Do you think that Radalt only measures from the ground? What happens if a building is on the ground? Does the Radalt measure through that building to the ground?
A320,
You clearly know enough about this crash to know that there were no buildings other than the Citgo service station in the vicinity. How high is that? It provides little more than a roof over the heads of customers. Your response is clearly an attempt to sidestep the reality. The reality is that the radalt can be trusted in this case.
If you feel Radalt tracking capability is based on vertical speed, how does that apply when crossing over multiple obstacles with a 90 degree side? Do you know basic trigonometry?
You know enough about radalt to know that a plane passing over a city with many buildings with vertical sides has no problem providing correct guidance to pilots when they arrive at the airport. Again your response is just a sidestep.
if you want to talk amongst real pilots, try not to use the word "tilted".... rather bank, roll, pitch, yaw, crab... etc.... these are the terms real pilots use.)
You don't have to be a pilot to know that "tilted" in one word covers all these angles. Again your response is a sidestep.
What we see is you making strenous efforts to sidestep the issue, that radalt can be trusted in this situation. It reminds me of the language I see at Pilots for 9/11 Truth. You should be careful who you copy.