| 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
| SPLIT - reheats faith based accusation | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 4 2008, 09:23 PM (983 Views) | |
| Reheat | Jun 4 2008, 09:23 PM Post #1 |
|
Reheat
|
I should have anticipated that kind of conclusion.  Terminal Radars can depending upon a number of factors acquire at a lower altitude. All radars are much better over water where there is no clutter. This was not over water, it was in an urban area where ground clutter was definitely a big factor. If you will recall NORAD had extreme difficulty picking up both UA 175 and AA 11 because of ground clutter and they were both at high altitude.I am not a radar expert and don't pretend to be. I was making a generalized statement that radar data at low altitude is unreliable. That is a correct statement. Don't try to draw spurious conclusions from it. Airliners don't fly below 2K except for climbout and landing and the system DOES NOT depend entirely on search radar to determine if a flight is not going as per normal to it's prescribed destination. I spent my entire USAF flying career during the Cold War. A goodly portion of that was spent developing and implementing tactics that would evade enemy radars. I do know how to do it, but I'm sure as hell not going to post details here. Islamic radicals already determined a way to exploit a weakness in the system and I'm not about to give them any additional help. |
 |
 
|
| JFK | Jun 4 2008, 09:39 PM Post #2 |
|
If you did I would personally wipe it, delete it and instaban you..... In that order. 
And your first hand proof of this is ? Edited by JFK, Jun 4 2008, 09:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Reheat | Jun 4 2008, 09:45 PM Post #3 |
|
Reheat
|
Do you have a better explanation? If you have proof it wasn't I haven't see it and it's been over 7 years now. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 4 2008, 09:49 PM Post #4 |
|
Actually yes I do have a better explaination.... But it is not proof, so I will not go into that here. It is your statement presented as fact that I call into question. So do you have firsthand proof or not ? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 4 2008, 10:10 PM Post #5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Reheat | Jun 4 2008, 10:16 PM Post #6 |
|
Reheat
|
The Title of the split thread should be What Makes Sense! |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 4 2008, 10:20 PM Post #7 |
|
I based the title upon this statement :
You have already said you have no first hand proof, therefore it is your faith which led you to make that accusation. Edited by JFK, Jun 4 2008, 10:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Reheat | Jun 5 2008, 09:04 AM Post #8 |
|
Reheat
|
Wrong! What I have done is look at the REAL evidence and let that lead me to a conclusion. What you do is BEGIN with a foregone conclusion and attempt to make pieces fit with that conclusion. A prime example is CIT. They went to Washington with the intent to interview people who they thought could prove the "Official Story" wrong. Only interviewed people who fit their preconception and then "cherry picked" that evidence to fit with their theory. A prime example of a "bass ackwards" investigation. All evidence which does not fit is either "hand waved" away, ignored, or spun with convoluted logic. Look, I spent over 20 years in the military. I know thousands of military folks and have worked intimately with most of them. Even flew in combat with some of them. I've worked at the Pentagon and am reasonably familiar with the area. Once you even begin to accuse even one military person of complicity in any kind of an "inside job" that gets my attention. In the case of virtually any alternate scenario you are accusing literally thousands of military folks of being "in on it". It is a baseless accusation without merit. 84 RADES is just one example of these baseless accusations. They are accused in this very Forum of producing false data. These are % 99 enlisted folks with a 1LT Commander. I do not and will not believe for a second that these people would either produce false data or allow it to be published without speaking out. I will reject that accusation from now until doomsday unless you have irrefutable proof and at present there is NONE, not even any reliable evidence to indicate suspicion. So, you call mine a faith based conclusion or ("accusation") when it is actually a conclusion and an opinion based on EVIDENCE, whereas you only have what is invented in deluded agenda driven minds based upon speculation. |
|
|
|
| exponent | Jun 5 2008, 09:34 AM Post #9 |
|
I have no 'first hand' proof that atoms exist, I have never directly observed them. Would you call my belief in atoms 'faith based'? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 5 2008, 10:13 AM Post #10 |
|
Well, I suggest you take your facts a bit further back in history. Might I suggest you begin with an islamic prince named Abdul Rahman and find out what his story is in regards to a Mr. Foster, let alone the President(s) of the US at that point in time. Once you do that, mentally put yourself in his shoes and see where the future leads. As far as the military, as you know I was also a part of that and I will defend them as a rule.... BUT I also realize that there are a few "bad eggs" in the military also. Those are the exception to the rule. I am forced to wonder with your constant obstifucation of issues here if you are one of those "bad eggs". Look reheat, I ( and most people here ) only want the truth of what happened on 911. I have lost faith in anything which Bush and his administration have to offer as far as facts because in my eyes they have been caught in way too many lies. To find the truth you first have to come up with a theory. Then investigate it, and if it is false that will soon become self evident. You and your peers are actually degrading that effort with your actions, and are actually undermining the reputation of the military. If there is a domestic threat, and I believe that there is an extremely serious one in the Whitehouse, YOU have sworn an oath to defend against it, as have I. When will you begin to take that oath serious as I have ? As far as CIT, They have done more than you will ever do as far as attempting to uncover the truth. The information they have gathered is indeed interesting. Now hear this - I will not censor their efforts while I have any say about it on this forum. Anyone attempting to censor their efforts will be dealt with. That includes you. The exception to that "rule" is if they ( CIT ) should stray into an area which would compromise the security of the nation, something which is entirely possible, albeit unlikely. As far as the 84 RADES data, I am currently assuming that is it valid. Thus far I have seen nothing to deem it otherwise. I would have preferred that it was entirely compiled by "machines", but you work with what you have. Should I not study what it has to say because people like you attack people like me for daring to look at that data ? Sorry bub, the country which I grew up in and swore my allegiance to forbids that from ever happening. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 5 2008, 10:15 AM Post #11 |
|
Honestly e^n yes I would. I share the same faith in that respect.
|
|
|
|
| Reheat | Jun 5 2008, 10:33 AM Post #12 |
|
Reheat
|
I won't address the bulk of your comments simply because I disagree with them and it would do no good to continue to argue. In my opinion your Honorable claims of patriotism are misplaced. You're simply "barking up the wrong tree". As far as CIT goes, I have already PROVEN their theory false, but it will be further smashed shortly with a comprehensive paper going online. When did I object to you examining the 84 RADES data? I even helped you. It's just that I know the low altitude stuff is not reliable and I'm not interested in wasting my time on it. Have at it, if you think it will prove anything. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Jun 5 2008, 10:37 AM Post #13 |
Patriotic American
|
The official Flight 77 FDR and the FDR flight path loop southwest of the Pentagon have been proven fakes. Not one single witness has been quoted seeing or photographing that tight loop descending down out of the sky over Alexandria and Springfield and Annandale and Falls Church with hundreds of thousands of people living down there. The actual aircraft flew across the Potomac, over Washington DC, 6 miles southeast of the White House, and back west across the Potomac, according to multiple witnesses and the NORAD tapes. A flight path nothing like the official faked FDR flight path. Therefore the 84 RADES data which was produced 4+ years after 9-11 and perfectly mimics the faked Flight 77 loop southwest of the Pentagon was also faked by somebody. That same faked RADES data also shows an alleged C-130 fifteen mile straight flight path to the southwest and south of Reagan, which the C-130 pilot never flew. Instead he flew north and west just below the Washington Mall and spotted the decoy aircraft north of Reagan and north of the Pentagon just before it crossed the Potomac and flew over Washington DC. Whether your RADES buddies lack the cohones to come forward and expose the faked data or not does not decrease the evidence that the government manufactured fake evidence to NeoCON us. Whether thousands of military folks are 'in on it' remains to be seen. We are just sick of the government lies. C-130 flight path (Yellow line) - Faked RADES C-130 flight path (blue) - Faked Flight 77 (red) - Decoy aircraft spotted by O'Brien to the west after C-130 passed the Mall  The loop witnessed by nobody created by alleged Flight 77 FDR and 84 RADES data  |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 5 2008, 11:13 AM Post #14 |
|
Oh really ? And what was Lagasse's and all the other witnesses response to your "proof" ?
Indeed, that formula may be helpful to me in the future and I did thank you for that did I not ? < opens another tab and checks... Yes I did. > If you are not interested in wasting you time, why did you derail my thread to the point I had to split it ? For that matter why are you even here, as your credibility on this board has come under serious suspect ? ( read as you are wasting your time here. ) Whether or not it proves anything is irrelivant. If it does great, if not at least I will know how to use another program and will understand it's underlying data structure. edit to add - Yeah, I know the cop out of not adressing my other points.... For example Prince Abdul Rahman was probably your ancestors slave. Edited by JFK, Jun 5 2008, 11:19 AM.
|
|
|
|
| SPreston | Jun 5 2008, 11:20 AM Post #15 |
|
Patriotic American
|
If the RADES data is not reliable for low altitude stuff, then how does it perfectly mimic the official Flight 77 FDR loop southwest of the Pentagon? It appears that 'somebody' thinks the RADES data is reliable enough to CON hundreds of millions of people. Is the real reason you are unwilling to waste time on it because you 'know' it was faked? Why does everything have to be faked at the Pentagon and you government loyalists still never waver in your loyalty? The parking lot videos, the light poles, the aircraft debris, the FDR, the RADES data, the flight path, the generator damage, the facade damage, the Exit Hole; all faked. C-130 flight path (Yellow line) - Faked RADES C-130 flight path (blue) - Faked Flight 77 (red) - Decoy aircraft spotted by O'Brien to the west after C-130 passed the Mall The loop witnessed by nobody created by alleged Flight 77 FDR and 84 RADES data
|
|
|
|
| exponent | Jun 5 2008, 11:44 AM Post #16 |
|
This is a dangerous line of thinking, with this attitude you can easily dismiss any evidence which doesn't confirm your belief. What evidence would cause you to doubt your theory? edit:
But JFK, don't you see that this makes the word 'faith' useless? If you use it to describe things we have scientific evidence for, then it exists only to describe any belief in anything no matter whether supported or not. This is too broad a scope. 'Faith', as I see it, refers to things which are not supported by evidence, or which can not be determined objectively. Reheat's belief fits neither of these criteria. Edited by exponent, Jun 5 2008, 11:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jun 5 2008, 12:10 PM Post #17 |
|
No you are ONCE AGAIN WRONG. We have interviewed as many witnesses as we could find, published and unpublished. We did not believe a 757 hit the building and were prepared to accept that one did, so long as it flew on the south side of the Citgo, clipped 5 light poles, and skim into the first floor -it didn't. Have you ever reviewed our witness lists? We have interviewed and attempted to interview tons of people, Reheat. It is listed right there. We looked at what each witness's account represented. A lot could not even see the Pentagon and merely draw a plane/deduced an impact. So we looked for people who were in the approach toward "impact", that would be our witnesses at the Citgo, up on Columbia Pike, and at Arlington Cemetery. People on Rt 27 would have less of a chance to see the whole approach and flight path, as we have proven. The scumbags at your beloved forum loved to spam eyewitnesses to a plane, and now because we look at them forensically and objectively, you protest and call it "cherry picking"? Our case is airtight and you know it.
Oh please show us where we accuse someone specifically in the military of complicity. Nice strawman though.
NO. Absolutely not. Retract that. We have merely stated that the RADES data is fraudelant, that means they could have recorded flase data unknowingly. We have NEVER accused the 84 RADES of being complicit. Nice strawman. Keep it up.
Are you insane? You are inventing an impossible flight path. You don't have any evidence, other than WHERE the witnesses place the plane. "invented in deluded agenda driven minds based upon speculation" Really? Speculation? And what did you use to arrive at your "numbers"? SPECULATION! Talk about deluded. Show us the numbers for a plane that crosses from the south side of Columbia Pike, over the Navy Annex, to the north side of the Citgo, and around toward the alleged impact area. Or are you saying a plane can't cross from the south side of Columbia Pike, over the Navy Annex, to the north side of the Citgo, and around toward the alleged impact area? Is that what you are saying? Edited by Aldo Marquis CIT, Jun 5 2008, 12:11 PM.
|
|
|
|
| SPreston | Jun 5 2008, 12:12 PM Post #18 |
|
Patriotic American
|
You want me to manufacture evidence which might add support to the fantastical and unbelievable 19 hijackers did it all by their lonesomes official 9-11 theory? Manufacturing evidence? Is that not the duty of the 9-11 planners and the 9-11 cover-up crew and the government loyalists? What genuine evidence could possibly pop up now almost 7 years after 9-11, which could erase all the evidence proving it was an Inside Job by our own government? I can imagine none. Releasing more altered security tapes? More denials by Dubya in the Oval Office next to the desks hiding the Iraqi WMDs? Maybe another piece of op-ed crap from Popular Mechanics? Perhaps another pure stupidity video from Integrated Consultants? I certainly will not invent evidence. I'm certain many of the government loyalists are working on that this very minute. Absolute total stupidity and dishonesty made this video. And there is no possible way this aircraft can get here from over the Navy Annex. Impossible. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jun 5 2008, 12:16 PM Post #19 |
|
JFK, Don't let him bully you. The RADES data is fruadelant on so many levels. Let's start with Chaconas. He proves it is fraudelant. The north side witnesses prove it is fraudelant. Even our biggest detractor and 757 impact proponent, John Farmer, admits the RADES data is fraudelant. |
|
|
|
| Reheat | Jun 5 2008, 12:22 PM Post #20 |
|
Reheat
|
Oh, I didn't know that LaGasse and all the other witnesses responded to my proof. Perhaps it would be better understood if you'd clarify whether you're speaking of the proof that an aircraft could not fly the flight path indicated when we put all of the witnesses statements together or the proof that the aircraft did strike the Pentagon as he also was convinced. Remember, he described the attitude at impact and said that he retrieved parts from all over the place. Which proof are you talking about? I hijacked your thread? I beg your pardon! You asked a question and I answered it. That line of discussion did not have to be pursued. If you'll look back you hijacked your own thread. BTW, I don't find the other half of the "split". I'm not familiar with the Forum, so perhaps I missed it. It appears that only the title of the original thread was changed. Yes, a few of my ancestors had slaves. I've confirmed that via genealogical research. Wow, are you really holding me responsible for what my ancestors did some 100 years prior to my birth? BTW, the majority of my ancestry is of Scots-Irish origin. They were not strangers to persecution and enslavement by the Government. That's precisely why many of them ended up in North America. I don't precisely know what this has to do with the discussion, but you did ask the question. |
|
|
|
| Reheat | Jun 5 2008, 12:30 PM Post #21 |
|
Reheat
|
Oh, how many levels of evidence do you have of fraudulent Rades data? Witness statements on what they think they saw? Is that all? I think you're placing more credibility in witness statements and your interpretation of them than is justified. In fact, that has been pointed out time and time again, but you ignore it. Do you have any other proof? |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 5 2008, 12:34 PM Post #22 |
|
Aldo, I am not letting him "bully" me.... And just to make you aware, you won't either. At this point I am still new to the RADES data and software and prefer to keep an open mind as to it being legit. If it isn't that will become self evident in the course of time as I study it for myself. At the moment I am concentrating on 77's path. And yes I do have suspicions if it could have made that spiral and been within the specs of reheats bank calculator. But at this point that is only a suspicion and as I said I am just getting into this. The facts will lead to where ever they lead. Thus far I have isolated and screen cap'd about 30 points of data of 77's path which does include all of the spiral.... For some unknown reason the RS3 software is not letting me copy and paste that data... so this is going to be a slow process for me. I do have a question though.... Is there another source for the RADES data other than Farmer's site ? |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jun 5 2008, 12:36 PM Post #23 |
|
Reheat, an aircraft can fly from the south side of Columbia Pike, over the Navy Annex, on the north side of the Citgo, and toward the Pentagon impact area. You are merely setting up a strawman/impossible flight path and attributing it to us. There isn't even any peer review of your numbers, just your declaration that you are right. Which of course we know you're not. Lagasse believed the plane hit because he saw scraps on the lawn. That doesn't constitute proof that it impact. Neither does his deduction using images of a plane in a "yaw" and admission that the fireball prevented him from seeing what the plane did. Watch it again, you'll see he didn't see what the plane did. He merely deduced it based on the images he saw after the fact. I think Reheat knows this is what the plane did, he is just trying to protect what he knows was a military operation...because he is of course, admittedly, a military man. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Jun 5 2008, 12:37 PM Post #24 |
|
@ reheat - the other half of the split can be found here - http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/322707/1/#new Keep in mind I will delete useless posts in that thread when I go back to update it with my findings. |
|
|
|
| Aldo Marquis CIT | Jun 5 2008, 12:42 PM Post #25 |
|
Sure. You need more? Colin Scoggins? Kevin Nesapany?Dawn Deskins? http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=116 Norman Mineta/Monte Belger http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=106 Got that, big guy? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · American Flight 77 · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
10:53 PM Nov 23
