I spotted that the graphed data did not match, not Jammo.
You spotted no such thing. The graph does not say that it is to scale. You have done nothing whatever here except create a strawperson argument.
He was insisting that because the NTSB said that their data ended at 1000 ft that meant that the graph did also.
That is utterly and completely false. There is no reason to pit the chart, which is, afterall, a mere chart, against the NTSB data. Your insistence on doing so here may suit your purposes but you have done nothing at all except create an argument with yourself.
I corrected him on the point.
You did not corect me on a darn thing, Sheeples. You created an argument with yourself that you would like, apparently, to attribute to me.
The graph was the big point of that childish video......they said it showed a steep descent and no pull out.
Yours is a complete and total distortion of what the video claims and shows. I am glad that I have digested the video, stage by stage. Once again, you are engaging in misrepresentation in order to then use that misrepresentation as a way of claiming error.
Your attempt to do that is transparent and demonstrative of an episode of misrepresentation. That and nothing more.
Further, your likely next step is to politicize the matter so as to get your supporters to agree with you that you are right about something or another.
That is fine. It is very clear that data matters not at all to debunkers when the data shows something that they would rather not deal with. Such is the case here. Your attempt is a little more sophisticated than that, say, of Fess. Fess simply claims the radar ends at 1500 to 2000ft. You, on the other hand, take exception to a chart, based on the assumption the chart is drawn to scale and/or that you have an accurate understanding of the assumptions underlying the scaling.
I pointed out that it ended well before impact and I have just calculated that the flight angle was at worst about 25 degrees from the horizontal
Your "pointing out" was devoid of any source reference at all. The NTSB data contradicts you; but, as we know, that doesn't matter much. Your belief is all that matters to you. As to your chart, you used your own assumptions, your own conclusion, arrived at from the start and then you declared yourself right.
That is rich.
Both points make the assertion that the video should have shown the dive and leveling off plainly incorrect. It would be good to plot the height data versus the actual ground speed but we would need the NTSB raw data to do that but the data already provided is quite enough to close this question.
I am not quite sure I understand the above. It seems disjointed to me. Clearly, you conclude that you are right about something; however, we knew that you would do that. What is unclear is what you're attempting to claim you are right about. Perhaps you should double check your claim to see if, in fact, it makes sense to you.
Whatever it is, it has not got anything at all to do with the actual data that show a clear and recognizable contradiction between the radar data that has not ever been differentiated between "real world" and "exercise" and the ALL 43 video that are blatantly false on their face.
The process of falsifying the common storyline of 9/11 as it relates to Flight 175, based solely upon a review of the data and the posting of analysis of it, is proceeding in good order. As I have said many times, it is not necessary to claim who is "right" and who is "wrong". Rather, it is only necessary to post up information and analysis and let the chips fall where they may.
You will not see me making claims about "right" or "wrong" in some conclusory, self-congratulatory manner. However, that is what you have done here, Sheeples. I think doing that is a sign of weakness.
Instead, I would sugges we all just strive for accuracy as best we can and source our claims.
) then there was no steep dive, now sharp pull up, the graph does end well above the impact height and therefore no possible conflict with the videos
