Arlington Topography, Obstacles Make American 77 Final Leg Impossible

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Huh?

The police officers saw the plane on the north side like everyone else proving the official story false.



Caustic Logic simply dismisses evidence that contradicts the official story and does his best to spin and confuse the facts to support deception.

[edit on 30-3-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Having some fun tonight with CL on his new YT video, so i figured i would stop by here for more fun..

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Oh my dog,

Cant say i have heard that expression before... but i digress...

Yes, the FDR data lines up with the heading of a south path, although it ends early.

The FDR Data ends early? Exactly how "early" does it end CL?

According to the NTSB, many parameters within the csv file the NTSB produced "ends" exactly at the "time of impact" which was calculated by the NTSB based on Radar, ATC Transcripts and the FDR. The animation produced by the NTSB "ends" data 1 second from the pentagon wall.

NTSB plots aircraft 1 second away from pentagon wall.
i47.photobucket.com...
i47.photobucket.com...

Source-
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Is this the "ends early" you are referring to? Or do you CL, as a janitor by "profession", know more than the professionals at the NTSB who provided this data, produce such information on a regular basis, who also say "[they] want everything as accurate as possible when providing information through the FOIA", account for a clock annotation EDT/UTC error, yet do not comment on, or account for any additional "missing data" which "ended earlier" (as you claim), or any other errors in their work except as noted?.

Again, how "early" did the FDR data "end"? If you feel it "ended" more than 1 second (NTSB animation), and more than 0 seconds (NTSB csv file/flight path study) from the pentagon wall, have you called the NTSB to inform them of such a gross error they are providing to the American public through the FOIA? Have you called L3 Communications to inform them their FDR's are not compliant with ED-55 and TSO-124? Have you called the FAA to suggest a NPRM? (google it) Perhaps an Emergency NPRM which would ground all fleets carrying the same FDR? After all, we are talking about a serious flight safety issue here if you feel the FDR "ends" earlier than provided, produce and plotted by the professionals at the NTSB.

And I for one believe those officers saw it on the south side and just lied when they said north. Curiously they match (sorta) the erred "FDR" animation that shows it north, which many have taken as a sign that the plane actually WAS north like the witnesses said.

So let me see if i understand this correctly, if i am to understand the "conspiracy theory" you have been proposing in the past, and are implying here....

According to your claims...

The Conspiracy regarding events at the pentagon includes Pentagon Police Officers (and many others perhaps) making statements/intentionally lying about the north side flight path. Meanwhile the NTSB personnel involved with the Pentagon Police Officer "Conspirators"... "rotated" the map in agreement in order to intentionally disseminate misleading/false information to the American public through the Freedom Of Information Act which would "confirm" Pentagon Police Officer (and others) "lies" regarding the north side. Such information was intentionally produced and designed to contradict the govt story, in order to protect the govt story/real perps, by having highly credible researchers/experienced professionals such as those listed here and here chase their tails.... (a red herring if you will)

...only for Caustic "The janitor" Logic to come along to set the record straight by telling everyone its all lies, a conspiracy, a red herring..?

Is that what you are proposing?

.... and we are labelled "CTers".....


Too funny...

Regards,
Rob

typo

[edit on 31-3-2008 by johndoex]

Originally posted by johndoex
Having some fun tonight with CL on his new YT video, so i figured i would stop by here for more fun..

Rob,

Don't you think you and your math buddies should be fixing your errors? Been almost two weeks now.

Thanks,

C.O.

[edit on 31-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Funny you should mention it CO (well perhaps not)...

... as i just reviewed a 15 page pdf on the subject...


but....

...it still isnt ready to publish. Patience my young grasshopper...

reply to post by johndoex


Incredible.... how many pages? Remember we want quality not quantity.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Incredible.... how many pages? Remember we want quality not quantity.

Well of course you wouldn't want too much of those word things, you might not understand it like you didn't understand the governments 'official story', i.e. the NIST report.

Yeah it's incredible alright...

But I'm sure you'll find some paper you also don't understand, that attempts to debunk CIT, that you can throw around...

Obvious is working overtime, watch our taxes go up...

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK...instead of derailing... where is your prize paper on how the towers fell? Your High School Physics teacher is waiting. And while your at it, maybe YOU can explain the mathematical equations that I don't understand.

They way you follow me around here and putting my name in your signature...I'm starting to think you may have a crush on me!

Have a nice day

reply to post by johndoex

Originally posted by johndoex
Having some fun tonight with CL on his new YT video, so i figured i would stop by here for more fun..

Yes, good times.

Yes, the FDR data lines up with the heading of a south path, although it ends early.

The FDR Data ends early? Exactly how "early" does it end CL?

I dunno exactly. Looks like about 6000 feet, or as much as 1.3 miles, or maybe somewhat less or more depending on INS errors or whatever. About 8-9 seconds early it seems to me. Farmer says app. 6 seconds. (can't find the link). Final impact then 9:37:50-55. my post

According to the NTSB, many parameters within the csv file the NTSB produced "ends" exactly at the "time of impact" which was calculated by the NTSB based on Radar, ATC Transcripts and the FDR. The animation produced by the NTSB "ends" data 1 second from the pentagon wall.

NTSB plots aircraft 1 second away from pentagon wall.
i47.photobucket.com...
i47.photobucket.com...

Source-
pilotsfor911truth.org...

dude, that is not a 'plot.' I've shown you how this was 'plotted' and you don't even disagree. The map is rotated AND moved. What does the actual FDR data say? Maybe you know something I don't about how they settled on 9:37:45. I always figured it was a presumption based on the end of data.

Maybe they even knew it was wrong. Has the NTSB asked if this kind of error - 6-9 sec - is possible? They may not answer straight, as it seems that much data missing is suspicious and possibly illegal.
Important Court Action

Is this the "ends early" you are referring to? Or do you CL, as a janitor by "profession", know more than the professionals at the NTSB who provided this data, produce such information on a regular basis, who also say "[they] want everything as accurate as possible when providing information through the FOIA", account for a clock annotation EDT/UTC error, yet do not comment on, or account for any additional "missing data" which "ended earlier" (as you claim), or any other errors in their work except as noted?.

So you trust the NTSB when it suits you. Neat.

Again, how "early" did the FDR data "end"? If you feel it "ended" more than 1 second (NTSB animation), and more than 0 seconds (NTSB csv file/flight path study) from the pentagon wall, have you called the NTSB to inform them of such a gross error they are providing to the American public through the FOIA? Have you called L3 Communications to inform them their FDR's are not compliant with ED-55 and TSO-124? Have you called the FAA to suggest a NPRM? (google it) Perhaps an Emergency NPRM which would ground all fleets carrying the same FDR? After all, we are talking about a serious flight safety issue here if you feel the FDR "ends" earlier than provided, produce and plotted by the professionals at the NTSB.

No. I'm not a big caller and I don't expect them to answer questions and Farmer's pursuing a lawsuit anyway. So have you figured out how a final positional point of N38°51’43” W77°4’48” translates to 1 second from the wall? That's a hefty error, isn't it?

And I for one believe those officers saw it on the south side and just lied when they said north. Curiously they match (sorta) the erred "FDR" animation that shows it north, which many have taken as a sign that the plane actually WAS north like the witnesses said.

So let me see if i understand this correctly, if i am to understand the "conspiracy theory" you have been proposing in the past, and are implying here....

According to your claims...

The Conspiracy regarding events at the pentagon includes Pentagon Police Officers (and many others perhaps) making statements/intentionally lying about the north side flight path. Meanwhile the NTSB personnel involved with the Pentagon Police Officer "Conspirators"... "rotated" the map in agreement in order to intentionally disseminate misleading/false information to the American public through the Freedom Of Information Act which would "confirm" Pentagon Police Officer (and others) "lies" regarding the north side. Such information was intentionally produced and designed to contradict the govt story, in order to protect the govt story/real perps, by having highly credible researchers/experienced professionals such as those listed here and here chase their tails.... (a red herring if you will)

...only for Caustic "The janitor" Logic to come along to set the record straight by telling everyone its all lies, a conspiracy, a red herring..?

Good summation. Well no one else is saying it and somebody has to. Maybe it's not right. Maybe they're right, it was north and impacted (or half-right and it flew over), and the animation 'error' sorta matches by coincidence. Maybe they're all wrong on accident and the animation also matched sorta by coincidence. Or maybe they're all coordinated and that's why they all match in defiance of the 'official story.' I take the logical route here, not the coincidence theorist stance. It's out there now as a theory. That's all.

Alright, so you have some math to double-check. It's taking suspiciously long. How many unnecessary steps that insert distortions are you including? Why if you're just doing math does it take weeks? That's like time to write a short story. You writing a fiction story over there or just working numbers honest and simple? What kind of G-force would happen if the plane was right where your 'govt graphics' show it?



[edit on 1-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]
edit - 600 to 6000

[edit on 2-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Maybe you know something I don't about how they settled on 9:37:45.

Ya think? CL, based on every exchange i have had with you, and the amount of mistakes you have had to correct after speaking with me, one normally would have learned by now that i do know more than you on this topic and that your research skills are... umm.. to put it politely... piss poor.

I always figured it was a presumption based on the end of data.

And you would be wrong. Watch PBB2 again. Its sourced.

The rest of your post i dont have time to read. However, you are certainly entitled to come up with any type of wacked out theories regarding the data, witnesses and our apparent lack of interest in your claims/theories of why we havent published our revision yet..


Regards,
Rob


fixed quote tags

[edit on 1-4-2008 by johndoex]

reply to post by CaptainObvious


LOL who needs to follow you? You pop up in every single 9-11 thread, except the ones you can't dispute that is. Like my thread on the South Tower that I invited you to once upon a time...

You must have an awful lot of time on your hands to keep up your de-bunking work? I know this isn't the only forum you spread your garbage around on...

C'mon Obvious why don't you show us all the part of the NIST report that explains why the towers globally collapsed?

On second thoughts wrong thread, sry CIT for going OT, but he couldn't do it anyway...

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Maybe you know something I don't about how they settled on 9:37:45.

Ya think? CL, based on every exchange i have had with you, and the amount of mistakes you have had to correct after speaking with me, one normally would have learned by now that i do know more than you on this topic and that your research skills are... umm.. to put it politely... piss poor.

Funny, all I recall from our past exchanges is you referring to our past exchanges and refusing to talk to me any further because I'm an idiot, which it seems you think everyone but you is.

ETA: Not totally true but that's the prevailing MO

Re: 99:37:45/46:

I always figured it was a presumption based on the end of data.

And you would be wrong. Watch PBB2 again. Its sourced.

I watched it again and the only thing I'm seeing even close to that is that tired old Jim Ritter letter. Is there something else? Do you have a timestamp handy for where I can find it? If this is your source for final FDR location one second from impact, my Q is where did HE get that info?

Don't let this side-track you, just go ahead and keep working on that math and answer this only if you have a minute to stoop down to my level again.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by Caustic Logic]

Starts 13:31, pay close attention at 13:55 please.

video.google.com...

You also may want to call an FDR Company to inquire about how data is plotted. We did, and have it recorded. (this was before we picked up our own FDR Experts)

And i only hold that opinion of you CL. It seems you hold the same opinion of yourself at times like these.


Regards,
Rob

typo

[edit on 3-4-2008 by johndoex]

reply to post by johndoex


Alright, thanks for the tip. I missed that document the first time through. I'll look it over and if I have anything more to say on the subject I'll do so elsewhere. This abrasive off-topic back-n-forth has gone on long enough.

So back on topic - Arlington topography does WHAT for the alleged flight path?

Wonder where the corrections are . Been like 3 weeks now???

Originally posted by johndoex
Funny you should mention it CO (well perhaps not)...

... as i just reviewed a 15 page pdf on the subject...

but....

...it still isnt ready to publish. Patience my young grasshopper...

This grasshopper is still waiting. Still wondering where this 15 page document is to prove Ryan Mackey a liar.

*sighs*

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


So back on topic - Arlington topography does WHAT for the alleged flight path?

It is rendered absolutely impossible in context of the official data.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic


So back on topic - Arlington topography does WHAT for the alleged flight path?

It is rendered absolutely impossible in context of the official data.

....except that the calculations used to render it "impossible" were done wrong. We're still waiting for the corrections.

Any updates to this thread?

Rob stated that he was looking at a 15 page PDF document...

Thank you,

C.O.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

It is rendered absolutely impossible in context of the official data.

That work was shown to have massive errors. Is it still posted? Proven wrong with physics. Have you helped Rob fix that massive math/physics error where he comes up with 11.2 gs? Do you need some help? I have seen the solution that makes it possible.

cross-quoted from here

Originally posted by johndoex

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
reply to post by johndoex

 

Rob, how's that math coming along? Been over a month now. Any progress?

Its coming.. lots of progress. Thanks for asking, but of course i had to report you for off topic.

Regards..

Since it's on-topic here...

Plane is about 310 ft MSL in this hypothetical scenario
a set distance (4000 ft?) from alleged impact point at app. 30 ft MSL.
Poles 1 and 2 height as a middle point from 60-80 ft msl
whatever, you have the exact numbers.

How many weeks or months does it take to calculate how many Gs this would create?

How long did it take to admit that 11.2 was a ridiculous conclusion? It is ridiculously off, isn't it? Didn't everyone else agree on a general range around 3-4 Gs like a month ago? And now we're to believe you're just soooo careful you gotta have it triple-checked and vetted or whatever, could take years, a full sabbatical to confer with experts in Vienna and re-visit some quantum physics findngs that might be relevant, or what?

Anyway, no rush. Just let us know when you think you've got it right again.