Conclusive Evidence of Explosives, Petition to Re-Open 9/11 Investigation

a reply to: Jesushere

The only thing I have found was the confusion caused by uncorrected flight 77 flight data. Flight data that positioned flight 77 two hundred feet to the left of the light poles by an instrument that drifts off being accurate if not reset ever 15 minutes or so? I don’t see anything supporting your NE path?

a reply to: Jesushere

I still cannot find anything about a NE approach?

I think this is the first theory you are confused by?

stj911.org...

CIT claims (1) that the plane approached the Pentagon along a path too far north to have done the observed directional damage, (2) that all the damage was faked and (3) that the plane flew over the Pentagon. The apparently surprising claim that the plane flew over the Pentagon is a necessary part of the CIT position as it explains the lack of damage in alignment with the north path inside the Pentagon. CIT supports its theory with the testimony of a small number of selected witnesses, presented in selectively edited video interviews, who state that the plane passed north of the former Citgo service station. 1

Passing north of is not the same thing as flying a path that heads north east. A jet could fly directly west and hit the pentagon. Or a jet could fly directly west and and miss the pentagon by 200 feet passing to the north. Is that false?

stj911.org...

The FDR data extends the radar data for about 6 more seconds (Fig. 1) and shows no deviation right to the Pentagon. The testimony of the witnesses cited above is in reasonable conformity with the path defined by the radar data, the FDR data and the damage trail.

And where do you get the cited heading needs to be converted to true direction. I would think a flight computer would try its best to used true direction? It would favor an instrument that measured true north vs magnetic north.

I think you are confusing north flyover with this theory.

www.seattle911visibilityproject.org...

Pilots For 911truth have shown in their DVD Pandora’s Box Volume 2, that the NTSB CSV and flight animation data, corrected for errors, suggest the aircraft was much higher than am impact with the Pentagon would require, passing far from the alleged downed light poles, and appears to have done a fly-over. (Dick Eastman first proposed the fly-over theory: The 575 flew just over the Pentagon, while the Pentagon is hit by another airplane.) Detailed results, as well as a list of conclusions, are available on the pilotsfor911truth.com website. See especially the visualization.

Again, there is nothing about a north east heading. The false argument is the FDR shows flight 77 passes to one side of the light poles and missed the pentagon. This argument is not based on heading, but by actual position relative to the pentagon. By INS position? Internal navigation system that is prone to integration drift. See

www.skybrary.aero...(INS)

I think the INS reads in true north? Is that false.

The INS does drift, so the physical damage at the pentagon is a better indication of flight 77’s position.

Pilots for 9/11 truth ignores the FDR data showing flight 77 to one side of the light poles would be erroneous because of INS integration drift. Is that false?

The MAG heading and TRUE heading analog readings are both recorded in the DFDR and the graph extracted from the NTSB report kindly posted by waypastvne earlier shows both and the obvious difference between them of 10 degrees with the TRUE reading being the lesser at 60 degrees on the final approach. We'd need expert advice to know exactly what means were used on that aircraft to generate the TRUE heading data but INS is a good candidate for it.



Looking at the NTSB animation of the data in relation to the DFDR data, it's very obvious that the MAG heading (IE uncorrected) is the reading used (just watch the compass at lower right of the video). Now that would have been OK if the animation was plotted on a map overlay oriented to MAG north but, erroneously, the overlay was oriented to TRUE north giving rise to this whole north/south argument. Nobody's perfect I guess.

neutronflux Do we know if the FAA used a standard compass for the animation? My readings seem to show it was not a magnetic compass?

I plotted the direction the truthers place the plane on the North Side and I got 70-degree course aligned with 81 magnetic heading. The direction aligns with the heading on the FAA animation. The only problem with this direction is the plane will have to bank to the right to the hit the Pentagon west wall. The course correction will increase by 5 degrees or more going the right.




The south path lines depending on where you place the plane varies from 66 degrees to 70 degrees. Magnetic heading would be 80 degrees if true heading was 70 degrees.

This here is about 68 degrees it aligns hitting 5 light poles and the Pentagon

a reply to: Jesushere

You have about two or three conspiracy theories mixed together. If you are just going to spit out numbers and keep rambling on with out citing sources, this is pointless. In the face of numberius cited sources that shows the north east path is only a false argument. Take your argument up with Scientists for 9/11 truth.

Addendum to the Paper Refuting the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesi
www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon
www.journalof911studies.com...

The Pentagon Attack on 9/11:
A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis
Based on Analysis of the Flight Path
stj911.org...

If, as we have shown, the plane did not fly north of the Citgo service station there is no reason to suspect that it did not hit the Pentagon. If it was flying close to the ground in the vicinity of the light poles, as described by many witnesses, it could not miss. The FDR file, the damage to the light poles, the fence and the generator and the shape of the damage on the face of the Pentagon all indicate impact. All arguments used to suggest that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon have been shown to be unfounded. 37 6 CIT is shown to be presenting a hypothesis which is physically impossible. According to the scientific method this hypothesis must be abandoned.

Your above exercise is totally void with no proof provided by a topographical map for the pentagon that shows the difference between true north and magnetic north? A simple item provided with a topographical map? And which heading you are trying to correct for from the FRD, and what type of instrument created that heading.

Keep rumbling on with no clarification by cited sources.

Good luck to you.......

neutronflux True North is N on the compass. Magnetic North in the Washington DC area is about 10 to 11 degrees West +

I have calibrated the Magnetic North.

Just say the official version was right the plane 61.5 degrees South of the Navy Annex. The plane will be 71.4 degrees Magnetic North. At 61.5 degrees the plane would not follow the official flight path. Between 67 and 70 degrees it does.

At 67 degrees Southside, the plane was 76 degrees Magnetic North. At 70 degrees it is 80 degrees Magnetic north.

FAA compass matches up more accurately with the 70-degree approach North of the Navy Annex. The only fault in the data the plane would have to bank right in the last few seconds to hit the Pentagon West wall.

a reply to: Jesushere

You are more than welcome to contact Scientists for 9/11 truth concerning their work that flight recorder data supports the official flight path.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
By John D. Wyndham

John D. Wyndham (PhD) studied under two Nobel Prize-winners in physics at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, U.K. and, in his early career, was a Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology. He is currently Coordinator of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. His research papers on 9/11 can be found there and on the website Scientific Method 9/11 for which he acts as Moderator. You can contact him at [email protected].

Let’s us know how it works out?

Good gravy tons of people saw it hit where it did.
Get over it.

a reply to: Jesushere

True north is only N on a compass if you put in the adjustment...

You seem to be doing the same thing that happens to me when I'm really tired but can't fall asleep sometimes. When that happens I'll say or think some word and in my mind I'll suddenly start feeling like it's not right somehow or how can this combination of letters make that sound and why does that word mean whatever it's definition is and what's a definition anyway and.....

Do you see how that went so completely off the rails so quickly?

This is the downside to humans being pattern seeking animals! It's actually fairly easy to send us into a recursive loop where we can MAKE things not make sense by focusing on them too hard.

I don't know what the technical term is for this, but it really really appears to be what you are inadvertently doing here. I get that you are looking for answers, but there's a time and a place where the only sane course of action is to take a step back and give your mind a rest.

Yes, I am part of the problem. But why is it when the conversation turns to there is no evidence at the towers of CD, especially concerning the video/audio evidence, the conversation turns to .... but, but, but the pentagon........

a reply to: neutronflux

Dopamine...

Dopamine is why whenever one assertion hits a solid brick wall of logic the argument will switch to another tack or in the case of 911 from wtc to the Pentagon.

We still want to feel that pleasant stimulus created by the dopamine jolt we get when we feel like we possess knowledge that has otherwise eluded people we subconsciously think of as smarter than us.