New analysis of 9/11 radar and video evidence

[Spongebob]

These delusional fantasists claim that they have radar evidence which PROVES that the towers were hit by a holographic plane!

Using 3D "analysis" to support this theory.

You may need large wellies to wade through this one


http://www.richplanet.net/starship_m...ref=108&part=1

http://www.richplanet.net/starship_m...ref=108&part=2

http://www.richplanet.net/starship_m...ref=108&part=3

[Spongebob]

Debunked already...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=236532&page=12

[PCWilliams]

Debunked already...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=236532&page=12

The good folks over at JREF are exactly correct. I'm into the second video and, between guffaws, i got to the part where the radar data from two or more sources doesn't line up exactly. No kidding.

See FAA Order 7110.65, para 5-5-4, Radar Separation, MINIMA

Separation (how far to keep aircraft radar targets apart) is based on a multitude of factors, including whether one or multiple radar sites are being used, distance from a radar site, altitude, etc.

In the video, he mentions the military radar had twice the amount of time between radar hits - 12 seconds. That's the time interval i used. If his other data had hits at 6 second intervals he was using terminal radar data, which is set up for shorter intervals because of the close proximity to airports - a more detailed picture of aircraft movement is preferable. The terminal radar data was probably from NY TRACON and located less than 5 miles away from the towers. The military radar data could have been from hundreds of miles away.

With the radar i used, the targets on your screen were 1.1 miles wide. The aircraft can be located anywhere within that target. That's why paragraph 5-5-3 of the same order requires two targets to never overlap by any degree. That's a lot of inaccuracy.

There are also known anomalies within the radar systems. Some main bangs are known for creating "ghost" targets (a target where no airplane actually exists), some are known to track (and display on your radar) 18 wheelers on adjacent highways, some are known to be off my several miles in certain areas, some are known (and are not usable) in certain areas or at certain altitudes, some can't plot a straight flight path if a conspiracy theory depended on it.

[Spongebob]

The good folks over at JREF are exactly correct. I'm into the second video and, between guffaws, i got to the part where the radar data from two or more sources doesn't line up exactly. No kidding.

See FAA Order 7110.65, para 5-5-4, Radar Separation, MINIMA

Separation (how far to keep aircraft radar targets apart) is based on a multitude of factors, including whether one or multiple radar sites are being used, distance from a radar site, altitude, etc.

In the video, he mentions the military radar had twice the amount of time between radar hits - 12 seconds. That's the time interval i used. If his other data had hits at 6 second intervals he was using terminal radar data, which is set up for shorter intervals because of the close proximity to airports - a more detailed picture of aircraft movement is preferable. The terminal radar data was probably from NY TRACON and located less than 5 miles away from the towers. The military radar data could have been from hundreds of miles away.

With the radar i used, the targets on your screen were 1.1 miles wide. The aircraft can be located anywhere within that target. That's why paragraph 5-5-3 of the same order requires two targets to never overlap by any degree. That's a lot of inaccuracy.

There are also known anomalies within the radar systems. Some main bangs are known for creating "ghost" targets (a target where no airplane actually exists), some are known to track (and display on your radar) 18 wheelers on adjacent highways, some are known to be off my several miles in certain areas, some are known (and are not usable) in certain areas or at certain altitudes, some can't plot a straight flight path if a conspiracy theory depended on it.

Perfect information PC - Thanks, and much appreciated. SB

[Spongebob]

Now fully debunked:

[Lee Wilson]

I was disappointed to see Richard Hall (the conspiracy theorist who put together the videos in the O.P) allowed to give a talk at a primary school where he spreads his nonsense to children unchallenged.

[Spongebob]

I was disappointed to see Richard Hall (the conspiracy theorist who put together the videos in the O.P) allowed to give a talk at a primary school where he spreads his nonsense to children unchallenged.

Is this true? Can you supply more info? Thanks