually RIV) radar path DOES NOT miss the WTC South Tower. Just as the other two radar paths, the South Tower is in its path.

Remember this quote by Oystein way back in post #199?

Quote:
So it would indeed apear that jammo has a point here. Explain, please?
He is not a radar guy. However, I knew he was a tech-savvy and intelligent fellow, so I put him off until much later. Yet, before I did address his question, he already had figured it out. As soon as he learned the accuracy and margin of error involved with the RIV ARSR, bingo! He got it. Sadly, you still have not. Maybe these graphics will help you with that, maybe not. But at least I tried.
__________________
"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; 25th May 2012 at 06:37 AM.
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 06:41 AM   #443
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Thank you. Can you please give the post # where you put the raw FAA ASR data at my disposal? You're not talking about that 47Gb thingy, are you?
You really are dense aren't you? Scroll back a few pages until you find it, I've wasted enough time trying to help you.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 06:46 AM   #444
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Do you have a link ?
For you, certainly. Posts #313 and #314. If you need any specific files (they are pdf's), let me know and I'll put them somewhere where you can download them. I can do that for a few, but for the whole boatload you'll need to go over to 911datasets.org. My files are stored there.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 07:04 AM   #445
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,884
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post

It is utterly beyond any logic and any degree of reasonableness to claim the only radar available for confirming the flight path of the 9/11 jetliners was radar that could only track to within "1/4 nmile" and maybe not to within 2nmiles, all as you more fully calculated for us.

If that were the actual case, there would surely be a lot more mid-air collisions, especially in the NYC area or even the Boston-DC region, which must be the busiest air space about anywhere in the world.
Your logic is flawed. If they can track the planes within 1/4 mile, then all they need to do to avoid colisions is keep them more than 1/2 mile apart.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 07:20 AM   #446
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
It is utterly beyond any logic and any degree of reasonableness to claim the only radar available for confirming the flight path of the 9/11 jetliners was radar that could only track to within "1/4 nmile" and maybe not to within 2nmiles, all as you more fully calculated for us.
The sound you hear is me banging my head against the wall. Nobody in this entire thread has made that claim but you. Only ONE radar is limited to that accuracy, the RIV antenna located 66 nmi away. It DOES NOT control ANY aircraft in the NYC area. The New York TRACON does that with their ASR's. In this case, we have two of those on duty. I've already in great detail explained and calculated their accuracy in the WTC area. Worse case scenario is +/- 112 ft, NOT 1/4 nmile as you assert.

One day, month, or year ... that will actually register in your brain.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 07:32 AM   #447
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,492
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
It is utterly beyond any logic and any degree of reasonableness to claim the only radar available for confirming the flight path of the 9/11 jetliners was radar that could only track to within "1/4 nmile" and maybe not to within 2nmiles, all as you more fully calculated for us.

If that were the actual case, there would surely be a lot more mid-air collisions, especially in the NYC area or even the Boston-DC region, which must be the busiest air space about anywhere in the world.

There were at least four airports between 8 and 11 miles from the WTC, three of which are amongst the busiest airports, so you can bet they keep track of planes on their radar with fairly good accuracy.


The level of denial and outright stupidity in this response beggars belief. The whole point of this thread is that there were two sets of radar traces giving different paths, and it's been clearly shown that the more accurate of the two, the NTSB data which shows the plane hitting the WTC, is also the one used to control aircraft in the vicinity of major airports. So in the passage above, in effect, jammonius is trying to cast ridicule on his own disbelief in the existence of the NTSB data, despite the fact that this data is a major part of the evidence he's trying to present, while pretending that everyone else is claiming the NTSB data doesn't exist. There are so few points of contact with, or even close approach to, reality here, that I'm reminded of a post now-banned member Dr. Adequate made a few years ago:

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
Perhaps I could explain my point most succinctly in the form of a parable.

Once upon a time there was a man named Tall Jack, and he had three anteaters. One day Equally Tall Bob came to see him bearing a set of bagpipes, two french horns, and an oboe, and said: "My friend, my wife is sick with the Mumbles. Give me one of your anteaters, and you will still have two anteaters of your own."

Tall Jack replied: "Because you have come to me without any sort of stringed instrument, such as a zither, I shall give you all three anteaters, for I have no need of them until the rainy season." At this, Equally Tall Bob slapped him tepidly round the face with a large pie garnished with walnuts, for he despised all such gratuitous eleemosynary donations of superfluous myrmecophages.

From that day onwards, they were the warmest and most cordial of enemies, and lived together always in a large sack made of burlap.

The Truth Movement is rather like this, in that it makes no frickin' sense.
As for jammonius's repeated attempts to imply that measurement error is an invention of 9/11 debunkers to try to cover up proof of no planes, or that any measurement with a known level of error is automatically inadmissible incourt as evidence, that's on a similar level of hilarity to the assertion a while back that thermal expansion had never been heard of before NIST featured it in the WTC7 report. Still, I shouldn't be surprised any more by the inability of 9/11 conspiracy theorists to understand the most basic aspects of matters they demand to be seen as experts in.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 25th May 2012 at 07:33 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 07:56 AM   #448
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
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

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wo...05/overlay.jpg

BCR,

Thanks for your clarification; but:


"The JFK radar data is a match for the NTSB plot that jammo is so fond of."

The NTSB plot incorporated RADES data, making it FUBAR.

You had better alert the Office of Military Commissions of your availability to straighten everything out. (No pun intended)

Blessings
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 08:00 AM   #449
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
BCR,

Thanks for your clarification; but:


"The JFK radar data is a match for the NTSB plot that jammo is so fond of."

The NTSB plot incorporated RADES data, making it FUBAR.

You had better alert the Office of Military Commissions of your availability to straighten everything out. (No pun intended)

Blessings
Why do you tell such bald face lies jammo?

Your screenshot, not mine.



What part of "Parameters calculated from EWR ASR Radar Returns" do you not understand? That is NOT RADES data.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 08:11 AM   #450
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
I decided yesterday that either jammo is dumber than a rock or he is a liar intent upon ruffling feathers. If indeed he is an attorney as some of you have stated, then he had to graduate from a law school somewhere and pass a state bar exam, not something a complete moron could accomplish. Which leaves the later.

Most of this stuff I've posted in this thread has been to give the rest of you a reference (and the result of boredom). I may or may not respond further to this guy. It all depends whether there is anything else that needs to be added to the conversation. If there is anything I can answer or help with, just let me know and I'll respond. In the case of jammo, I may, or may not. Depends on how bored I am.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 08:15 AM   #451
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Jammonious' template for thread creation

1. Post most bat-spit-crazy impossible claim that can be found.

2. Have people who are not crazy but do have relevant training/experience/intelligence prove claim wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

3. Address lurkers and claim victory!

4. Put fingers in ears and ask for thread to end.

Does that seem about right?
swright777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 08:17 AM   #452
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by swright777 View Post
1. Post most bat-spit-crazy impossible claim that can be found.

2. Have people who are not crazy but do have relevant training/experience/intelligence prove claim wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

3. Address lurkers and claim victory!

4. Put fingers in ears and ask for thread to end.

Does that seem about right?
Yep
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 08:28 AM   #453
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Why do you tell such bald face lies jammo?

Your screenshot, not mine.

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

What part of "Parameters calculated from EWR ASR Radar Returns" do you not understand? That is NOT RADES data.
BCR,

Thank you for posting my screenshot not yours. It does not help you and your cause for you to have done so.

Daniel Bower may have made the matter obscure, but the chart--the my screenshot not yours one--obscures the source of the data he plotted. True, he used the EWR data, but only for speed calculation. The chart uses a combination of data that included RADES.

Here is my screenshot not yours that details this claim:




Blessings

Last edited by jammonius; 25th May 2012 at 08:29 AM.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 08:32 AM   #454
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
I decided yesterday that either jammo is dumber than a rock or he is a liar intent upon ruffling feathers. If indeed he is an attorney as some of you have stated, then he had to graduate from a law school somewhere and pass a state bar exam, not something a complete moron could accomplish. Which leaves the later.

Most of this stuff I've posted in this thread has been to give the rest of you a reference (and the result of boredom). I may or may not respond further to this guy. It all depends whether there is anything else that needs to be added to the conversation. If there is anything I can answer or help with, just let me know and I'll respond. In the case of jammo, I may, or may not. Depends on how bored I am.
Out again, oh my
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 08:49 AM   #455
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,095
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Thinking about it more, it might be good to question the NTSB report that was foisted upon us as proof of Flights 175 and 11. All of your work was based on the information that was put out in support of the claim jetliners were involved.
Two aircraft were involved, proved by RADAR, and video. Verified!

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
If that were the actual case, there would surely be a lot more mid-air collisions, especially in the NYC area or even the Boston-DC region, which must be the busiest air space about anywhere in the world.
NO

The airways are 8 miles wide - traffic separation was 10 miles and with newer RADAR it is 5 miles! Traffic separation by RADAR is FIVE MILES. RD Hall is an idiot.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
We know that GPS was available then. I'll bet a GPS gizmo aboard one of those planes would be able to be tracked to within a few feet. So, for the sake of air safety, it would seem like the radar tracking would be fairly similar to that. I also suspect
there are redundant systems on board so that a transponder failure doesn't make the plane "disappear" from the map. I don't know how many airplanes are flying at any given time, but you can be sure that there would be a whole lot of mid-air collisions if radar wasn't any more accurate than 1/4 mile. If not, why bother to have radar tracking and air-traffic contollers, one might ask? ;-)
WRONG.
The RADAR is used to keep planes apart, 5 miles, depending on the phase of flight. WE use altitude separation TOO. Flying is 4D, time and space.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
So, in the above, yet another indicator of fraud and deception in connection with the common storyline is shown. That indicator of fraud consists in the obviousness that the data relied on to prove the 9/11 story via radar was based on rubbish.
No, it proves RD Hall does not understand flying and RADAR.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
The NTSB likely knew that. That is why the reports done do not really come from the NTSB and do not bear its official seal. It is done as an indirect study, at the request of the FBI and then foisted off on an unsuspecting public.
A Lie.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
It is clearly a farce, a fraud, a deception.
You make this up due lack of knowledge.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
I think you will now recognize this. You exposed it after RDHall demonstrated what it actually entailed in his excellent video.
His video is a lie, delusional nonsense.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
We were fooled for awhile, but no longer.
You don't know what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
I suppose the only way to go from here, for the sake of the common storyline will be that of claiming the transponder was turned back on to a different setting and the data for it has been miraculously found, or something along those lines.
The transponder was on, the terrorists changed the setting. Do you look at your data?

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Key point: The radar data made public does not show a jetliner hitting the South Tower.
RADAR verifies flight 175 impacted the WTC and RD Hall video compilation verifies it. Speed, decent, etc. You present data which refutes your fantasy.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Even if we accept the common storyline as true for sake of discussion, no hijacker, not even a devout Muslim with divine guidance as a substitute for experience in flying an alleged Boeing 767, or otherwise, could make that jetliner invisible over NYC airspace or go 500+mph at darn near sea level. The data was missing because there was no jetliner there.

Blessings
??? RD Hall shows a 767 impacting the WTC many time in video, verified by RADAR.

You fell for the RADAR bait, googled up RD Hall, and the rest is history. Delusional nonsense flows freely from RD Hall. You don't understand RADAR, don't understand RADAR is right, 175 did impact the WTC, and it is the same RADAR used to keep YOUR plane when you fly, safe. You might want to stop flying, because everything said by others is true. You want to know why road lanes are wider than cars?

Last edited by beachnut; 25th May 2012 at 09:13 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 08:51 AM   #456
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,973
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Out again, oh my
One does not have to be very "in" to dismiss the comic book nonsense you shill.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 09:15 AM   #457
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Greetings, BCR

Thank for a good post that points us in a direction that is useful and substantive.





Thank you for your clarification.

Thinking about it more, it might be good to question the NTSB report that was foisted upon us as proof of Flights 175 and 11. All of your work was based on the information that was put out in support of the claim jetliners were involved.

It is utterly beyond any logic and any degree of reasonableness to claim the only radar available for confirming the flight path of the 9/11 jetliners was radar that could only track to within "1/4 nmile" and maybe not to within 2nmiles, all as you more fully calculated for us.

If that were the actual case, there would surely be a lot more mid-air collisions, especially in the NYC area or even the Boston-DC region, which must be the busiest air space about anywhere in the world.

There were at least four airports between 8 and 11 miles from the WTC, three of which are amongst the busiest airports, so you can bet they keep track of planes on their radar with fairly good accuracy.

We know that GPS was available then. I'll bet a GPS gizmo aboard one of those planes would be able to be tracked to within a
few feet. So, for the sake of air safety, it would seem like the radar tracking would be fairly similar to that. I also suspect
there are redundant systems on board so that a transponder failure doesn't make the plane "disappear" from the map. I don't know how many airplanes are flying at any given time, but you can be sure that there would be a whole lot of mid-air collisions if radar wasn't any more accurate than 1/4 mile. If not, why bother to have radar tracking and air-traffic contollers, one might ask? ;-)

So, in the above, yet another indicator of fraud and deception in connection with the common storyline is shown. That indicator of fraud consists in the obviousness that the data relied on to prove the 9/11 story via radar was based on rubbish.

The NTSB likely knew that. That is why the reports done do not really come from the NTSB and do not bear its official seal. It is done as an indirect study, at the request of the FBI and then foisted off on an unsuspecting public.

It is clearly a farce, a fraud, a deception.

I think you will now recognize this. You exposed it after RDHall demonstrated what it actually entailed in his excellent video.



The measuring done was that based on the information put out to the public.

We were fooled for awhile, but no longer.

I suppose the only way to go from here, for the sake of the common storyline will be that of claiming the transponder was turned back on to a different setting and the data for it has been miraculously found, or something along those lines.

Key point: The radar data made public does not show a jetliner hitting the South Tower.

Even if we accept the common storyline as true for sake of discussion, no hijacker, not even a devout Muslim with divine guidance as a substitute for experience in flying an alleged Boeing 767, or otherwise, could make that jetliner invisible over NYC airspace or go 500+mph at darn near sea level. The data was missing because there was no jetliner there.

Blessings
So the data was rubbish but it shows that an airliner did not hit the tower?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 09:18 AM   #458
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
I'm aware of your opinion on the eye witnesses and your ludicrous idea that people who didn't see the plane somehow trumps those who did and prove there was no plane, I just reject it outright like most sane people do.

And, knowing your debate style, I'm sure in your mind you would come out on top of ANY debate on either witnesses or DNA evidence.

That's not the issue. I'm talking about the real world; you are absolutely wrong about the radar.

When you make up your own reality it's hard to lose.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 09:25 AM   #459
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post

It is utterly beyond any logic and any degree of reasonableness to claim the only radar available for confirming the flight path of the 9/11 jetliners was radar that could only track to within "1/4 nmile" and maybe not to within 2nmiles, all as you more fully calculated for us.
Please point out who claimed that was used to plot the course was the ONLY radar data available?
Quote:

Key point: The radar data made public does not show a jetliner hitting the South Tower.
Yes, yes it does!
Quote:
Even if we accept the common storyline as true for sake of discussion, no hijacker, not even a devout Muslim with divine guidance as a substitute for experience in flying an alleged Boeing 767, or otherwise, could make that jetliner invisible over NYC airspace or go 500+mph at darn near sea level. The data was missing because there was no jetliner there.
There was no data missing, there was no "invisibility".

You are conflating and hand waving throwing out ALL the data because you are using the least accurate track from the station furthest away. Now would be a good time to find your expert witness because you are clearly in way over your head. And exposing yourself for the fool that you are. You lost this thread jammy, face it. Data from the closest stations show a hit. As Professor Walter Lewin would say, Non negotiable.

Originally Posted by MIT professor Walter Lewin
Now, all-important in making measurements which is always ignored in every college book is the uncertainty in your measurement.
Any measurement that you make without any knowledge of the uncertainty is meaningless.
I will repeat this.
I want you to hear it tonight at 3:00 when you wake up.
Any measurement that you make without the knowledge of its uncertainty is completely meaningless.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 25th May 2012 at 09:28 AM.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 11:00 AM   #460
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Confounding variable

Hey posters, lurkers and others,

The NTSB flight path study may be in real trouble as evidence. That document is not an official, NTSB document. NTSB has no file on any of the alleged 9/11 flights.

At best, there is an ambiguous declaration about what data the flight path of alleged Flight 175 is based on.

Now the possible confounding variable:

http://www.tributes.com/show/Daniel-R.-Bower-84826246

Perhaps that obituary is for some other person and perhaps Bower is still alive and can tesify. If he is not alive and, therefore, cannot testify, then the flight path study is FUBAR and inadmissible as evidence.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 11:08 AM   #461
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,973
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
At best, there is an ambiguous declaration about what data the flight path of alleged Flight 175 is based on.
More comic book stuff.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 11:08 AM   #462
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Hey posters, lurkers and others,

The NTSB flight path study may be in real trouble as evidence. That document is not an official, NTSB document. NTSB has no file on any of the alleged 9/11 flights.

At best, there is an ambiguous declaration about what data the flight path of alleged Flight 175 is based on.

Now the possible confounding variable:

http://www.tributes.com/show/Daniel-R.-Bower-84826246

Perhaps that obituary is for some other person and perhaps Bower is still alive and can tesify. If he is not alive and, therefore, cannot testify, then the flight path study is FUBAR and inadmissible as evidence.
You are either an inept stuttering dolt who cannot do basic research, or a blatant liar, Your choice. no false choice fallacy this .

__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 11:28 AM   #463
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,973
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
Now the possible confounding variable:

http://www.tributes.com/show/Daniel-R.-Bower-84826246

Perhaps that obituary is for some other person and perhaps Bower is still alive and can tesify. If he is not alive and, therefore, cannot testify, then the flight path study is FUBAR and inadmissible as evidence.
In what comic book courtroom are you lawyerin' jammer?
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 11:50 AM   #464
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
You are either an inept stuttering dolt who cannot do basic research, or a blatant liar, Your choice. no false choice fallacy this .

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/m...55/ntsb911.jpg
AW,

Give it a rest.

"NTSB Identification: DCA01MA060.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR operation of American Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in New York City, NY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 03/07/2006
Aircraft: Boeing 767-200ER, registration: N334AA
Injuries: 92 Fatal.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI."

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...23X00103&key=1

Identical statements are to be found under the relevant DCA01---- listing for each of the alleged flights.

When I said "file" I meant "public docket."

When I said inadmissible, I meant that as the Flight Path Study was not conducted in the course of NTSB's business, it is not admissible, absent the ability to have a discussion with the author.


Blessings
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 11:53 AM   #465
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
BCR,

Thank you for posting my screenshot not yours. It does not help you and your cause for you to have done so.

Daniel Bower may have made the matter obscure, but the chart--the my screenshot not yours one--obscures the source of the data he plotted. True, he used the EWR data, but only for speed calculation. The chart uses a combination of data that included RADES.

Here is my screenshot not yours that details this claim:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/...1-2excerpt.jpg


Blessings
Will you back up that claim please? You just posted something from the NTSB that says the same thing I just did. Please support your contention that it was RADES data please.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 11:54 AM   #466
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
When you make up your own reality it's hard to lose.
True dat

Now, go look at some debunker websites...

Have a nice weekend one and all.

Bye for now

Last edited by jammonius; 25th May 2012 at 11:55 AM.
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 11:59 AM   #467
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
AW,

Give it a rest.

"NTSB Identification: DCA01MA060.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR operation of American Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in New York City, NY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 03/07/2006
Aircraft: Boeing 767-200ER, registration: N334AA
Injuries: 92 Fatal.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI."

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...23X00103&key=1

Identical statements are to be found under the relevant DCA01---- listing for each of the alleged flights.

When I said "file" I meant "public docket."

When I said inadmissible, I meant that as the Flight Path Study was not conducted in the course of NTSB's business, it is not admissible, absent the ability to have a discussion with the author.


Blessings
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm
Quote:
In late 2001 and early 2002, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) filed reports detailing information of the four commandeered flights, based on a combination of air traffic control recordings and, in the case of United Flight 93, the plane's flight data recorder. However, these reports remained hidden from public view for years. Even today, the entries in the NTSB database for the 9/11/2001 crashes state:
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket
The veil was lifted from the reports on August 11, 2006 when they were published by the National Security Archive on the George Washington University website, gwu.edu. The release consists of eight PDF documents listed on the National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 196.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 11:59 AM   #468
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Will you back up that claim please? You just posted something from the NTSB that says the same thing I just did. Please support your contention that it was RADES data please.
BCR,

Just noticed your post. I didn't want to leave this hanging, but I can only post this once on this issue until after the weekend.

The ambiguity is set out in the text of the Flight Path Study that I posted. The confounding variable is that it doesn't seem like we're going to be able to question Bower about it, unless the obituary is a coincidence. Perhaps you know whether he is still with us or not?

Until later
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 12:03 PM   #469
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
BCR,

Just noticed your post. I didn't want to leave this hanging, but I can only post this once on this issue until after the weekend.

The ambiguity is set out in the text of the Flight Path Study that I posted. The confounding variable is that it doesn't seem like we're going to be able to question Bower about it, unless the obituary is a coincidence. Perhaps you know whether he is still with us or not?

Until later
In other words you are a fool and after all this time still don't know what you are reading, either in an NTSB document or here.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 12:03 PM   #470
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
BCR,

Just noticed your post. I didn't want to leave this hanging, but I can only post this once on this issue until after the weekend.

The ambiguity is set out in the text of the Flight Path Study that I posted. The confounding variable is that it doesn't seem like we're going to be able to question Bower about it, unless the obituary is a coincidence. Perhaps you know whether he is still with us or not?

Until later
you are really really BAD at this
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2011/110210.html

https://www.google.com/search?q=Dan+...iw=923&bih=438
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 02:58 PM   #471
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,095
Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
AW,

Give it a rest.

"NTSB Identification: DCA01MA060.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Scheduled 14 CFR operation of American Airlines
Accident occurred Tuesday, September 11, 2001 in New York City, NY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 03/07/2006
Aircraft: Boeing 767-200ER, registration: N334AA
Injuries: 92 Fatal.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.


The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI."

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/br...23X00103&key=1

Identical statements are to be found under the relevant DCA01---- listing for each of the alleged flights.

When I said "file" I meant "public docket."

When I said inadmissible, I meant that as the Flight Path Study was not conducted in the course of NTSB's business, it is not admissible, absent the ability to have a discussion with the author.


Blessings
It was conducted by FBI business, the FBI order it, and the NTSB experts did it. You make up lies about it, and don't understand RADAR, or investigations.

Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
... The NTSB flight path study may be in real trouble as evidence. That document is not an official, NTSB document. NTSB has no file on any of the alleged 9/11 flights.

At best, there is an ambiguous declaration about what data the flight path of alleged Flight 175 is based on.

...
Your claims are FUBAR. The data is still available. You failed to make a point, and your delusional holographic aircraft remain nonsense.

Bower is still alive, you picked a guy who died in 2008, he was over 80 years old. Your research skills and logic need work, lucky you came to JREF.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th May 2012, 04:24 PM   #472
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,307
It is refreshing to see that not a single person agrees with anything at all that jammonius says, quite contrary to his assertion that he and we have determined anything "jointly". Instead, more and more posters have comcluded that jammonius is not merely mistaken, but obviously lying.

I remember a while back, I believe in 2010 already - was it the Dick Oliver thread or the 47 videos thread? - I went through a jammonius thread and counted how many distinct posters had described jammonius to be a liar, or described specific statements by jammonius as lies. I think I remember the number was 22 - or some similar very significant number.

I conclude that, as a rule, people will realize sooner or later that jammonius, as a matter of habit at least in this forum, lies, and lies repeatedly.

Jammonius has been alerted to the fact that he has been caught lying. It doesn't seem to bother him one bit.


Will the lies ever stop? I understand that lying is not prohibited under the JREF membership agreement, so I suspect jammo, who has known since at least 2010 that everyone here recognizes him as a liar and is unmoved by being recognized as a liar, will never stop lying on this board.

Oh well.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2012, 04:24 PM   #473
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
OP Rebuttal Summary

I don't want to "muddy the waters", but I would be remiss if I left my portion of this discussion incomplete. There are several key points that may have gotten lost along the way and I think it is important that there be some form of reference available to those trying to clarify the topic on other forums or threads. So, let me start from the beginning, the OP itself.

Quote:
3 -- RDH confirms the trajectory set out in the more precise1 RADES military radar data2 DOES NOT match the implied course or trajectory derived from the NTSB data3.
1 - "...more precise"

84 RADES radar, consists of long-range (200 - 250 nmi range) Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR) sites which also feed directly into the FAA system. In the case of the final minutes of UAL175's flight, it was covered by two ARSR-4 sites, RIV located at Riverhead, NY and GIB located at Gibbsboro, NJ. During the final 3 minutes of flight, the range of the aircraft from the RIV site was 62 - 80 nmi, and from the GIB site was 49 - 67 nmi. This information can be pulled directly from the 84 RADES RS3 software as a query and I have uploaded those results here in Excel format.

Along with the RS3 software and associated September 11, 2001 data files, 84 RADES included a Read Me file which includes a specification for their ARSR-4 radar facilities.

"The primary range accuracy limitation for both primary and secondary radar systems is 1/8 nmi due to the target reporting format employed by the radar system. Azimuth accuracy is limited to approximately 0.2 degrees for both primary and secondary radar systems."

The more distant the aircraft is from the radar facility, the greater the error in positional measurements. For that reason, I used the GIB site data since the distance range was smaller than for the RIV site. The OP cites the longer distance range of RIV. At the termination of the radar path, the range was ~66 nmi for both sites, with an effective error of +/- ~1/4 nmi.

In contrast, the FAA TRACON facilities use Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) with a practical working range of 50 - 60 nmi. The NYC TRACON utilizes ASR-9 radar facilities located at JFK and EWR (Newark, NJ) .

The "ASR-9 radar provides a range accuracy of 1/32 Nautical Miles" which is significantly better than the the 84 RADES ARSR-4 range accuracy of 1/8 nmi. The ASR-9 "azimuth accuracy is within .088 degrees", which again is significantly better than the ARSR-4 azimuth accuray of 0.2 degrees. At the end of the radar path for both sites, the effective error was +/- 112 feet. The base of the WTC South Tower was 208 by 208 feet square. When wing span is also factored in, the two ASR paths are accurate enough to determine impact.

So to suggest that the 84 RADES radar data is "more precise" is simply FALSE.

2 - "RADES military radar data"

This needs clarification. The OP uses 84 RADES RIV (military and civilian) radar data for comparison. 84 RADES provided data for two sites which covered the final minutes of UAL175's flight and for most of that time it was closer to the 84 RADES GIB facility. So to compound the assertion of "more precise", the least precise 84 RADES data was used for the OP.

3 - "NTSB data"

The NTSB has no radar facilities. In their radar studies for UAL175 they presented Mode C data graphs obtained from FAA EWR ASR data and a ground track plot based on FAA JFK ASR data.

Quote:
4 -- RDH therefore concludes there exists falsification of the claim Flight 175 hit the South Tower, based on the radar data contradiction.
RDH may make such a claim, but it is a blatantly false one. Based on the corrected assertions regarding radar accuracy, we earlier demonstrated that there is no contradiction. With that understanding of how to view radar paths, I have plotted all 4 of the radar paths for this summary thread.



Note that the 84 RADES GIB data is actually consistent with the ASR-9 data paths. The "radar data contradiction" is based on the worst available (least accurate) radar path (RIV). However, all 4 paths when their inaccuracies are accounted for, indicate a termination of flight at the WTC South Tower location.

Readers may download the data used for this plot in Excel format here. The methodology for the workbook equations can be found here. The RIV data is not included in this workbook, but was provided earlier in the RS3 query.

Quote:
5 -- RDH concludes the second, military radar confirm a stealth aircraft
Hogwash. When radar sweeps an aircraft, the aircraft's transponder tags the return signal with Mode 3 (identification number) and Mode C (speed, altitude, etc) information. This is included in the data for ALL 4 radar data sets. All 4 radars recorded the exact same aircraft, UAL175.

Related source files:
Methodology
EWR data
JFK data (starts on page 23)
84 RADES data (does not include GIB data)
Google Earth KMZ

Quote:
So, posters, it may be that 911 FLIGHT 175 RADAR DATA 3D ANALYSIS by Richard D Hall falsifies the claim Flight 175 hit the South Tower.
So to summarize, in technical terms this claim is unsupported and false. In layman's terms, it is bovine manure.
__________________
"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; 26th May 2012 at 05:45 PM. Reason: Added source materials
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2012, 04:43 PM   #474
Dash80
Rave on, Not Fade Away
 
Dash80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,186
I just want to thank you BCR.

Of course our Jammy Dodger will simply wave his arms around and waffle... But at least the rest of us appreciate the time and effort you put into proving him completely wrong.
__________________
I see that the No-Planers still travel Air Elastic-Band with their fleet of innovative rubber Boeings.
Dash80 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2012, 04:52 PM   #475
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by Dash80 View Post
I just want to thank you BCR.

Of course our Jammy Dodger will simply wave his arms around and waffle... But at least the rest of us appreciate the time and effort you put into proving him completely wrong.
Why thank you Dash80. I did not do it for him, but for the rational JREF readers.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2012, 05:14 PM   #476
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Why thank you Dash80. I did not do it for him, but for the rational JREF readers.
For which we thank you.
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2012, 07:05 PM   #477
SUSpilot
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by George152 View Post
For which we thank you.
Ditto.
SUSpilot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2012, 07:22 PM   #478
waypastvne
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 399
Originally Posted by SUSpilot View Post
Ditto.
Double Ditto.
waypastvne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th May 2012, 08:49 PM   #479
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,707
Bravo BCR.

/thread?
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2012, 06:18 AM   #480
jammonius
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
I don't want to "muddy the waters", but I would be remiss if I left my portion of this discussion incomplete. There are several key points that may have gotten lost along the way and I think it is important that there be some form of reference available to those trying to clarify the topic on other forums or threads. So, let me start from the beginning, the OP itself.



1 - "...more precise"

84 RADES radar, consists of long-range (200 - 250 nmi range) Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR) sites which also feed directly into the FAA system. In the case of the final minutes of UAL175's flight, it was covered by two ARSR-4 sites, RIV located at Riverhead, NY and GIB located at Gibbsboro, NJ. During the final 3 minutes of flight, the range of the aircraft from the RIV site was 62 - 80 nmi, and from the GIB site was 49 - 67 nmi. This information can be pulled directly from the 84 RADES RS3 software as a query and I have uploaded those results here in Excel format.

Along with the RS3 software and associated September 11, 2001 data files, 84 RADES included a Read Me file which includes a specification for their ARSR-4 radar facilities.

"The primary range accuracy limitation for both primary and secondary radar systems is 1/8 nmi due to the target reporting format employed by the radar system. Azimuth accuracy is limited to approximately 0.2 degrees for both primary and secondary radar systems."

The more distant the aircraft is from the radar facility, the greater the error in positional measurements. For that reason, I used the GIB site data since the distance range was smaller than for the RIV site. The OP cites the longer distance range of RIV. At the termination of the radar path, the range was ~66 nmi for both sites, with an effective error of +/- ~1/4 nmi.

In contrast, the FAA TRACON facilities use Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) with a practical working range of 50 - 60 nmi. The NYC TRACON utilizes ASR-9 radar facilities located at JFK and EWR (Newark, NJ) .

The "ASR-9 radar provides a range accuracy of 1/32 Nautical Miles" which is significantly better than the the 84 RADES ARSR-4 range accuracy of 1/8 nmi. The ASR-9 "azimuth accuracy is within .088 degrees", which again is significantly better than the ARSR-4 azimuth accuray of 0.2 degrees. At the end of the radar path for both sites, the effective error was +/- 112 feet. The base of the WTC South Tower was 208 by 208 feet square. When wing span is also factored in, the two ASR paths are accurate enough to determine impact.

So to suggest that the 84 RADES radar data is "more precise" is simply FALSE.

2 - "RADES military radar data"

This needs clarification. The OP uses 84 RADES RIV (military and civilian) radar data for comparison. 84 RADES provided data for two sites which covered the final minutes of UAL175's flight and for most of that time it was closer to the 84 RADES GIB facility. So to compound the assertion of "more precise", the least precise 84 RADES data was used for the OP.

3 - "NTSB data"

The NTSB has no radar facilities. In their radar studies for UAL175 they presented Mode C data graphs obtained from FAA EWR ASR data and a ground track plot based on FAA JFK ASR data.



RDH may make such a claim, but it is a blatantly false one. Based on the corrected assertions regarding radar accuracy, we earlier demonstrated that there is no contradiction. With that understanding of how to view radar paths, I have plotted all 4 of the radar paths for this summary thread.

http://bluecollarrepublican.files.wo...l175_radar.jpg

Note that the 84 RADES GIB data is actually consistent with the ASR-9 data paths. The "radar data contradiction" is based on the worst available (least accurate) radar path (RIV). However, all 4 paths when their inaccuracies are accounted for, indicate a termination of flight at the WTC South Tower location.

Readers may download the data used for this plot in Excel format here. The methodology for the workbook equations can be found here. The RIV data is not included in this workbook, but was provided earlier in the RS3 query.



Hogwash. When radar sweeps an aircraft, the aircraft's transponder tags the return signal with Mode 3 (identification number) and Mode C (speed, altitude, etc) information. This is included in the data for ALL 4 radar data sets. All 4 radars recorded the exact same aircraft, UAL175.

Related source files:
Methodology
EWR data
JFK data (starts on page 23)
84 RADES data (does not include GIB data)
Google Earth KMZ



So to summarize, in technical terms this claim is unsupported and false. In layman's terms, it is bovine manure.

BCR

Thank you for your post that you claim is intended to clarify your portion of the discussion. Well, if that is your example of clarity, I'd rather not see your version of confusion.

Here, then, is my version of clarity as to where we stand in this thread.

In summary form, where we stand is that the RDHall video has done a lot to shed light on the fact that the existing claim that there exists radar confirmation of 9/11 Flights 11 and 175 is false. RDHall's video confirms the radar data is ambiguous at best and supported by thin, incomplete and incoherent data.

For his part, BCR seems singlehandedly to have re-confirmed the incoherent aspect.

Now this:



The foundation of the 9/11 proof of radar claim consists in the 5 page study, the salient portions of which are in the top half of the above chart. The salient portion is 2 simple diagrams, one a map the other a hand drawn graph.

The map is convenient because it sets out a path with yellow squares. The hand drawn graph is not convenient. First of all, it would be well nigh impossible to use the graph for any real purpose. The points on the graph are too small and too indefinite for it to impart any precise data at all.

Furthermore, the 5 page summary references a 21 page summary, the salient portion of which is set out in the bottom row of the above picture. That portion sets out the sources, including airport and/or facility from which the data are sourced.

While the text of the 5 page document claims the source for the Flight 175 data are to be found in the 21 page write up, the hand drawn chart in the 5 page write up is said to only involve data from EWR.

We know that the closest airports to The WTC complex are:

LaGuardia (LGA) -- 10.8 miles by road
Newark (EWR) -- 14.5 miles by road
Teterboro -- 16 miles by road
Kennedy (JFK) -- 17.5 miles by road

But take a look at the listing of sites from which data for Flight 175 is said to have come from. First, it includes one location, HPN, White Plains airport that is a bit further away that the 4 listed above. As of this moment, I have not yet determined the location of all of the sources listed for Flight 175, but I'm sure that data will materialize in subsequent posts from other posters, or me if all others fail.

One thing that sticks out, though, is that no data at all appears to be referenced as coming from LGA, the closest airport to the WTC complex.

As an aside here, some posters have mentioned "transponder" in some context or another. Doing so simply adds to the muddle. The transponders have been alternatively claimed in one source or another to have been turned off, turned on, changed and changed twice.

All of this selective use of radar data, that RDHall does an excellent job of showing is contradictory and uncertain, has to be considered in the context of the rest of the muddle. A key ingredient of the muddle that has been little mentioned in this thread thus far is THE MILITARY EXERCISES, VIGILANT GUARDIAN, FOR EXAMPLE.

In connection with the military exercises, consider that their purpose was that of simulating hijacking of aircraft and crashing them into buildings. Hence the imagery of shadow thingy--the crashing them into buildings component. And contradictory radar data and claims about transponders being turned off, on, changed, changed again; hence the simulation portion. Note, too, that in logic, there is no basis for claiming the hijackers turned the transponders off and/or changed the settings of them. There is no communication from the hijacker saying, "Roger 10-4 I am turning off the transponder, do you copy" or some such.

Just as important, there is no radio chatter from controllers claiming "Uh, doger, roger, flight uh 175 huh, you uh changed your transponer, copy, over, dover" or some such, either.

Any and all transponder claims are utterly consistent with simulation and not at all consistent with "real world" (posters remember that one?)

Look, posters, lurkers and others. It is not my normal practice to claim "victory" or "defeat" or to call other posters names. I did say it was "my turn to claim /thread" when it was disclosed that the RADES data was too uncertain to be useful as evidence. However, there was full agreement on that fact. Hence my claim.

Here, however, I am not claiming victory; rather, I am continuing to post up on my claims.

Others, as is there wont, can do as they please.

Blessings


PS
More later, but not until tomorrow or the next day. It's a holiday
jammonius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.