Uh, The RADES Data Shows "AA77" North of Citgo

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Uh, The RADES Data Shows "AA77" North of Citgo; ...and impacting into 395
Topic Started: Feb 23 2008, 01:05 PM (985 Views)
Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 24 2008, 04:10 PM Post #26
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Who wants to bet that PeanutButterNJelly is Caustic Logic?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 24 2008, 04:15 PM Post #27
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 24 2008, 04:07 PM Bitterman Feb 24 2008, 03:41 PM I think that was the point PBnJ. To show that if that info was used to help the offical story, even it couldn't be helpful for their side. Orrrr, did I miss something? You pretty much got it. They do not have evidence to support their story. We have a ton of evidence that contradicts it. Throw this on the pile. Also... Clearly the data can NOT be cited as evidence AGAINST the north side claim. In fact according to PBnJ even if the data showed the official flight path line up perfectly with the official damage.......it would STILL not have been valid evidence against the north side claim since the data doesn't really show where the plane was and there is this completely huge and random margin of error. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 24 2008, 04:37 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


PBnJ	Feb 24 2008, 05:12 PM Post #28
The Best Sandwich on Earth Posts: 179 Group: Members Member #315 Joined: 02/13/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 24 2008, 04:07 PM Bitterman Feb 24 2008, 03:41 PM I think that was the point PBnJ. To show that if that info was used to help the offical story, even it couldn't be helpful for their side. Orrrr, did I miss something? You pretty much got it. They do not have evidence to support their story. We have a ton of evidence that contradicts it. Throw this on the pile. Well, I must admit that I misunderstood the intention of the OP, my apologies. So, correct me if I'm wrong here, you're saying the data presented in the RADES files is inconclusive for either a north or south approach? Quote: Who wants to bet that PeanutButterNJelly is Caustic Logic? Sorry to disappoint, but I don't know who that is.



Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 24 2008, 05:28 PM Post #29
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	PBnJ Feb 24 2008, 05:12 PM Craig Ranke CIT Feb 24 2008, 04:07 PM Bitterman Feb 24 2008, 03:41 PM I think that was the point PBnJ. To show that if that info was used to help the offical story, even it couldn't be helpful for their side. Orrrr, did I miss something? You pretty much got it. They do not have evidence to support their story. We have a ton of evidence that contradicts it. Throw this on the pile. Well, I must admit that I misunderstood the intention of the OP, my apologies. Apology accepted. Quote: So, correct me if I'm wrong here, you're saying the data presented in the RADES files is inconclusive for either a north or south approach? No...YOU said that as a way to dismiss the fact that it shows a north side approach. I already know that it is still completely irreconcilable with the eyewitnesses or physical reality. Unfortunately for you if you support the official story (as it seems you do) it is irreconcilable with that as well. [/quote]
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


PBnJ	Feb 24 2008, 11:16 PM Post #30
The Best Sandwich on Earth Posts: 179 Group: Members Member #315 Joined: 02/13/08	What? Ok this has gotten confusing. Lets get this back on track. In your opinion, does the RADES data directly support a north side approach, a south side approach, or neither?



Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 24 2008, 11:32 PM Post #31
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	PBnJ Feb 24 2008, 11:16 PM What? Ok this has gotten confusing. Lets get this back on track. In your opinion, does the RADES data directly support a north side approach, a south side approach, or neither? I have proof the RADES data is fraudulent so my personal opinion would be neither. However if we take the data at face value it's clear that it supports a north side approach. However if we go by your assessment the margin of error is too great to be able to tell either way. Right?
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


PBnJ	Feb 25 2008, 12:24 AM Post #32
The Best Sandwich on Earth Posts: 179 Group: Members Member #315 Joined: 02/13/08	Craig Ranke CIT Feb 24 2008, 11:32 PM PBnJ Feb 24 2008, 11:16 PM What? Ok this has gotten confusing. Lets get this back on track. In your opinion, does the RADES data directly support a north side approach, a south side approach, or neither? I have proof the RADES data is fraudulent so my personal opinion would be neither. However if we take the data at face value it's clear that it supports a north side approach. However if we go by your assessment the margin of error is too great to be able to tell either way. Right? So, it's fraudulent, but if it weren't, then it would support your theory? Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you do take the data at face value and as accurate pinpoint locations of the aircraft, then it would support a north approach theory. With that said, you also believe that planes fly in zig-zag patterns, sometimes banking at less than 45 degrees, and sometimes doubling back on their own path So of course the data can not be pinpoint locations, because the margin of error is too great for an exact location. These are approximations. Therefor, the data does NOT support a north side approach (if it is indeed not fraudulent). If anything, the data re-enforces the official story. The flight path of the official story is an average of several Search radar pulses. The distance between the last two Search pulse returns is .26 miles, interestingly enough, the midpoint between the two is pretty much spot-on for a south side approach. The claims you and Aldo are making here are so ambiguous that it's getting boring... What is your proof for the data being fraudulent?



Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 25 2008, 12:38 AM Post #33
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	Spin away. But get ready to be really dizzy.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 25 2008, 10:45 AM Post #34
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	PBnJ Feb 25 2008, 12:24 AM Craig Ranke CIT Feb 24 2008, 11:32 PM PBnJ Feb 24 2008, 11:16 PM What? Ok this has gotten confusing. Lets get this back on track. In your opinion, does the RADES data directly support a north side approach, a south side approach, or neither? I have proof the RADES data is fraudulent so my personal opinion would be neither. However if we take the data at face value it's clear that it supports a north side approach. However if we go by your assessment the margin of error is too great to be able to tell either way. Right? So, it's fraudulent, but if it weren't, then it would support your theory? Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too. If you do take the data at face value and as accurate pinpoint locations of the aircraft, then it would support a north approach theory. With that said, you also believe that planes fly in zig-zag patterns, sometimes banking at less than 45 degrees, and sometimes doubling back on their own path So of course the data can not be pinpoint locations, because the margin of error is too great for an exact location. These are approximations. Therefor, the data does NOT support a north side approach (if it is indeed not fraudulent). If anything, the data re-enforces the official story. The flight path of the official story is an average of several Search radar pulses. The distance between the last two Search pulse returns is .26 miles, interestingly enough, the midpoint between the two is pretty much spot-on for a south side approach. The claims you and Aldo are making here are so ambiguous that it's getting boring... What is your proof for the data being fraudulent? Um, does the radar data show the coordinates on the South side of the Citgo? Yes or no?
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 25 2008, 11:02 AM Post #35
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Yes, look at the the "ambiguous", "zig zag" coordinates of the jets and the C-130's alleged flight path.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


PBnJ	Feb 25 2008, 12:23 PM Post #36
The Best Sandwich on Earth Posts: 179 Group: Members Member #315 Joined: 02/13/08	Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 25 2008, 10:45 AM Um, does the radar data show the coordinates on the South side of the Citgo? Yes or no? Um, Yes. The radar data does show coordinates on the south side of the Citgo. Seconds earlier, it also shows coordinates on the north side of the citgo. As stated above: The Search radar pulse returns are APPROXIMATE. If you had actually read anything I posted with a shred of common sense, you would understand this by now. Quote: Yes, look at the the "ambiguous", "zig zag" coordinates of the jets and the C-130's alleged flight path. So then, you believe the lat/long coords in the RADES data are exact locations for the aircraft? Yes or no?



Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 25 2008, 12:52 PM Post #37
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: Aldo Marquis CIT Feb 25 2008, 10:45 AM Um, does the radar data show the coordinates on the South side of the Citgo? Yes or no? Um, Yes. The radar data does show coordinates on the south side of the Citgo. Seconds earlier, it also shows coordinates on the north side of the citgo. As stated above: Um, and does it support the official flight path yes or no? That would be a NO. The loop is certainly accurate, but all of a sudden it is "approximate" and "ambiguous" with a point on the north side, then irreconcilably terminating on the south side by 395. Quote: The Search radar pulse returns are APPROXIMATE. I understand that, so why does it show the second to last lat long coordinate entry on the NORTH SIDE? Quote: If you had actually read anything I posted with a shred of common sense, you would understand this by now. I read what you said, you arrogant punk. You are the one who is lacking the common sense. The coordinate that places the plane on the north side, approximate or not, is irreconcilable with the official flight path. Quote: Quote: Yes, look at the the "ambiguous", "zig zag" coordinates of the jets and the C-130's alleged flight path. So then, you believe the lat/long coords in the RADES data are exact locations for the aircraft? Yes or no? Of course not. I believe the entire data set is fraudelant. That doesn't change the fact that leading up to the Citgo, it is ONE SINGLE lat/long coordinate and the SECOND TO LAST ENTRY places it on the north side of the Citgo.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


PBnJ	Feb 25 2008, 01:04 PM Post #38
The Best Sandwich on Earth Posts: 179 Group: Members Member #315 Joined: 02/13/08	You're completely floundering and talking in circles, this is a waste of my time. Unless you can produce evidence that this data is fraudulent and produce some real explanations as to the bigger issues, then I have better things to do than watch you fail at understanding how radar returns work. Back on ignore CIT, where you belong.



Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 25 2008, 02:09 PM Post #39
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Yeah, this is what you did in the Skeptics forum when I confronted you about the north side witnesses. If you're not going to be honest with the readers or yourself, perhaps you should put 9/11 discussions on "ignore".
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


look-up	Feb 25 2008, 02:14 PM Post #40
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	let me see if I understand the argument here. if CIT is correct, then the data is all fraudulent, and the point being made here is basically, "they faked this data, and they didn't even fake it well enough to support their own story". is that it basically? I'm seriously asking because I don't know.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 25 2008, 02:18 PM Post #41
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	You got it, look-up. Plain and simple, it does not support the official flight path into the building.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


look-up	Feb 25 2008, 02:22 PM Post #42
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	thanks.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


PBnJ	Feb 25 2008, 05:58 PM Post #43
The Best Sandwich on Earth Posts: 179 Group: Members Member #315 Joined: 02/13/08	look-up Feb 25 2008, 02:14 PM let me see if I understand the argument here. if CIT is correct, then the data is all fraudulent, and the point being made here is basically, "they faked this data, and they didn't even fake it well enough to support their own story". is that it basically? I'm seriously asking because I don't know. That does appear to be the argument from CIT. However, they ignore the fact that this data supports the official flight path, and offer no explanation as to how it doesn't. Ironically, they say that if the data IS in fact legit, it supports a north approach - a claim that they also cannot support. They are trying to find anomalies at every avenue, yet avoid the bigger issues (where is the plane now? what about the DNA evidence? what about the plane wreckage? what about the fact that no one saw the plane fly over at all? where are those passengers now?). They throw around vague and general claims here and on other forums about how all this physical evidence was planted/faked... yet they never stop to consider that if the government went to the painstaking detail of perfectly planting DNA evidence, plane wreckage throughout the crash site, and downed light poles; then it wouldn't make much sense for them to leave such an obvious detail like radar data proving them otherwise. Edited by PBnJ, Feb 25 2008, 05:59 PM.



Bret08	Feb 25 2008, 06:59 PM Post #44
repeated trolling offender Posts: 209 Group: BANNED! Member #227 Joined: 01/27/08	PBnJ Feb 25 2008, 05:58 PM look-up Feb 25 2008, 02:14 PM let me see if I understand the argument here. if CIT is correct, then the data is all fraudulent, and the point being made here is basically, "they faked this data, and they didn't even fake it well enough to support their own story". is that it basically? I'm seriously asking because I don't know. That does appear to be the argument from CIT. However, they ignore the fact that this data supports the official flight path, and offer no explanation as to how it doesn't. Ironically, they say that if the data IS in fact legit, it supports a north approach - a claim that they also cannot support. They are trying to find anomalies at every avenue, yet avoid the bigger issues (where is the plane now? what about the DNA evidence? what about the plane wreckage? what about the fact that no one saw the plane fly over at all? where are those passengers now?). They throw around vague and general claims here and on other forums about how all this physical evidence was planted/faked... yet they never stop to consider that if the government went to the painstaking detail of perfectly planting DNA evidence, plane wreckage throughout the crash site, and downed light poles; then it wouldn't make much sense for them to leave such an obvious detail like radar data proving them otherwise. Makes sense to me, but they will continue to push their nonsense no evidence needed.



Craig Ranke CIT	Feb 25 2008, 07:16 PM Post #45
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08	PBnJ Feb 25 2008, 05:58 PM Ironically, they say that if the data IS in fact legit, it supports a north approach - a claim that they also cannot support. There is no "if". We know that it is NOT legitimate so that point is moot. Quote: They are trying to find anomalies at every avenue, We don't have to try. There ARE anomalies at every level. We simply report them. Quote: yet avoid the bigger issues (where is the plane now? what about the DNA evidence? what about the plane wreckage? what about the fact that no one saw the plane fly over at all? where are those passengers now?). None of that is "avoided" particularly the last one. The alleged DNA evidence is invalid in support of the government story because it was collected, analyzed, and the results provided for solely by the suspect. The final location of AA77 has nothing to do with any of the evidence we present. Quote: They throw around vague and general claims here and on other forums about how all this physical evidence was planted/faked... yet they never stop to consider that if the government went to the painstaking detail of perfectly planting DNA evidence, plane wreckage throughout the crash site, and downed light poles; then it wouldn't make much sense for them to leave such an obvious detail like radar data proving them otherwise. The fact that the radar and black box data does not support their story is not evidence that their story is correct. That is the most backwards logic I've ever heard. Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Feb 25 2008, 07:17 PM.
Posts: 1,459 Group: Members Member #14 Joined: 01/14/08


Stundie	Feb 25 2008, 08:26 PM Post #46
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Craig Ranke CIT The fact that the radar and black box data does not support their story is not evidence that their story is correct. That is the most backwards logic I've ever heard. Well said....lol Backward logic based on a combination of denial, ignorance, sheer logical stupidity and even dishonesty. The only person they are fooling is themselves and they know this, yet they keep coming back. Simply because you guys have present some facts and evidence which doesn't support his particular belief! The simple fact is, he hasn't got the balls to be a true patriot because the fact 9/11 could be an inside job scares him too much. A true patriot would say, wait a moment, maybe you have something, lets check it out. But oh no, instead of even simply agreeing that there are some questions that are not explained, some think it patriotic to simply deny it..... Don't blame him though, it's a natural reaction though, explained by the Fight or Flight response. Fight or Flight response - Psychology of the stress response A typical example of the stress response is a grazing zebra, calmly maintaining homeostasis. If the zebra sees a lion closing in for the kill, the stress response is activated. The escape requires intense muscular effort, supported by all of the body’s systems. Now replace the following in that example with.... CIT = Lion (Insert Name) Debunker = Zebra In other words....lol If the Debunker sees CIT closing in for the kill, (i.e. like this debate!) the stress response is activated. (By the debunkers) The escape requires intense muscular effort, (The muscular effort goes into typing any old shite to escape and never give in!) supported by all of the body’s systems. (i.e. using pseudoskeptical tactics and ignorance, denial, etc etc) lol So they can never be wrong, because they flight from the thought of 9/11 being an inside job. Its obvious that these people feel threatened by the fact you may have uncovered something which may shatter their belief it was those evil terrorists. So he is doing anything...and I mean absolutely anything to deny it... You got him jumping all over the place! Watching you highlight the daftness to some of these responses are....very cruel....like Jerry Springer...but more entertaining to watch... lol Troll flight response in...3..2..1...(Don't let me down and make me look stupid now!) Cheers Stundie p.s. Warner debunking trollers, don't post a troll flight response using my bracketed comments above i.e. along the lines "I make myself look stupid" to diss me! It is planted there by me to highlight how predictable your behaviour really is.[/b]..;) In other words making you look foolish! However, I won't be surprised as I know one of you guys won't be able to resist and take the bait! Edited by Stundie, Feb 25 2008, 08:28 PM.
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Aldo Marquis CIT	Feb 26 2008, 01:52 AM Post #47
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08	Stundie, that was dead on and priceless.
Posts: 1,649 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: 01/14/08


Bitterman	Feb 27 2008, 02:16 AM Post #48
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08	QUICKLY, IGNORE THE FACTS!!! AAAAAGGGGG!!! ATTACK, I have nothing else I can argue without valid evidence!!!! So I make up crap!!! Etc, etc, etc.
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #284 Joined: 02/07/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2