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.

 

84th RADES Data Proven Again

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
The "truther" John Farmer has posted a Utube video of a mix of Reagan National TRACON Radar and the ATC Communications proving yet again the 84th RADES data is correct. The AA77 flight path and the C-130 flight path are in accordance with what the 9/11 Commission concluded.

CIT's nonsense is "blown out of the water" again.





posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
The "truther" John Farmer has posted a Utube video of a mix of Reagan National TRACON Radar and the ATC Communications proving yet again the 84th RADES data is correct. The AA77 flight path and the C-130 flight path are in accordance with what the 9/11 Commission concluded.

CIT's nonsense is "blown out of the water" again.



Indeed it does. Specifically, among many other elements of this issue it confirms, it reconfirms yet again the Camp Springs 1 departure that Captain Bob and his boys don't seem to understand. This is at least the 9th piece of hard evidence that establishes the Camp Springs departure - this video, the RADES data, the tran.recordings from ATC, the testimony from the crew of Gopher 06, their filed flight plan, the published departure procedures, the weather and wind requirements that day that called for a Camp Springs departure, discussions I had with navy aircrew who routinely fly out of Andrews and discussions I had with flight planning personnel at Navy Andrews operations.

For Captain Bob and his CIT buddies to stick to their idea that the C-130 was vectored along the ragged edge of the southern border of P-56 would mean every one of those above pieces of hard evidence would have to be proven false or manipulated or exposed as lies or worse. As bad as Captain Bob and his league of extraordinary Sky Kings are, I doubt they'd go that far.

But then again.....

On edit: And I neglected to mention, while not prima facie evidence of a Camp Springs departure, the published NOTAMS calling for a ground-stop of all aircraft were issued after Gopher 06 took off, regardless if it applied to military aircraft from a military field or not. This fact removes any doubt that the C-130 was launched for some shadowy or clandestine reason.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by pinch]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   
John Farmer, the one who put together this completely inconclusive video that does not even remotely contradict what we report, has already declared the Radar data, the NTSB data, AND the security video ALL MANIPULATED!

Listen to my phone call with him where he makes these claims here.

About 84 RADES data:


NEADS 25.3 Second Time Difference Explained (Or, "I hate it when Craig is Right")

I told my nemeses at CIT that if I found evidence of tampering in the 84 RADES data that they would be the first to know and I am a man of my word. The NEADS clock was NOT running slower on 9/11. Rather its radar data was being collected, altered, and then fed into the system.

-John Farmer
Friday, April 11, 2008 3:31 AM


Not only has Farmer said that the 84 RADES data was manipulated, but he said this about the security video AND the NTSB data also!




Are you sure you are going to go by what he says?

Farmer on NTSB data:


"I've caught them lying out the teeth buddy! (laughs) I mean what really convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt was the NTSB data. That is such an obvious misinformation campaign right there it isn't even funny. That stuff is so doctored. It just isn't even funny."



Farmer on security video:


"The first thing I noticed in 3Ding is the Pentagon gate cameras....no way, no way. Ok that plane came in and hit those two poles, it had a certain angle of attack coming in. Ok...the Pentagon gate cameras have the thing sittin' on the ground. Naw naw naw that's not even reality."

-John Farmer via recorded phone call

Listen to call here



Are you sure you want to go with what this guy says?



[edit on 26-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


He did not construct the video, he merely overlayed the ATC voice transmissions to coincide with the video.

Your attempt to cast doubt on something Farmer did not originate is laughable at best, at worst it is a BLATANT BALDFACED LIE.

You will stop at nothing to perpetrate your FRAUD.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Can you point out where Farmer had any input in this video other than overlaying the audio with the video?

And, is there any evidence this video and audio is not valid and true - any evidence, that is, besides your bias?

Still clinging to that Morningside departure, Craig? Go get some backup from Captain Bob. Even though he doesn't understand departures and arrivals aside from making pretty little colored dots on a Google Earth screen shot, he should be able to craft a sufficiently obtuse and convoluted answer for you about missed approach procedures and minimums. Ask him how missed approach procedures at DCA would affect an aircraft climbing through 5k above the airport. If he has any questions about what altitude an ADW departing a/c would be at in that area, have him look at Camp Springs 1 again and have him send me an email. I can help him out.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Me cast doubt?

Obviously I just proved how Farmer has cast PLENTY enough doubt all on his own!

Farmer is the one who obtained, compiled, and disseminated this government sourced info and he has ALREADY and very definitively accused the exact same source of deliberately MANIPULATING virtually all other evidence including radar, black box, and the security video!

So this completely inconclusive new little video of his is supposed to corroborate data he has already shown to be fraudulent!

And you're touting it?

Got it!



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
[mo

Yes, I'm getting it alright. You're willing to promote anything which advances your delusions. I'm utterly amazed that there is anyone who does not see through your deceptions.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


You can keep calling me a liar over and over without EVER providing a single example but people aren't buying it Reheat.

In fact it's against the rules to make baseless personal attacks and you should be dealt with for it.

The fact is that CIT doesn't have to make ANY claims.

The witnesses are who prove the north side evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job.

Not us.

You have no right to call us liars for reporting what all the witnesses said.

1. Robert Turcios saw it "pull up".


2. Maria De La Cerda thought it hit "on top".

3. Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw it banking around and flying away from the building immediately AFTER the explosion.


There is only one thing for a plane on the north side approach to do.

All of these people could not be so drastically wrong in the exact same way.

13 north side witnesses = proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this is where the plane flew.







posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


Craig... besides a few, no one is buying your fantasy. I will listen to a professional like Reheat, who for the most part has tried to show everyone the errors in your fantasy. You have responded with NOTHING to dispute him.

You all but called Lloyd the elderly cab driver a liar and claim he is somehow working for the government.

Have you even bothered to look for anyone that was near him that would corroborate his statements? (The gentleman that was driving the white Saturn for instance)

ALL of your witnesses that were in a position to see the Pentagon SAW THE IMPACT. Some describe in great detail what they saw. But you hand wave that and state that they were deceived.

You refuse to address professionals when they tell you that ALL the flight paths that your witnesses have come up with are not possible, o.

You refuse to debate realistically, regarding the physical evidence at the
Pentagon.

You FAILED to interview any of the MANY civilian contractors at the Pentagon.

You FAILED to interview any first responders that were IN the Pentagon, you know the ones that SAW the debris. The ones that SAW the charred bodies in their seats? The ones that removed the bodies.

You FAILED to explain how ANY planting of Physical evidence is possible.

Your theory FAILED. If it held ANY water whatsoever you would have the "liberal media" knocking your door down. But hey, keep up with being an apologist for the terrorists.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I will listen to a professional like Reheat


Prove he is a "professional".

Did you know he has now officially agreed that the NoC flight path IS possible?

"Exponents' example posted earlier is just an example. He only used two of the witnesses to show the ONLY possible flight path that could be flown North of the Citgo Station."
-Reheat
9/25/2008

So there you go.




You have responded with NOTHING to dispute him.


What is there to dispute?

He believes the north side flight path is possible and this is what all the witnesses unanimously support!



You all but called Lloyd the elderly cab driver a liar and claim he is somehow working for the government.


All BUT. Exactly.

The evidence proves the plane was nowhere near that pole and his story is physically impossible.

It's not my fault.



Have you even bothered to look for anyone that was near him that would corroborate his statements? (The gentleman that was driving the white Saturn for instance)


Believe me we would LOVE to talk to any of these guys.




Let me know if you can find out who any of them are.



ALL of your witnesses that were in a position to see the Pentagon SAW THE IMPACT. Some describe in great detail what they saw. But you hand wave that and state that they were deceived.


I don't "hand wave" it.

This is what their unanimous placement of the plane proves.

What's more logical....mass hallucination or mass deception?



You refuse to address professionals when they tell you that ALL the flight paths that your witnesses have come up with are not possible, o.


Huh?

No "professionals" have said that!

Even Reheat who is an NOT a professional but rather nothing but an anonymous screen name agrees that it IS POSSIBLE.



You refuse to debate realistically, regarding the physical evidence at the
Pentagon.


Really?

I challenge you to a recorded phone debate.

Is tonight good for you?



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Prove he is a "professional".


I can't. But what I CAN prove is that he is far more knowledgeable regarding FDR's and RADES data than you.


Did you know he has now officially agreed that the NoC flight path IS possible?


Can't tell you what Reheat meant. Let's wait for him to respond. I will refrain from speaking for him.



What is there to dispute?

He believes the north side flight path is possible and this is what all the witnesses unanimously support!


again...allow me to U2U him. I would like him to clarify this.



All BUT. Exactly.


Everyone knows why. You don't DARE flat out accuse him.


The evidence proves the plane was nowhere near that pole and his story is physically impossible.


His evidence contradicts your other witnesses. It is not physically impossible. His statements are also backed with physical evidence. (broken windshield, light pole in the street) Oh... and please spare me the photos. I have seen them.





Believe me we would LOVE to talk to any of these guys.

Let me know if you can find out who any of them are.


you have the license plate of a firefighter from Virginia. Your "ruthless" investigation skills have not allowed you to find him?




What's more logical....mass hallucination or mass deception?



What seems more logical... 3- 6 years later not placing an airplane in the exact location you remember....

Or

Forgetting a massive airplane slamming into a building?




Huh?

No "professionals" have said that!


the flight paths you have shown by witnesses are either not possible or would require banking that was not witnessed.



Really?

I challenge you to a recorded phone debate.

Is tonight good for you?



Craig, it's Friday night. I will be out with a woman...on a date. Sorry I wont be around.

If you would like to talk about the evidence found inside and around the Pentagon, go for it. I will be more than happy to respond here. Exponent has however said that he would debate anyone here (moderated)



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT


Did you know he has now officially agreed that the NoC flight path IS possible?



Nice attempt at quote mining.



Exponents' example posted earlier is just an example. He only used two of the witnesses to show the ONLY possible flight path that could be flown North of the Citgo Station. Even it shows high bank angles and high G that NO ONE DESCRIBED. However, when all of the witnesses are put together and multiple flight paths at varying speeds are attempted they ALL FAIL.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ThroatYogurt
 


He agrees that it IS possible for a plane to bank north of the citgo!

Funny how now he has to rely on the witnesses again since now he has acknowledged that the MATH proves the flight path IS possible!


However the witnesses DO report the plane in a significant right bank, INCLUDING air traffic controller Sean Boger!

Anyone who watches the interviews can see this.

This is the entire point.

Reheat's denial about what they said, illustrated, and described does not change what they said, illustrated, and described on location on camera.

Look they drew a bank!


Just look at that steep bank!


Just LISTEN and WATCH them ALL describe a bank in person on location!


Google Video Link


So.....your "professional" Reheat agrees it is possible and all of the pertinent witnesses who saw it approach saw it bank.

Hell even Mike Walter reports the bank!


I didn't think you would have enough courage to debate me.

We can do it tomorrow or the next day if that's better for you.

No reason for me to debate exponent since he also agrees that the NoC banking flight path as reported by the witnesses is possible.

In fact Reheat was forced to agree with him on this point.






[edit on 26-9-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 
3 of the flight paths are on top of the Annex, and one is behind the Annex. Which is it? Are they all right? Which one is wrong based on the FDR heading information? (all of them)

The first path takes over 57 Gs, it can’t be done as it starts. That is 89 degrees of bank.
Second path 21 Gs, can't be done.
Third path takes 21 Gs too. It is that tiny turn in the middle, it is impossible very sutle, but planes can not change direction that fast.
Fourth path more than 9 Gs, wings fall off, why did not you not tell Middleton he drew an impossible path? Why did he make the plane come so close to him when in the video he points low directly to the south path?


No one could see more than 10 degees of bank, the final bank angles by second were
9.14 6.33 3.16 1.76 2.11 2.81 2.81 3.87 7.38 8.44 8.79 7.73
6.33 5.62 4.57 3.16 1.76 0.35 0 2.46 2.11 0 -1.05 -2.1 -0.7
-0.35 -0.7 1.05 3.52
The biggest bank gives a 44 mile wide turn. Until you find someone to say 77 was on its side almost 90 degrees, you will not get the turns your witnesses never really saw.


[edit on 26-9-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT



1. Robert Turcios saw it "pull up".


Robert Turcios: “It went in a direct line into the Pentagon—it collided."



2. Maria De La Cerda thought it hit "on top".


Maria De La Cerda never even saw the aircraft: "And I looked, I looked directly up for it, and I also had some tree cover, so I wasn't able to see, but I was facing the Pentagon and I saw something really fast going to the Pentagon with the swoosh and I'll never forget it, it was so fast, and then a huge fireball explosion and smoke, and they said there was a huge sound, but I don't recall, I just remember it was being just it was like a clap, and I just remember it being so fast, and I screamed, no, or oh my God..."

She never even saw the aircraft, and why you put her in this as "eyewitness evidence" of a north of the service station is evidence of your dishonesty.


Roosevelt Roberts Jr. saw it banking around and flying away from the building immediately AFTER the explosion.


You really don't want to hang your military-did-it hat on Roberts. Seriously, dude. A ton of people have tried to tell you this before, but you just don't seem to listen.

Brooks: The Plane flew in a “straight line towards the Pentagon,” went “directly in front of the building,” until the “impact”.

Lagasse: It “flew into the building,” and “when the plane hit, it kind of disappeared.”

Boger: ""I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building.."

Walter: "Then I picked it up as it struck very low into the Pentagon. The wings folded back and it was like watching someone slam an empty aluminum can into a wall. The jet folded up like an accordion. There was a huge fireball.

Morin: "One to two seconds later the airliner came into my field of view. By that time the noise was absolutely deafening. I instantly had a very bad feeling about this but things were happening very quickly. The aircraft was essentially right over the top of me and the outer portion of the FOB (flight path parallel the outer edge of the FOB). Everything was shaking and vibrating, including the ground. I estimate that the aircraft was no more than 100 feet above me (30 to 50 feet above the FOB) in a slight nose down attitude. The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines, but I couldn’t be sure. It looked like a 737 and I so reported to authorities.

Within seconds the plane cleared the 8th Wing of BMDO and was heading directly towards the Pentagon. Engines were at a steady high-pitched whine, indicating to me that the throttles were steady and full. I estimated the aircraft speed at between 350 and 400 knots. The flight path appeared to be deliberate, smooth, and controlled. As the aircraft approached the Pentagon, I saw a minor flash (later found out that the aircraft had sheared off a portion of a highway light pole down on Hwy 110). As the aircraft flew ever lower I started to lose sight of the actual airframe as a row of trees to the Northeast of the FOB blocked my view. I could now only see the tail of the aircraft. I believe I saw the tail dip slightly to the right indicating a minor turn in that direction. The tail was barely visible when I saw the flash and subsequent fireball rise approximately 200 feet above the Pentagon."

If the aircraft was north of the Citgo, he could never have seen the tail as long as he did

and he never could have seen the "minor flash" that he did

and he never could have seen the "tail dip slightly" as he did

and he never could have known when it cleared the 8th wing of the FOB (BMDO).

Morin wouldn't have been able to see *anything* after it passed over his head, especially if he was in the location you place him.

Try to stay away from selective quoting. It sucks.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by pinch]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

He agrees that it IS possible for a plane to bank north of the citgo!


Why are you quote mining? Not that I should be surprised.


Funny how now he has to rely on the witnesses again since now he has acknowledged that the MATH proves the flight path IS possible!


There are not any witnesses that suggest that sigificant bank.

i LOVE you talking about Walter... what was the last part of it Ranke?

...."it basically nose dived INTO THE PENTAGON!"

Oh wait... he was tricked too!!! THAT'S RIGHT.

once again ALL of your witnesses that were in a position to see the impact... SAW THE PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON!


I didn't think you would have enough courage to debate me.


No, I went out to have dinner tonight. Try stepping out of your fantasy world some time. Life is good.


We can do it tomorrow or the next day if that's better for you.


What is wrong with pointing out facts here? Is this what finding the truth is to you Ranke? Pwning someone on the phone?


No reason for me to debate exponent since he also agrees that the NoC banking flight path as reported by the witnesses is possible.


I didn't think you'd have the courage to debate anyone with knowledge of aviation. (which I clearly do not)








[edit on 9/26/0808 by ThroatYogurt]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
I didn't think you'd have the courage to debate anyone with knowledge of aviation. (which I clearly do not)


Which is funny - given Captain Bob's obvious dislike for anyone who does not have *his* level of aeronautical acumen, you have to wonder why he and the CIT boys are so tight. You would expect Captain Bob to heap derision and disdain on CIT's head for their injecting themselves into an event so heavily based in aviation with their obvious lack of knowledge in things aerodynamic.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
John Farmer, the one who put together this completely inconclusive video that does not even remotely contradict what we report, has already declared the Radar data, the NTSB data, AND the security video ALL MANIPULATED!

Farmer is investigating, he makes a thesis, and then he studies the problem, and solves the issues. Then Farmer changes his thesis.

Using an outdated stance is now quote mining his old thesis. This is what you do with your witnesses and ignore them pointing to the south path, as you say "north side", "north side".

Farmer is learning, and solving his issues one by one which refute your conclusions you never change. Farmer changes his conclusion based on his first ideas, then learns the disciplines and forms a new conclusion.

So if farmer said the earth was flat, he would not settle for saying it, he would learn the disciplines to prove it, and thus discover the earth is not flat.

Farmer does not change his mind, he learns new disciplines and changes his conclusions.

Farmer would see the paths drawn and understand they impossible due to RADAR data, FDR data, and physics. He would listen and look to see your witness point to the south path, he would see the false paths, and solve it with a discipline.

His work continues to refute your conclusion one at a time as he becomes an expert in each new field, albeit he is a new expert and misses things like DME antenna masking in a turn, especially when Hani over banked once, to 41.8 degrees (when the C-130 saw him, confirmed on the FDR! This is funny because all the things you say are false dovetail to RADAR and witnesses to form a solid evidence, as Farmer is proving to himself) causing the DME to wander, but he is outstanding he is getting deep into many fields and learning.

Farmer is doing real work to find the truth not support his ideas, to TEST his ideas, proposed conclusions, and he is refuting your conclusion you have interpreted witness statements to support. Farmer has evidence you have quote mined interviews; you just proved it by using Farmer's old stuff.

Johndoex said the Camp Springs was not used, that is not true. It is designed to get traffic over the arrivals. Farmer proves it, and the C-130 pilot proves it. South of the mall going west.

On the Camp Springs Departure at 3000 feet heading exactly west (magnetic), this is south of the Mall, see the mall; flying is great, the C-130 has big windows, the Mall fills them up.

Farmer is still looking at the RADES data, so he got all the possible RADAR data from other sites to verify things. This other data proves the south path impossible, you need 14 Gs to get to Middleton's flight path from the multiple south path RADAR returns.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I'd like to post and apologise to Reheat and Beachnut. Craig is now taking responses to my scenario out of context in order to claim that you two have accepted his flight path is possible.

Craig, as I have repeatedly explained, my flight path ignores many critical elements and requires a severe rightward bank at all points in the plotted course.

There is no getting around this, you cannot say "aha it's possible" and then go on to quote witnesses which do not describe a plane in a radical (45 degree+) rightward bank. If we ignore all but 2 of your witnesses, one of whom watched the plane impact the pentagon from 100-200ft away then we can construct a plausible flight path.

However, this flight path needs some verification by determining the speed of the aircraft and as a result, the aerodynamic forces experienced. You and JDX have both refused to even speculate on this, despite your constant posting of eyewitness accounts, including those north of the plane who are supposed to accurately place its ground position without having any usable reference.

I would hope that any third party reading this notes that I do not support Craig's theory, and feel that he has a lot to explain before it can be considered a potential explanation.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Since you obviously admit that the math is sufficient and now it is simply up to how much bank is reported by the witnesses......

Please tell me what "degree" of bank these witnesses describe:



(you do realize that the official data/phyiscal damage requires NO bank or yaw and only a slight wing tilt to the LEFT or the complete opposite direction, right?)




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join