Only problem I see, is how the news isn't reporting on it. I mean if it had any real credibility the news would be all over this. Just the idea of Nixon being aware of his admin pulling shenanigans got him into a hail storm. I am pretty sure the US gov partially exploding a section of its own headquarters would be one hefty story for someone to break. I really wish the gov was that powerful and all knowing, but it just isn't.

I almost feel that people who are so deep into this conspiracy are afraid to think the government can be so human that they would overlook obvious signs before hand. Its an unwillingness to believe we had one pulled over on us by some douche bags in a cave with box cutters. We just aren't as impressive as we thought we were, and sadly it took alot of death and destruction to show it. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Well, after using them for 20 or so years, I do have a little bit of experience with them...... even to the point of knowing how to use them to spot birds over the horizon for evidence of fish schools below.... and how to choose and place a radar unit so jumping fish can be seen on the horizon..... but now I'm giving away some of my fishing tricks. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

What I DO know about radar is that like any science, sufficiently developed, or beyond the limits of understanding to the inexperienced..... any derived results are indistinguishable from magic. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Have you heard of MLat and/or ADS-B, Phil? Do you know why the technology is being developed?




Aviation Today - Avionics

If you look at the sweep rate on military radars - particularly aboard ships where there is little clutter (actually there is sea surface clutter, but is filtered out fairly well with STC control), you'll find a very rapid antenna rotation - necessary for accurately tracking incoming threats in as close to real-time as possible. You don't have that on commercial airport radars - as shown in the reference. The article states that typical airport sweep rates are 4.8 seconds - which means that the image is frozen on the display for 4.8 seconds after it is located and does not move on the screen until 4.8 seconds later when the image is refreshed by the subsequent sweep. If (as the article claims) there can be as many as three (3) consecutive antenna sweeps before a target is positively identified, the time frame extends to 15-20 seconds..... let's call it 15 seconds:

An airplane flying at 500mph covers 0.14 miles in 1 second - so in 4.8 seconds it would cover 0.67 miles. In 15 seconds it covers 2.1 miles. Now, if someone looked at the radar display at the exact moment that the sweep displayed the position on the screen, the plane would already have moved due to the latency of the electronics, but if the plane crashed right at the time of the next sweep, the radar would still show the plane to be located 3548' away from that spot at impact. If the problem took 15 seconds to resolve, the difference could be as much as 2 miles.

Now - if Truthers want to argue over a difference of 400' when that would not even be a mid-point in a best-case range of error, have at it. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Where the heck IS that pesky plane?

Frank <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

Well, now that you've had a chance to read a little about MLat and ADS-B, maybe you could answer your own and the "Truthers" questions about radar. While you're at it, ask yourself these 2 questions:

1) If the radar information you claim to be so accurate is so good (because it has to be <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />), then why is radar being augmented and/or replaced by MLat and ADS-B all over the world?

Chezh-ANS

Rannoch Corp.

ERA - Bejing

There are plenty of others......

It's quite possible that one of the things we learned from 9/11 is that our radar systems are not quite as good as some think they are. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

2) Where is the plane?

Frank <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

I know a little about radars, I only employ them in the defense of several ships daily...

Several factors impact their reliability...like weather, ducting, buildings and $hit in the way when they fly low...you know, stuff like that. I'm just sayin'...

They are used for approaches because, generally speaking, planes don't fly between buildings and $hit on approaches. Once again, I'm just sayin'...

I'm not a reliable source of information, though, so don't mind me. I'm just sayin'...

Damn!!! 2 reliable sources on how "accurate" current radar is. I think you are fighting a losing battle here Bretwalda. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

And I think the only good question asked so far in this thread is...

Where is the flight 77 if it did not crash into the pentagon....maybe at area 51? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

Where is the plane is not the point. Where is the evidence that a plane hit the building? If it hit it where is it? The burden of proof is not on the one that says there is no evidence - its on the claim that says a 757 hit it. So lets see it. Lets see the footage. Lets see the wreckage. If its a slam dunk these should be very simple to provide.

The plane wasn't flying in between buildings. Regardless...So the FAA's data cannot be trusted. But it can be trusted for other radar anomalies that happened that day? The NTSB flight data recorder cannot be trusted - but we can trust them regarding FL 93? Its silly. Its being selective with the evidence. The official selectivity of the evidence suggests the evidence they provide is not to be trusted.

I've worked with surveillance systems for years- I can tell you that a time stamped video does not reverse its time stamp. Rolls Royce made the engines for this plane - they say the single rotor found in the wreckage isn't from them. So what's what?

Its like finding a body with a bullet hole in the head and being told the victim fell in a rock crusher. If he was killed by gun then where's the gun? How should I know? Its not the point. The evidence is the point and the evidence that the victim was killed by a rock crusher stinks on every level.

I don't have to provide a gun to make my claim - the dude has a hole in his head, and his body's condition is not consistent with one that would go through a rock crusher.

What coincidence apologists will do - as we see here - is beat the false claim horse to death. All other evidence is 'irrelevent'. They must stick to single point or their argument becomes ridiculous. And they must keep that point as confined as possible. Frank won't show us wreckage of a 757 from the Pentagon because there is none. There's pieces of an aircraft, but there are many types of aircraft that fit these pieces. Nor would we want to see what it looked like in there because we would realize how inconceivably ridiculous it is to state that there were 'passengers still strapped in their seats." There's pictures of victims found in the Pentagon - provided by the government. Where are pics of the passengers?





I think you've answered your own dilemma. Dan Rather admitting he and everyone else is a sucker in their trade:

"There's never been an American war, small or large, in which access has been so limited as this one. The belief runs so strong, in both the political and military leadership, that those who control the images will control public opinion. It's an obscene comparison but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people's necks if they dissented. The fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now, it's that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often...I knew the right question, but no one...This is not exactly the right time to ask...It starts with a feeling of patriotism within oneself. They realize what an entertainment-oriented society ours has become. I want to say it quietly, but as forcefully as I can, that I hope this doesn't go any further. It's gone too far already. I am appalled by it."

We've had 3 suitcases in parks here detonated by the bomb squads in the last couple years. We've had blocks of cheese with rebar and wires run through security at the airport here. Never to be heard of again. So I went up to a reporter here one day and asked him WTF? "Followup was killed by corporate and Homeland Security" was his reply. And he gets all scared and bugged eyed eyed with me and starts lecturing how its for our saftey. Stupid. That isn't a journalist thats a yes man. A gatekeeper who just needs a paycheck. I dealt with these morons all summer running for state assembly. It was actually quite fun - actually had a fellow reporter of one who interviewed me tell me to "Lay off" his buddy. And they loved it after the interviews when I told them I had recorded the conversation and would be posting it on my site. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

There's still investigative journalism going on but you won't find it in megamedia.

Has any reporter ever asked our government why, if Bin Laden did it, is he not wanted by any agency for crimes relating to 9-11? Of course not. An indie reporter did ask the FBI why 9-11 isn't on his wanted poster and the FBI told him, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's most wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

Is that really a surprise when the only civilian plane allowed to fly after 9-11 was the Bin Laden's chartered jet?

Is that really a surprise when we l...ently as 1999 in the Albania and Bosnia?.

Is really a surprise that Obama's c...all the cred for creating this monster?

Is it really a surprise that the Bu...he Bin Ladens and own companies together?



All of it coincidence <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

Of course it is. Since you seem to be saying that the burden of proof is on the one who makes a claim of something happening - and since you say that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, you must be prepared to provide evidence to the contrary..... so where is the plane?



No, but it's not the plane flying between buildings - it's the RF waves that move around and through buildings and trees and bounce off of objects other than planes that causes the anomalies. Interference bends the waves or causes echos and reflections which causes errors in calculated data. Weather and other RF interference also contributes. How do you think a radar jammer works? Whether it is a radar, LORAN or GPS, the hardest calculation for the machine to correctly interpret is a turn or curve. The curious flight path that so many folks think was a pilot who couldn't make up his mind was instead perhaps a very smart fellow who knew that a diving tight turn at high speed was something that could/would help him evade any potential missile threats.... because that's the most difficult action that any radar has to deal with in trying to interpolate a correct track.



Let's see the evidence of where the plane went - if not into the Pentagon. If it's a slam dunk the evidence should be easy to provide.



But folks should accept your selective and mostly irrelevent claims? Why do you glom on to the FAA radar data as infallibly accurate, yet not be able to see from the data where the plane went if it didn't hit the Pentagon?



Can you show me an official Rolls Royce statement to back that claim?



If you can't answer the question of the plane's whereabouts, you have nothing more than a theory - and not a very good one. That single point is one you have to answer to make your case - and you can't do it.



Really?



Including a 757.



I don't recall seeing that on your site - you didn't actually lie to him, did you? Not a Truther. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/scared.gif" alt="" />



Phew! What a relief to know some folks are on the job! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" /> That's probably a coincidence, though. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

Where's the plane, Phil? With all that good radar, the answer should be easy.

Frank

Good Lord. Prima facie Frank. Look it up. I'm not making a claim about the plane. I don't know what happened (and neither do you). There is gobs of evidence contradictory to your claim, as we have already discussed.

That there is no evidence of a 757 smoldering inside the pentagon is not a claim that I know where the plane is - it is a refutation of your claim. To state that witness saw a plane travel over an area in contradiction to the governments claim is not a claim of where the plane is or what happened to it, it is submission of evidence contradictory to the claim. In the real world (I invite you to visit sometime) your claim 'on first appearance' must hold it own. Unfortunately eyewitness testimony - 13 people independently interviewed and unanimous in their account is a death blow of evidence contrary to the claim that the plane flew south of the Citgo. You may not like that. You could claim 'conspiracy' of the eyewitnesses - but why bother - you've got plenty to prove already and you're coming up way short. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Please reread my hypothetical scenario to understand the foolishness of your argument.

I never said the FAA radar data is infallibly accurate - I said it supports the testimony of 13 independently interviewed witness who were unanimous in their account. Based on that - it appears the radar data could be accurate - is that unreasonable? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />



Yes, you got me. Because its not on my own site - I must be lying. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" /> ...Just like all them FBI counterterrorism agents who were locked out of the 9-11 Commission proceedings - thank goodness eh?

No, it's a failure to believe the government and most of the eye-witnesses without sufficient counter-evidence as proof that the claim is incorrect. You are the one bringing the charge and must prove your theory to the extent that sufficient and rational evidence is presented to call into question the defendant's veracity.... which you haven't done and can't do.



Here's what you also said:



Then:



Sounds like you think it's the "word".

Now, since you didn't understand how radar works, you probably aren't terribly interested in altimeters, either - except to once again accept anything sufficiently beyond understanding.... as magic, sleight-of-hand or infallible because it's in a "black box". Guess what? Altimeters can lie to you if you don't properly adjust them for the correct barometric pressure. According to some things I've read, the NTSB didn't adjust the pressure correction on the FDR altimeter readout for the data that some have said showed the plane at 480' at the time of impact. Maybe this can explain it to you better than I can:

web page

You say the North of Citgo Gang are in unanimous agreement:



.........like that's the only story line:

Debunking the North of Citgo Theory





Thought so - thanks for confirming it. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" />

Frank <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

LOLZ at 'majority of witness' - show me one that details the flight path. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

I wouldn't doubt Hanjour wouldn't know how to set an altimeter - as the dude couldn't even check out in a Cessna. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

The numbers don't lie Frank. Your government does though.

The pressure set in the altimeter was 29.92. Actual pressure was 30.22 at Reagan Airport. That means that the actual altitude of the plane was 300 ft higher than what was incorrectly dialed into the altimeter. There is no way around it. I used to fly, and I actually soloed in a Cessna because I could fly it, unlike our villain. But what do I know. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> (better post that on my site too now come to think of it <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />)

Your citgo link was a good chuckle. Funny that he didn't provide the overlay of all the witnesses sketches of the flight path... So in our slam dunk claim that Hanni Hanjour flew a plane into the bottom level of the Pentagon, following the flight path of...???Well - lets just stick with the NTSB one for your sake <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />...How exactly did the plane clear the VOR tower smack dab in the middle of this flight path - a few hundred yards from its final destination? Was the plane already in its 'liquified' state at this point?

<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cyclops.gif" alt="" />