Official Story Shill Crushed By Truther/Researcher in Radio Debate!

Here is my rebuttal of Reheat's proposal for an explanation of the 2 last 84 RADES group published radar signals nr 21 and 22, which were 10.95 seconds apart registered, which he thinks are caused by a radar glitch, a reflection back from a soot and dust laden smoke column originating at the burning diesel tank inside the generator trailer, just a few meters outside from the Pentagon's west wall.

I would like to point him back to his own words here, first :

The smoke column was NEVER North of the impact point, yet CIT would have you believe it was.....

Combine that with his own Pentagon area map picture :



and my map of Washington International Airport grounds, with the DCA radar dish position in it, you immediately realize that Reheat's proposal is impossible :



Because the smoke column was in between the radar dish (positioned at the southeast rim of the airport river front), and both spots 21 (NoC) and 22 (SoC).

This is the NR 21 radar blip, 1 second before impact, and situated North of the CITGO gas station, and there was NO IMPACT thus no smoke YET, thus this blip is as good as all the other earlier registered radar returns :



This is the NR 22 radar blip, situated South of the CITGO gas station.
There was maximum 200 meter smoke high, blown by the northwesterly winds, to the southeast of the Pentagon's west wall, and its sharp cut southern smoke column rim side ascending under an angle of about 60°.
That Nr 22 radar beam reflection blip was NOT HINDERED AT ALL by the just beginning smoke column, it passed far south of, and UNDER it :




That's already enough to prove persistently that the radar beam "looked" through that just recently, about 12 to 14 seconds after the impact, developing low smoke column, if it had been hindered at all by any smoke, but surely was passing south of the just developing smoke column, when recording the last nr 22 SoC position, since that column was far less high at that moment than the one you see in Reheat's linked to, above C-130 photo.
Your guess is as good as mine, but that column was no more than 200 meter high in my opinion.

In my screenshot photo from a video shot out of a car on I-395, we see the C-130 turn in front of it (at the back of it for the photographer). It's the black blob just to the right of the wider top part of the smoke :



and we know from my post in here, that the FAA flight controller had advised him to make that turn back to the northwest, back to his intended flight path and to his home base in Minnesota, about 2.5 minutes after the official impact time of 09:38:44, at 09:40:...
That's a full 150 seconds later. Not 12 seconds.

The nr 21 NoC radar return was recorded just 1 second before impact, thus that radar return signal nr 21 can not have been influenced/bounced back from a not yet existing smoke column.

The last one, nr 22, most important radar return blip was recorded 10.95 seconds + that one second = 11.95 seconds later than the impact! And was also not influenced at all by the smoke, as I just proved.

The just recently developing smoke column was at that time in between, but to the north of the airport's radar dish arriving beam signal sweep and that SoC point nr 22, since Reheat himself is very sure that the smoke column was NEVER North of the impact point.
Thus, the radar beam has not been influenced by any heavy, dust and soot laden smoke, because it registered a blip far BEHIND it. Thus the radar beam's energy has passed beside the smoke unhindered, TWO times, to and back from that blip's position.


Please, stop thinking that you have to do with the dumbed down, mean percentage of a population here. The "silent" majority.
Who believes a lot, and researches nothing.
We have gathered a fine example of the best analyzing minds in this forum, over many years. And the best ones tend to stick. And tend also to return, when good,new research is offered.

By the way, I can offer also an ABC video shot from the south of the Pentagon Parking Lot, and starting at 09:42, three and a half minutes after the Pentagon impact.
And in there you can see the whole part of Route 27 beginning at I-395's overpass up to the south Pentagon wall, totally unhindered by the huge billowing vertical ascending smoke column above the Pentagon roofs. You can see the traffic in the south bound and northbound non-HOV lanes going on at reasonable speeds.
That whole part of Route 27 is covered in bright sunlight, up to hundreds of meters above it.

So, forget that reasoning to try to explain those two last radar returns away, that failed miserably.
I want to express my astonishment, that nobody more than Loose Change's JFK expressed any high interest in his research.
These two last radar returns can not be waved away by radar return "ghosts".
ESPECIALLY not the NoC one, the number 21 one.

And what about a nearly 11 seconds later registered clear radar return number 22.???

You know what? The only logical explanation would be a missile, rocket, stinger projectile, whatever defensive weapon used to shoot down that attack plane, and it missed it by 12 seconds, and caused that 60.25° angled internal rubble path, and even perhaps that circular exit hole in the C-ring wall.
And why logical? Because a projectile that was shot at the NORTH OF CITGO flying attack plane, missed/was-to-late and entered the west wall on a devastating destructive SoC internal path, would have only registered once on the DCA radar screens, since it was so damn fast, that it registered also not on the already panicking eyes of the witnesses. A supersonic missile will not be registered by human eyes, we are simply too slow to see it, from nearby. And witnesses further away would not notice it for it is too small to be noticed from too far away. A terrain-following-radar equipped missile? Capable of flying just a few meters above ground? Like the US military had so many in stock at that time.

reply to post by LaBTop


Just when I thought it could not get more preposterous you come up with this mess of gibberish!

First of all let's get a couple of things straight. NONE of those photos are mine. Their source was clearly stated when I posted them, so pay attention and don't attribute them to me. Got it?

Second, what is the source of your timing for those radar blips?

Third, what type of missile used TFR and was also supersonic in 2001. You said there were several, so name them and provide a link.

Fourth. What is your source for stating that one can not see a supersonic missile?

Fifth. Why did no residents or any of CIT's "expert" witnesses in the entire area report a supersonic boom from those imaginary supersonic missile that you surmise caused those blips?

Your walls of disorganized text using non standard English are very difficult to read. Haven't you wondered why no one responds to most of it? I suspect most (like me) simply give up trying to understand what you are attempting to say..

Speaking for myself, LaBTop's last post contains such densely compressed fail I feel no need to respond to such a self-debunking mess. He cites no sources, just fantasizes about with no evidence and then pretends his imagination governs our reality. I'll be honest and say that's the type of lying about 9/11 I detest most. It's not just the factual and reasoning errors, it's the faux-certainty and bluster with which these lies are advertised, as if to preordain them. As if to preludially bolster them in anticipation of scrutiny, as if it will help if completely evidence-free speculations are spoken with confidence.

I could claim Lincoln was poisoned by a dart from a blowpipe at the exact same instant he was shot.

I could claim the earth was rotating because there's a secret asphalted lab somewhere along the equator with 50,000 monkeys bicycling towards the West, rotating the earth towards the East.

I could claim Tōhoku earthquake was caused by a gigantic school of farting whales.

There is a name for such people: confidence men, colloquially known as con men.

So, please open a new thread for missile malarkey, I'm quite certain neither CIT, nor P4T, nor Debunkers nor Truthers such as myself want it here. It's OT. Perhaps we should get back to Anthony Summers' debate with Ranke specifically.

reply to post by LaBTop

Here is my rebuttal of Reheat's proposal for an explanation of the 2 last 84 RADES group published radar signals nr 21 and 22, which were 10.95 seconds apart registered, which he thinks are caused by a radar glitch, a reflection back from a soot and dust laden smoke column originating at the burning diesel tank inside the generator trailer, just a few meters outside from the Pentagon's west wall....

Yeah, well, that's all really nice and a very big post - but you do realize that we have actual people that saw the plane crash into the Pentagon, right? And none of your radar data distance speculations means anything because, again, we have actual people that actually saw the actual plane crash into the actual Pentagon.

If irrelevant minutiae was a marketable commodity LabTop would be a rich man.

I guess it must be taking a long time to find answers to my questions. Either that or he wants to relish one more day under the false assumption that he has refuted something I guessed at....

reply to post by Reheat


Let's not forget you showed that picture because you believed it to be a fraud. That is, not physically altered, but the line drawn is way, way, way off in order to support the hoax that the C-130 flew a different path than radar indicates. Those familiar with the subject already know this. I find it hard to believe LaBTop doesn't. Then again, who knows.

There's a myriad of other problems or deceptive claims inside this latest wall of text (tm), but it ought be self-explanatory that it is up to the claimant to get it right, instead of having everybody running around refuting every unsupported allegation conjured from imagination.

reply to post by Reheat


By the way, Reheat, my guess as to what mental contortions Balsamo went through to come up with 27° was right on the money... see post #220. OneSliceShort is simply parroting his mentor, hoping it makes sense and will impress us.

Even more embarrassing are Balsamo's delusions outlined here, see post #61.

This for example, where Balsamo cites Cimino:

Q - The 757 LRRA has a 330 fps tracking capability. What exactly happens when the aircraft is flying faster than the tracking capability of the LRRA?

A - it gets behind and doesn't provide real time altimetry.

"It gets behind" ??? Pure and utter hogwash. The RA doesn't "get behind"... it sends and receives just the same, ground speed is irrelevant.

Cimino is a total charlatan. He doesn't have the integrity to tell Balsamo he knows next to nothing about the internal logic of radio altimeters. "Expert"?? Say what?!

And this:

Now imagine you are traveling 2 times faster. The radio waves are still bouncing off the hills and valleys at the speed of light, but the processor cannot handle the increased forward speed, so it will only display hits from perhaps all the valleys and not the tops of the hills. Or vice versa, or maybe a sporadic combination/average. You will not get a display of real time mapping of the entire path. Your display will be a a series of sporadic hits outside the tracking capability of the device.

The processor (or circuitry) doesn't even know about the speed! The cicuitry doesn't care! There isn't any "increase in information processing" as speed increases. Painful, toe-curling fail.

Balsamo's just making it up! And his sycophants are lapping it up!

Originally posted by snowcrash911
[Even more embarrassing are Balsamo's delusions outlined here, see post #61.

Oh, I know all about Ballsucker and his explanations. As I've said, you know when he's lying or inventing something when his lips are moving or he's typing something...

Hay, LabTop.....

You mention the Generator and it's fuel tank being the source of the smoke at the Pentagon. Don't you think an additional source was also the exploding/burning jet fuel from the thousands of gallons on board and the contents of the building, as well?

Now, let's just talk about the Generator and it's tank for just a moment since you brought it up. Your theory is that the angle of impact to the building was about 90 degrees, so how do you explain this?



And this....



Your previous excuse for what you believe was an error in the "Building Performance Report" was that a clean up had been performed "fooling" the ASCE engineers with the damage path. However, we see two photos taken near immediately after the crash that need an explanation....

fire.nist.gov...

LabTop, you have just been DEBUNKED with just a few words and two photographs without that "Wall of text" characteristic of your nonsense...

There was no NOC and there was no flyover. The building was hit by a flying missile known as a Boeing 757 just as all of the other mountain of evidence show it did.... You're Welcome!

reply to post by snowcrash911



Thanks, this is hilarious:

Even more embarrassing are Balsamo's delusions outlined here, see post #61.

There are so many depths to plumb over there, it is a source of constant amusement.

Originally posted by Reheat
Oh, I know all about Ballsucker and his explanations. As I've said, you know when he's lying or inventing something when his lips are moving or he's typing something...

Yes, but although I'm used to quite a bit from this lot, I've never seen it this transparent.

You can just taste Balsamo making it up as he goes along, especially when you hear him open his mouth about avionics issues bleeding over into IT.

I'm not a pilot, so it took me a while to wade to the acronym soup when he's ranting about aviation topics, but when he gets into IT... my God.

He told Warren he couldn't imagine him "discovering a bug" in "complex software", developed by "experts".

If you're in IT and understand release cycles, this comment is laughable... and embarrassing. There are a plethora of bugs waiting to activate on any of your PCs right this moment. There are entire bug report systems where developers, other developers and users report issues and expect them to be fixed. Commercial products or otherwise. Of course, it's easier if the source code is available and the license free, because then you can submit a patch and have it included. I've done so.

And decoding a compressed data file with a specific frame layout isn't "complex" ... lord almighty... he should have a peek into the source code of libssl

It took fifteen years for Microsoft to get their kernel even close to stable, and it's still in many ways... a mess. Closed source software, such as proprietary FDR decoders, are that much more vulnerable to bugs, because as Torvald's saying goes: "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". Can't do that with closed source. No source, nothing for eyeballs to inspect. The bug will reveal itself through users noticing malfunction. Or developers, such as Stutt.

Oh and by the way: the correct way for ROSE to handle the issue Warren reported would have been to report error check failure and to offer a choice to decode the final frame or not. Not just to ignore and not decode it, leaving out possibly crucial information from an air crash investigation.

reply to post by snowcrash911

I'm not a pilot, so it took me a while to wade to the acronym soup....

Well I am a pilot, and experienced and rated on the airplanes used on 9/11....and of course, am very familiar with, as you put it, "acronym soup". Nice turn of phrase, there.

Of course, as is the case with many professions, acronyms tend to flourish within them. Aviation, medicine, etc.

But, Mr. Balsamo excels at confounding his "audience" with such displays of what amount to the "Appeal To Authority" fallacy.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

I'm not a pilot, so it took me a while to wade to the acronym soup....

Well I am a pilot, and experienced and rated on the airplanes used on 9/11....and of course, am very familiar with, as you put it, "acronym soup". Nice turn of phrase, there.

Of course, as is the case with many professions, acronyms tend to flourish within them. Aviation, medicine, etc.

But, Mr. Balsamo excels at confounding his "audience" with such displays of what amount to the "Appeal To Authority" fallacy.

Yup.... Hey eventually it doesn't matter what profession you're in, if you're at least capable of admitting we're all constantly learning new things and don't know it all already!

Cimino in particular is claiming too much expertise in too many areas... and Balsamo listens to him as if he was in the presence of an oracle.

Yes, Balsamo loves to argue from authority... and I think this is because he can't fathom the notion that some noob like BoonYzarC from UM could possibly set him straight.

If this happens in the medical field, lives may be lost. Come to think of it...same thing with aviation. IT... depends on what profession IT is employed: if an IT expert is hired to develop crucial systems for nuclear power plants, aircraft or medical equipment, that expert has the same responsibility as the experts of the profession he's developing for.

Which is why I shudder every time I hear Microsoft is expanding into new markets, like car automation or weapon systems..

Hell I even saw an ATM reboot once. It ran on Win NT. (Help!) Luckily it spit out my bank card while doing so.

Alot about eyewitness testimony

Hogg & Vaughan (1996) have examined a number of factors that lead to improved accuracy of eye-witness testimony. For example, it can help if the witness goes back over the scene or the crime to reinstate additional cues. It also helps if the witness was exposed to the person’s face for a long time and give their testimony a very soon after the crime. Certain personality factors are also important, i.e. does the witness habitually attend to his/her surroundings and does he/she generally form vivid mental images. Finally it helps if the person’s face was not altered by disguise and if he actually looks dishonest!

no?

It states pros and cons for both arguements. The eyewitness returning to scene, as I stated, can help produce more clues, whereas, the time frame between returning to the scene could hinder. But as I stated, and believed as "common sense," returning to the scene can, and will help with recalling more details.

apologies?

As I've already told you:

Originally posted by snowcrash911
I trust you understand what is meant by "peer reviewed scientific literature", so that it won't be necessary to explain it to you when you cite (and you probably will) apocryphal, unreliable sources composed by pseudo-scientific, agenda-driven hacks.

Good luck!

You are citing a Wiki. Please cite the peer reviewed, scientific literature DIRECTLY... with HYPERLINKS.

You are almost there.

Originally posted by Myendica
Alot about eyewitness testimony

Hogg & Vaughan (1996) have examined a number of factors that lead to improved accuracy of eye-witness testimony. For example, it can help if the witness goes back over the scene or the crime to reinstate additional cues. It also helps if the witness was exposed to the person’s face for a long time and give their testimony a very soon after the crime. Certain personality factors are also important, i.e. does the witness habitually attend to his/her surroundings and does he/she generally form vivid mental images. Finally it helps if the person’s face was not altered by disguise and if he actually looks dishonest!

no?

It states pros and cons for both arguements. The eyewitness returning to scene, as I stated, can help produce more clues, whereas, the time frame between returning to the scene could hinder. But as I stated, and believed as "common sense," returning to the scene can, and will help with recalling more details.

apologies?

Uh, not yet. You should read what you posted a little more carefully. It says the witnesses go back over the scene not to the scene in order to reinstate cues, not produce more clues.

And in the end, it helps if the witness is interviewed within a half a decade of the event.

I'll throw the man a bone.

Consequently I cannot reinforce strongly enough the conclusion tentatively proposed earlier in this paper: The judicial system should cease and desist from a reliance on eyewitness confidence as an index of eyewitness accuracy.

Deffenbacher, 1980

Source

Now, explain to the forum what this means for remarks such as "I'd bet my life on it" and "No frickin' way".

That's all you're going to get from me, because I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Aldo Marquis' latest brainfart (from P4T forum): The Doubletree video "supports flyover".

At approximately 1:49-1:50 in the video you will see a person walk around the corner and come into the frame. At this exact time, you will see an object some people argue is a truck, others argue is the plane passing by and continuing on after the explosion/fireball/smoke plume at a higher rate of speed than the alleged slow moving traffic.

You will then clearly see this person turn around, like he hears the plane, the explosion, THEN STEPS BACK to get a better view of the plane flying away, then RUNS WHILE LOOKING toward where the flyover plane would be flying as if he is trying to keep up with it and look at it past the trees/bushes on the on ramp I noted below. I do see his arm stretched out as if he is pointing or referencing it to someone and he appears to be on phone initially, but I am not sure they are attempting to take a picture with their phone. Regardless, you can see them looking towards the highway and past the trees/bushes on the Army Navy Drive 395 on ramp and this directly supports the idea that they were trying to follow the same commercial airliner officer Roosevelt Roberts saw on the other side of the Pentagon seconds after the explosion.

Of course we don't see the plane because they obviously edited out the flyover. We know they edited and doctored videos as we have proof of this with the Citgo and security cam videos. Especially when you consider the plane was on the north side of the gas station, pulled up into an ascent over the highway and flew away over the Pentagon as seen by multiple of still confused or reluctant witnesses.

Yes, the video supporting his latest "flyover witness" ... is fake!

I can't stop laughing...