It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

84 RADES radar data

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Ok Craig:

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
It's true whether or not I say it and you dismissing it doesn't make it go away.

Enough witness corroboration of any claim constitutes proof and is therefore hard evidence.

1 first-hand eyewitness account is evidence.

2 independently corroborated accounts is hard evidence

3 independently corroborated accounts is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have presented 4 and have 2 more yet unreleased for a total of 6.

Not a single account in the entire investigative body of evidence directly refutes the north side claim.




If thats so then:

1) the aircraft approached. It came in. It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in." Walker Lee Evey
*******EVIDENCE*******

2) "The aircarft went southwest (...) picking off trees and light poles" Tom Hovis
***********Hard Evidence*******

3) "The plane clipped the top of a light pole" Stephen McGraw
************ Proof beyond a resonable doubt*************\

4) "It hit some lampposts on the way in" Afework Hagos
*************just to rub it in*************


So by your reasoning we have just proved that an Airplane knocked down the lightpoles. It seems to me - since you have written all other witnesses besides your 6 golden children off as being liars and thieves - that you would gain more credence by rechecking these out. Why don't you "independently corroborate" these people?

Oh - I know why!!!!!! Because they won't say what you want.

I have another question - what does "independently corroborated" mean. Have they been corroborated by anyone besides you and your crew? If now - then they can't be considered any more independant than the other witnesses listed.


Also where did you come up with that definition of proof when it comes to eyewitness reports. Here is a very disturbing fact:

Seventy-seven percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S. involve mistaken eyewitness identification testimony, making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions.

Eyewitness reports are far from infallible, no matter which side of the arguement you are on. They cannot be taken as proof on their own. They must be viewed in the context of the larger body of evidence. The larger body of evidence here is irreconcilable with your thoeries. Your attempts to shrug off the discrepancies by just saying that you do not need to address them, is flawed. The "evidence" you are basing your beliefs on is not compelling enough to outweigh the shortcommings.




posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234





If thats so then:

1) the aircraft approached. It came in. It clipped a couple of light poles on the way in." Walker Lee Evey
*******EVIDENCE*******

2) "The aircarft went southwest (...) picking off trees and light poles" Tom Hovis
***********Hard Evidence*******

3) "The plane clipped the top of a light pole" Stephen McGraw
************ Proof beyond a resonable doubt*************\

4) "It hit some lampposts on the way in" Afework Hagos
*************just to rub it in*************


So by your reasoning we have just proved that an Airplane knocked down the lightpoles. It seems to me - since you have written all other witnesses besides your 6 golden children off as being liars and thieves - that you would gain more credence by rechecking these out. Why don't you "independently corroborate" these people?



Heh.

If you only knew what you just walked into.

None of what you listed is first-hand testimony.

They are static UNCONFIRMED words reported by the mainstream media who we know is complicit and/or a manipulated tool of this operation.

If you had produced video taped testimony from these individuals you would have evidence.

It gets even better.

1. Lee Walker Evey was the Pentagon renovation manager who was at home at the time of the attack. He is not a witness at all.


He was merely relaying what was reported during a press conference.



TFM: Can you describe what it felt like to see the Pentagon in person, for the first time after the attack?

LE: It was a shock. Everyone has seen pictures of the outer wall. Naturally, it was shocking to see on the front page of the newspaper and on television. But believe me, as shocking as those things were, they didn't come anywhere close to the visceral response I got when I saw it myself.

www.todaysfacilitymanager.com...



This is a PRIME example of why direct confirmation of all witness accounts is imperative and how words printed by the media are erroneously used to support the official story.


2. Tom Hovis was IN HIS OFFICE 8 miles away at the time of the attack and ALSO did not witness the event! He arrived to the scene afterwards.


Gentlemen,

On this day of prayer I went to the Pentagon and prayed for those Americans that died at the hands of those evil monsters.

My office is 8 miles from the site. The recovery teams working 18 hour shifts are just now getting to the body of the aircraft that went right through the outer ring at full power according to eyewitnesses.. Being a former transport type (60's era) I cannot understand how that plane hit where it did giving the direction the aircraft was taking at the time.


As most know, the Pentagon lies at the bottom of two hills from the west with the east side being next to the river at 14th street bridge. One hill is at the Navy Annex and the other is Arlington Cemetery. The plane came up I-395 also known as Shirley Hwy. (most likely used as a reference point.) The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap. Why the plane did not hit incoming traffic coming down the river from the north to Reagan Nat'l. is beyond me. Strangely, no one at the Reagan Tower noticed the aircraft. Andrews AFB radar should have also picked up the aircraft I would think. Nevertheless, the aircraft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building. It was as if he leveled out at the last minute and put it square into the building. The wings came off as if it went through an arch way leaving a hole in the side of the building it seems a little larger than the wide body of the aircraft. The entry point was so clean that the roof (shown in news photo) fell in on the wreckage. They are just now getting to the passengers today. The nose wheel I understand is in the grass near the second ring. Right now it is estimated that it will take two years to repair the damage. Ironically, the area had just been remodeled with most of the area was still blocked off and some offices were empty.

[...]

www.beanerbanner.com...


(as a side note his underlined account of where he was told the plane flew COMPLETELY contradicts the RADES and NTSB data yet supports O'Brien and the Potomoc River witness we just obtained. My how poignant of you to post his account in this thread!)

3. I have personally interviewed Stephen McGraw. Despite there being several suspicious details with his account; he specifically told us that he did NOT see the plane hit any light poles after all despite the fact that he was directly in front of them. He admitted that he only deduced that the plane hit them.

Watch entire interview here.

4. We have unsuccessfully tried to locate Afework Hagos but can find no information for him anywhere. Nevertheless his unconfirmed account is hearsay and not valid evidence PLUS he doesn't even claim to have seen the light poles get hit by the plane. Just like Stephen McGraw is cited as having seen the light poles get hit when he specifically states otherwise...this is certainly the case with Hagos.


In fact we have also been directly told by Mike Walter, Joel Sucherman, and Chad Brooks in personal interviews that NONE of them saw the plane hit the poles either!

Not a single alleged "light pole" witness that we got a hold of would confirm that they saw the plane hit the poles.

A full analysis of all of them is available here.

This is exactly why the work we do is so important.

If you don't hear it from the witness direct it is NOT valid evidence.

So......until you provide more than 6 video taped witnesses accounts who specifically place the plane on the south side of the citgo you haven't even come close to countering the evidence we present.



posted on Nov, 14 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234

Also where did you come up with that definition of proof when it comes to eyewitness reports. Here is a very disturbing fact:

Seventy-seven percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S. involve mistaken eyewitness identification testimony, making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions.



Show me where this study is specifically in regards to convictions that are based on INDEPENDENTLY CORROBORATED accounts with up to 6 witnesses.

Plus this is not merely a person identifying another person's face from memory.

These are multiple individuals identifying where a massive jumbo jet flew 10's of feet away from them in relation to the property on which they were standing.

For ANY of them to mistake the plane as being on the complete opposite side in a completely different trajectory even though it was a tree-top level and this was a world historical event is absurd.

For all of them to make that exact same extremely drastic mistake is statistically impossible.





posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Sigh - I should have seen this coming, I pulled a few quotes out at random. So I'll give you the fact that I really do not have the time or desire to go tit for tat. Just answer me these few questions.

1) How many witnesses say they saw the plane overfly the pentagon.

2) Forget the lightpoles for a sec - did you ever ask anyone else which side of the gas station the plane flew on. Was that a standard question in your interviews?

3) Who came up with the definition that 3 witnesses = a reasonable doubt etc...



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234
Sigh - I should have seen this coming, I pulled a few quotes out at random. So I'll give you the fact that I really do not have the time or desire to go tit for tat. Just answer me these few questions.


Should have seen what coming? That the witnesses you cited aren't really witnesses at all? Yes you should have if you actually researched and confirmed any of the information you cited as "evidence". Clearly you did not and clearly it is not. You can't go "tit for tat" with me because you have not researched the information and do not have any evidence.

I have attempted to contact virtually all the published witnesses to confirm their accounts and I have heavily analyzed and scrutinized each and every one of them by plotting their locations and establishing their POV's and surveying the actual topography in person.

I know most of their accounts by heart.

I have spoken with dozens and interviewed many on camera.

I have canvassed the neighborhoods for unknown witnesses and sought out corroboration for any and all claims made.

THIS is the type of effort required to find truth and I can tell you with 100% certainty that a military deception keeps getting confirmed virtually everywhere we look and you will not be able to refute the information with google or inaccurate "witness" compilations.



1) How many witnesses say they saw the plane overfly the pentagon.


We will never know because all of the tapes and transcripts of the initial reports via 911 calls have been confiscated by the FBI and permanently sequestered. This fact alone implicates a cover-up because they DID release the 911 calls from New York. Clearly there is something to hide in the Arlington tapes.

However there are some published reports of a so called "2nd plane" that allegedly "shadowed" the AA jet and veered away over the Pentagon immediately after the explosion.
details here

Since this isn't widely reported we can only assume that most people missed this alleged "2nd plane" or that it was THE plane and most people still missed it.

Point is the fact that there are SOME reports of this shows that there is no reason that a plane flying over the building at all would get very much attention.



2) Forget the lightpoles for a sec - did you ever ask anyone else which side of the gas station the plane flew on. Was that a standard question in your interviews?


Of course. Anyone that was in a position to see it. Most weren't. But everyone that was and could tell a difference said it was on the north side.



3) Who came up with the definition that 3 witnesses = a reasonable doubt etc...


It's common sense.

Everyone knows that eyewitness accounts are fallible but as they become corroborated the claim becomes exponentially validated.

With enough corroboration, ALL claims can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

When we are talking about a simple right or left claim of this magnitude this is particularly the case.

To get the side of the station wrong for people who were literally on the station's property would be a ridiculously drastic and virtually impossible mistake to make that would require hallucinations.

For all of them to hallucinate the same exact thing is simply not a viable consideration.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
OK - so what is the answer to my first question. It should be a number. Just a number. Answer with a number please.
1) How many witnesses say they saw the plane overfly the pentagon???



And that page you linked to? None of them say that they saw a commercial plane
fly past the pentagon. It’s funny that you try to use those quotes to prove your point,
but refuse to use other quotes that describe something else. Like a plane hitting the building...

Look at the words you have to use

"Since this isn't widely reported we can only assume"

"SOME reports of this shows that there is no reason:

Both of those are clear assumptions based on nothing "hard" or "concrete"



Your answer to #2 was
“Of course. Anyone that was in a position to see it. Most weren't. But everyone that was and could tell a difference said it was on the north side”


Of course? I would like to see your line of questioning please. I assume you had a list of standard questions that you asked each witness right?
Certainly you did not change the wording or order of your questions based on what they would say right?
Because if so that would be considered leading the witness your honor.

Also - who determined if they were in a position to tell? You? If people say the airplane flew right over their heads, and they were on the freeway, then aren't they JUST AS GOOD OF WITNESSES as your gas station people?
Forget the lightpoles! All the people sitting in their cars could see the plane! If it went over them - then yes they could tell which side of the gas station it was!

I am very very dubious at your answer above, and of your techniques of investigation.


Your answer to number 3 what I thought. It is your own standard, based on what you have. It has no solid basis in fact,
law enforcement, or investigative techniques in any way, shape or form.



They were interviewed by you and your biased viewpoint. Hallucination is not necessary, just a fuzzy memory and a leading questioner.



posted on Nov, 15 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by megaman1234
OK - so what is the answer to my first question. It should be a number. Just a number. Answer with a number please.
1) How many witnesses say they saw the plane overfly the pentagon???



What part of the evidence has been confiscated and sequestered do you not understand?

The mainstream media reports are not a fair, accurate, or complete representation of the true witness pool.




And that page you linked to? None of them say that they saw a commercial plane
fly past the pentagon. It’s funny that you try to use those quotes to prove your point,
but refuse to use other quotes that describe something else. Like a plane hitting the building...


I'm sorry if you were unable to understand what I was saying but at that period of my reply my point was simply that there are some reports of an alleged "2nd plane" in the skies and even one that specifically says it "shadowed" the AA jet and others that it "veered away" immediately after the explosion.



Look at the words you have to use

"Since this isn't widely reported we can only assume"

"SOME reports of this shows that there is no reason:

Both of those are clear assumptions based on nothing "hard" or "concrete"


You are taking my words out of context while ignoring the point.

You are not able to discuss the evidence so you are choosing to divert the discussion to out of context semantics instead.





Your answer to #2 was
“Of course. Anyone that was in a position to see it. Most weren't. But everyone that was and could tell a difference said it was on the north side”


Of course? I would like to see your line of questioning please. I assume you had a list of standard questions that you asked each witness right?



Of course NOT. Our investigation is ongoing and witnesses all have completely different points of view and different experiences relative to where they were and what they were doing and what they witnessed.

Very few were in a position to see the citgo or the Pentagon at all due to the complex topography and all the obstacles.

It would be impossible to use the same questions for every witness.




Certainly you did not change the wording or order of your questions based on what they would say right?
Because if so that would be considered leading the witness your honor.


Now you are making baseless accusations based on erroneous assumptions.

Unless you can quote an example where I have "led" the witness you have no business making such a claim.



Also - who determined if they were in a position to tell? You? If people say the airplane flew right over their heads, and they were on the freeway, then aren't they JUST AS GOOD OF WITNESSES as your gas station people?
Forget the lightpoles! All the people sitting in their cars could see the plane! If it went over them - then yes they could tell which side of the gas station it was!


Depends on where they were. Very few would have a view of the alleged impact point of the Pentagon or Citgo. This is fact.

You don't know this because you haven't been there.

Luckily we brought back video tape of the area for you so you can learn.

Feel free to watch it here.

But seriously....you are not discussing evidence or information. You are merely making a bunch of uneducated assumptions and unsupported accusations.




I am very very dubious at your answer above, and of your techniques of investigation.


Your answer to number 3 what I thought. It is your own standard, based on what you have. It has no solid basis in fact,
law enforcement, or investigative techniques in any way, shape or form.


Well the good part about the smoking gun evidence we present is that it's very simple, very explosive, and fully supported by the witnesses.

If we had misrepresented the testimony of these police officers you better believe they would be speaking out about it and that our detractors would be reporting it.

Frankly I don't care if you trust me because the evidence speaks for itself.

If you doubt the evidence then prove me wrong by obtaining retractions from the witnesses.

Go ahead.....call the Pentagon police, get a hold of Sgts Lagasse and Brooks and record them telling you I misrepresented their north side claim.




They were interviewed by you and your biased viewpoint. Hallucination is not necessary, just a fuzzy memory and a leading questioner.




Seems like you didn't even watch the interviews because there was nothing fuzzy about ANY of their memories of this very specific and very simple right or left detail during this world historical event at a location where they work every day.

Either prove me wrong with evidence or let this conversation go because your hollow accusations are rather tiresome.



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Hi Craig. After our discussion the other day, I agree that I work better online. Oe point regarding what you posted above:


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
This is a PRIME example of why direct confirmation of all witness accounts is imperative and how words printed by the media are erroneously used to support the official story.


Are you sure you're not doing the same to support your theory? Tom Hovis:



The plane came up I-395 also known as Shirley Hwy. (most likely used as a reference point.) The plane had been seen making a lazy pattern in the no fly zone over the White House and US Cap. Why the plane did not hit incoming traffic coming down the river from the north to Reagan Nat'l. is beyond me. Strangely, no one at the Reagan Tower noticed the aircraft. Andrews AFB radar should have also picked up the aircraft I would think. Nevertheless, the aircraft went southwest near Springfield and then veered left over Arlington and then put the nose down coming over Ft Myer picking off trees and light poles near the helicopter pad next to building. It was as if he leveled out at the last minute and put it square into the building.


That guy's account is full of inconsistencies patched together from what he heard in old-sailor tall-tale style. Other accounts, like one Arabesque cited of a guy that wasn't there, conflate the plane over DC (the E4B white jet) and 77, as this on apparently does. Either of them could also have been looking at Koeppel's map. I'd have to check the dates, so perhaps not. Anyway... the significance:


(as a side note his underlined account of where he was told the plane flew COMPLETELY contradicts the RADES and NTSB data yet supports O'Brien and the Potomoc River witness we just obtained. My how poignant of you to post his account in this thread!)


Indeed, all credible evidence connected to the flight - radar, FDR - shows it never was over DC and ended at 9:38 while the E4B (it seems) only took off from Andrews 9:43 and crossed by DC at 9:46. Clearly an official alteration of the data to divorce the original flight paths that you think were from the same plane, right?

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but in essence, you think it flew down the river and circled DC for a bit, then crossed south and looped up north of the Citgo and impacted? So then what Hovis 'was told' happened must have been from an actual eyewitness account - or some very odd coincidence that his confused patchwork matches the real path. Like Koeppel's map showing this and based on nothing but error also agreeing. A lot of error hovering right around this truth that all these eyewitnesses are helping you see.

Do you find that odd?



[edit on 16-11-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Hi Craig. After our discussion the other day, I agree that I work better online.


Really? Don't be so hard on yourself. I don't think you do any better online!





One point regarding what you posted above:

Are you sure you're not doing the same to support your theory? Tom Hovis:

[...]

That guy's account is full of inconsistencies patched together from what he heard in old-sailor tall-tale style. Other accounts, like one Arabesque cited of a guy that wasn't there, conflate the plane over DC (the E4B white jet) and 77, as this on apparently does. Either of them could also have been looking at Koeppel's map. I'd have to check the dates, so perhaps not. Anyway... the significance.


Did you miss how I called it a "side note"?

The only reason I have ever brought up Hovis is to demonstrate how he is not a witness to the event because he wasn't there.

I'm sorry if you fail to understand what I meant by "side note" but I see that as a completely fair representation.




Indeed, all credible evidence connected to the flight - radar, FDR - shows it never was over DC and ended at 9:38...


Wait right there! Credible why? Because it was solely controlled and provided for by the government many years after the event?

Haven't you learned anything from our discussions?

That data is effectively invalid to use in support of the government's story because it is provided for by the government!

How can you not understand this and insist on referring to this as "all" the "credible" evidence?

I'm sorry but to make such a statement is by definition "shilling" for the government.



......while the E4B (it seems) only took off from Andrews 9:43 and crossed by DC at 9:46. Clearly an official alteration of the data to divorce the original flight paths that you think were from the same plane, right?


Huh? I'm not following your characterization.

It's as simple as this:

They purposefully made sure that other "mysterious" planes were placed in the same place at the same time so the accounts would be blended.

Hovis could very well have been referring to the E4B.

Or he could have been referring to THIS plane that was reported over the white house at 9:40 by ABC before they were even aware of the attack!:






Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but in essence, you think it flew down the river and circled DC for a bit, then crossed south and looped up north of the Citgo and impacted? So then what Hovis 'was told' happened must have been from an actual eyewitness account - or some very odd coincidence that his confused patchwork matches the real path. Like Koeppel's map showing this and based on nothing but error also agreeing. A lot of error hovering right around this truth that all these eyewitnesses are helping you see.

Do you find that odd?



There is no "odd coincidence" in the clearly deliberate blending of planes that we see happening here from the media and the government.

That was the absolute intent.

Confuse the decoy jet with the E4B and the C-130.

Let me know when you aren't able to pretend like you don't understand what we are saying anymore.









[edit on 16-11-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Nov, 16 2007 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


Oh by the way....

Since you feel more comfortable online consider this a formal request to continue the debate in this thread.

I look forward to your refutations or concessions.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by GreenFloyd
 


I dont think he was stalling at all(who ever was flying that plane that day) but I think that the reason such great detail was taken in the approach was to insure that the plane would come into the building in a "frontal assault" making sure to hit exactly the bomb proofed part of the building. Everyone agrees that attacking the building in that way literally caused the least amount of damage, if the pilot of that plane would have dive bombed the building the damage would of been considerable more. Again though, a dive bomb into the building would not of enabled the damage to be "controlled" as much as it was that day.

A quote from Catherders piece:www.abovetopsecret.com...




The exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor. Some of these reinforced walls very near the point of impact remained in place for a half hour before collapsing, allowing uncounted hundreds to escape. "Had we not undertaken this effort," said Evey at a press briefing on September 15, "this could have been much, much worse."



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   

And, before you get the idea - no - there is no GPS onboard aircraft. It doesn't work through the varying altitudes. INS (inertial navigation system) is far more accurate, anyway. But, in such events, you're not taking down numbers off of your INS - you do that when you're lining yourself up for approach or making sure you're flying in the right direction over long distances.

Holy cow! You can't be serious?!


GPS works at any altitude, so long as you have good coverage. INS is old tech and certainly ISN'T as accurate as GPS, but it does work very well. INS is ultimately only as accurate as the alignment procedure performed before departure, and accuracy degrades over time, even with in-flight updates, due to the way it works.

I can only speak for the Delco Carousel-IV-A INS, but whilst in-flight, you check the API (Accuracy Performance Index), and the reported positions of the INS to ensure that they're within a pre-defined tolerance, based on whether DME updating has been performed, and how long ago since the last alignment.

On aircraft fitted with IRS, they look after themselves generally, but you can still do a manual check of the reported positions of each IRS and compare it to each other to see if they're within tolerance. If not, you stop using the affected unit.

GPS on the other hand is available most of the time, and is as accurate as the governments will allow, but prior to 2000 with the abolishment of SA (Selected Availability), you might not have a GPS signal at all, or degraded system performance/accuracy.

Modern navigation requirements have a hierarchy like this:

1x GPS for primary nav backed up by 2x INS/IRS or 1x VOR/DME
2x GPS backed up by 3x INS/IRS or 2x VOR/DME
3x INS/IRS backed up by 2x VOR/DME
2x INS/IRS backed up by 1x VOR/DME

3x INS/IRS config is "special" in that you can use what is known as "triple-mix updating" whereby an average position is computed based off the position of all 3 units. On a Boeing aircraft for example, you can enter the POS page to view the position of all 3 units, and it will give a relative bearing/distance from the triple-mix position to where that INS unit is "flying" in space, so a typical display for IRS 1/2/3 could read: 270/0.1 nm, 150/0.1 nm, 030/0.1 nm, putting you in the middle.

If you have 2 or less INS/IRS units, then the single units position is used for navigation purposes. Depending on the flight phase, a certain minimum navigation accuracy is required, adn this is quoted on the charts for RNAV aircraft. If you don't meet the requirements for equipment or accuracy, then you must use the next lower navigation method. In some instances, you can't do something like fly trans-atlantic without certain minimum equipment.

I hope this clears this up.
GPS is favored over other navigation, BUT ONLY IF IT MEETS CERTAIN ACCURACY REQUIREMENT S FIRST, due to the fact that GPS can be deliberately tampered with by "them", or jammed completely. Note that the military use another GPS channel that is precise.

@Craig: I'd just consider the possibility that he does have a motive, like a large pay-off or other "motive" so he tows the line or spreads information that "they" want spreading. Assuming for a moment the CTers are right, they're going to want to keep the truth hidden, or at the least, confused.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Citation pasted from 84Rades Memo to FBI, enclosed with the data on Sep. 13. 2001:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
World Trade Center A/C #2 United Airlines
(UA) – 175 Boeing 757 09:02 ET Riverhead NY ARSR-4 J-52 QVH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh, PA UA – 93 Boeing 747 10:00 ET Detroit MI ARSR-1E J-62 QDT
Riverhead NY ARSR-4 J-52 QVH
Gibbsboro NJ ARSR-4 J-51 QIE
The Plains VA ARSR-3 J-50 QPL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
end of citation

To me - perhaps most of the people would not wonder - it looks a bit suspicious: the radar "specialists" from USAF (the world's most sophisticated airforce) they are not able to discern B767 from B757 and than again B757 even from B747 (some school children probably would do) on couple A4 memo for federal law enforcement, where additionally the badly determined "large boeings" just happen to disappear in mid air from multiple radars for whole hundreds of miles of their journey, start from mid of the air in the mid of the Boston Bay, doing highly suspicious manoeuvers, and sometimes appear to fly even 1.7Mach (Yes, I have found that anomalies in the data; see:P4Tforum)...
That just looks to me more like a Joke of the New American Century, than like a piece of credible evidence...

Oh yes, maybe an evidence, but the evidence of a badly made coverup.


[edit on 21-11-2007 by tumetuestumefaisdubien]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
I am not writing to prove or disprove anything. I worked as a Technical Advisor for the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (84th RADES). I KNOW that there is no possibility that there was any intentional or accidental falsification of any data provided by The RADES. The conspiracy enthusiasts want to believe that because it a government and military organization that anything provided by them must be suspect. I am here to tell everyon that there is no governmental agency that I am aware of that is as truthful and reliable as The Rades. The slogan of The Rades is Artificii Periti, Experts in Workmanship. This is a unit that prides it's self on accuracy and precision. If there is any question about the results of their study it cannot be attributed to The Rades. It is not possible.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join