Flight path of the plane that approached the pentagon

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by scott3x

 

This has been covered in at least two videos.

Go to "thepentacon.com" and go to the video section which shows a
flight path reconstruction based on witness testimony.

More cartoons, huh? Any "flight path reconstruction based on witness testimony" would be based on only the witnesses CIT choose to accept - hardly an acceptable nor credible base of data. There are dozens of "witnesses" that do not adhere to CITs preconceived and prejudged record of events that CIT choose to discount for any number of hilarious reasons, many of which could be applied to their OWN witnesses. CIT is the non-aeronautical bookend to PfT. Their aeronautical analysis is only slightly worse than yours.

We're all still waiting for you or CIT to bring these "witnesses" and your "experts" to a grand jury to start the trials. Instead you choose to flog affidavits for a lawsuit where someone who received money from the 757 plane crash is suing that there was no 757. Not to mention your aeronautical acumen regarding published departures, NOTAMS and P-56 flight restrictions.

Also look on YouTube/Google for a video called, "The North Approach" which I co-produced and has been checked by aero engineers and math profs.

www.youtube.com...

Nice link to a 55 second trailer that says squat. I'd ask what else ya got, but I know all you'll come up with is more unverified and unvalidated cartoons.

reply to post by scott3x

Laugh :-p. I got on Joyce Street; perhaps there's a spot where you can see the pentagon on it, but if so, I didn't find it.

Yeah...put 'Joe' just a bit South of the gas station. I did it, and it gave an address of "834 South"...then turn right to look East.

Of course, you can also put 'Joe' on the big curve of Columbia Pike, about where Joyce St meets it....where Southgate Rd is coming from your West. And you can see the Pentagon easily from there too.

BUT...for the CIT fantasy to stay in place, you have to zoom out and take it all into account. CIT agrees (I think) that the airplane came along Columbia Pike --- where they want us to believe some crazy theory is that the airplane turned slightly North to pass over the Annex, THEN turned back to the right...and of course the CIT claim that NO airplane hit, that this maneuver was done by a "decoy" that then climbed above and "overflew" the Pentagon...even though NO ONE saw this happen!!

Not only did no witnesses near the area see this, the Air Traffic Controllers at National Airport didn't see it. Look how close they are....to find the Control Tower, zoom in and look at the Metro station platform. Just at the North end of the platform, where the covering stops, look right and there's the Tower...OR, notice the two large Northernmost terminals on the airport, the two that are about the same size. Tower is mid-way between them.

NOW, it is true that the actual Pentagon building can't be seen from the Tower, even up as high as they are, because of buildings in Crystal City.
(I used to live in one of those two curved apartment buildings there, along the railroad tracks, when I first moved here...)

However, any airplane that passed OVER the Pentagon, and continued Eastward would be in plain view...and just think of all the people in DC who would have seen/heard it!!!! Because, nothing flies over the city in that manner...except maybe Marine helicopters. Even CIT haven't claimed that it was a helicopter! (yet)....

For Weedwhacker Warren Stutt's Home Page

[edit on 1-10-2009 by waypastvne]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by scott3x

Considering the hard data file that we have shows the altimeter being set through 18,000 feet, and the animation does not, that is a blatant coverup to make the animation aircraft appear lower than it actually is.

Whoa! Strong allegation, there! Hope they can provide more 'proof'.

I assume the proof would be in the data files that you don't yet have...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
~~There is another point, and I am uncertain since I never needed to know ALL the details of exactly how the SSFDR recorded, it wasn't required knowledge.

But somewhere in the deep, dark recesses of memory I recall as how the Air Data Computer (where all of the pitot/static inputs went to be processed, then sent to respective instruments) only used 29.92....and of course, the Kollsman window settings only affected the instrument AS SEEN BY the pilots.

I know that the transponder Mode C reported standard altitudes...that is, for the ATC people on their radar, if they assigned you 10,000 feet, and the altimeter setting was 30.22, they would see 10,300 feet, because YOU had re-set properly. The ATC folks understand this, and how it works. They only question your altitude if it varies by a substantial amount, different than assigned. (Or is WAY off compared to others at your assigned altitude).

Not sure how the above relates to the PFT video transcriptions...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'm not going to repeat their vertical speed comments...I timed it for myself, once and it looked perfectly reasonable. Didn't save my notes, so I'll have to look again.....

Ok.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
(Would be a heckuva lot easier if we had the VVI info!!!!)

What's VVI info? And would Pilots for 9/11 Truth would have this?

reply to post by scott3x

What's VVI info? And would Pilots for 9/11 Truth would have this?

I did it again...'VVI' would be the term for the instrument that measures Vertical Velocity (speed).

You will also see it referred to as the VSI, ('Vertical Speed Indicator'), IVSI and IVVI. The first 'I' in the last two means 'Instantaneous', and it is standard in today's modern high performance airplanes. [Older purely analog, not digital inputs, had a certain 'lag' when displaying changes in vertical speed trends...)

We all still call it 'vertical speed' when referring to it...the 'velocity' terminology came along from somewhere....I think some "genius" somewhere in Human Concepts Engineering thought that it was too "confusing" to use the term 'speed' anymore, because we stupid pilots might get confused...I was sarcastic, but it's probably close to the truth...

Reason I brought it up was to dispel one of the P4T myths they bring up, about the "incredible" rate of descent of AAL 77, and the "impossible" pull to the nearly level last few feet of the flight path. This they "calculate" the way I did, just from watching the animation video; timing the change in altitude to determine a rate of descent in feet per minute. IF they have the actual FDR data from the IVVI then they're ignoring it. Maybe they don't have it.

All of their "reasoning" is flawed from the start, since they're taking the NTSB animation as an iron-clad and to the microsecond and millimeter accurate depiction, when in fact it was meant only as an illustration of the event.

But, like a dog with a bone.....well, you know.
______________________________________________________

Found a pretty good photo for the intrument panel (USAir in this case):

airliners.net...

The IVVI is below the altimeter, just right of the EHSI (lower CRT screen there).

They're at the gate, it looks like...the FMC is programmed, but I can't read it on my monitor...(those small computer screens with green lettering, have the flight plan info and other stuff). BUT the photog says they were in MCO, sothe 353 HDGand 5000 Altitude setting soudns right. I don't know their checklists, but since they have the lower EICAS screen showing the flight control position indices, and the hydraulics aren't turned on yet, I'm guessing they've completed their "Receiving Aircraft" (or whatever they call it, that's what we call it) checklist. Probably real close to push back. SO, the "Engine Start and Push" (or similar) checklist will be run, hydraulics turned on (and anything else on their checklist) and the flight control movement verified, THEN the lower EICAS screen will be switched to display the rest of the engine instruments to monitor the engine starts.

TMI????

( Just noticed the Parking Brake is off...AND the Captain is turned slightly, probably to talk to the photog. SO, still some minutes away from pushback...not sure why the door lights are all out...maybe they have a delay on the gate, waiting for clearance to push...because we start getting paid as soon as ALL doors are closed, AND the Parking Brake is released... )


[edit on 1 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by turbofan

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by scott3x

 

This has been covered in at least two videos.

I assume that by "this" you were addressing the part where I said;
"2- The plane approached the pentagon from the north side of the nearby Citgo gas station. This would concord with 13 credible witnesses and would also be aerodynamically possible, as explained by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (I can try to look up the link where they do this later if requested)"

Originally posted by turbofan
Go to "thepentacon.com" and go to the video section which shows a
flight path reconstruction based on witness testimony.

I am fairly familiar with CIT's work, but I think linking to their sites in the OP would have been better. So here are the links to their work:
www.thepentacon.com...
www.citizeninvestigationteam.com...

Originally posted by turbofan
Also look on YouTube/Google for a video called, "The North Approach" which I co-produced and has been checked by aero engineers and math profs.

www.youtube.com...

That's the video I had wanted to link to :-). For those interested, the above was the trailer; here is the video itself:
9/11: THE NORTH FLIGHT PATH: Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

reply to post by weedwhacker

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by turbofan

 

We also KNOW because the raw data file was decoded by P4T Experts and show RADAR ALTITUDE.

Well, we have only YOUR word for it that they were "Experts"!! Why not have one of them post here?

That might happen at some point in time, but I think that turbofan knows a fair amount; certainly more than me. He posts over at PFT fairly regularly and is in fact a moderator there as well. You could, ofcourse, create an account there. Ofcourse, I did that and am now banned; and I -agree- with their position :-p. Being a pilot yourself, you definitely know more about airplanes than I do, but you disagree with their position. Well, it's your call.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by turbofan
This is not adjusted by the pilot and it MATCHES the correction made for Pressure Altitude.

I'd like to see the RA data too.

Hopefully turbofan or someone else can provide that as well...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So, you are unclear - the RA matches what correction made for Pressure Altitude? P4T is claiming that the airplane was more than 400 MSL at the point in the animation where it reads 180 feet...so which is it?

I wish I could understand what you're saying here :-p. MSL?

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Originally posted by turbofan
Considering the hard data file that we have shows the altimeter being set through 18,000 feet...

We have only your word for that, since I have never seen the hard data file. Have a linky????

I too am hoping he has a linky ;-).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
edit for turbofan....

I found an excellent bunch of information, but as it is from another forum I won't cross-post.

In it are some external references cited, so I think it's OK to bring those along...at first glance, this is going to be good info from someone who KNOWS exactly how Flight Recorders work, and he discusses the CSV file...I'll read it and then put it into my words.

His cred? An MS in Electrical Engineering, worked as a civilian with the UASF on F-15s in data recording and telemetry. He's designed, built, tested and maintained flight data acquisition units. He comments that the FDR in question is a "very low-bit-rate version."

(I want to point out a very odd coincidence also, that I just noticed from the other forum...OK, someone else already linked it on a different ATS thread...it is from "JREF". Well, this was from back in 2006...I never even HEARD of the place -- although I had heard of James Randi before, as a debunker of faith healers and stuff -- I had no idea that blog existed UNTIL quite some time after I found ATS!!! SO, imagine my surprise to see a user there -- banned, I might add -- with the name "weedwacker", Note the spelling... Anyway, that dude was not and never was ME!!! In fact, it's one from the OTHER side! LOL!!!)

Where's the linkies ;-)?

reply to post by ATH911

Originally posted by ATH911
What's the current number of NoC vs. SoC witnesses?

It would seem that both PFT and CIT place the count as:
NoC witnesses: 13
SoC witnesses: 0

However, PFT, CIT and I have discussed at length alleged South of Citgo witnesses with a certain poster who calls himself Q24. He made cases for various witnesses that he thought favoured a South of the Citgo approach. I believe that PFT and CIT debunked this claim of his fairly well, but I went ahead and did my part as well. Admittedly, he never finished with his list, but judging from his track record, I don't think any other witnesses he was going to present would have been credible either.

If you'd like to see the debates I and the aforementioned groups had with him, a few of them are here:
One from Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
No Witnesses Who Place The Plane On The South Side?

One from CIT's forum:
South Approach Eyewitnesses?


And perhaps the final exchange on the subject with Q24 (the flight path bit really gets going near the end):
General of all American Intelligence

I see more stars, but I don't know why. It's probably because people
are not technical enough to understand the data and apply it to the
real world evidence...either that, or they are just GL's looking to fluff
your 'credibilty'

So let's begin the slaughter of logic and tech. This shouldn't be hard as
Weedwacker is talking from opinion rather than fact.

HE HAS NOT LOOKED AT THE NTSB DATA!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
!!!!! DME by itself is inadequate to plot a position. It is Distance Measuring Equipment...distance information only, with NO lateral reference. THAT comes from the VOR info. (VHF OmniRange). In other words, for the DME to define a position, you also must know the radial you are on, as transmitted from the VOR.

WRONG! FREAKIN' WRONG!

YOu know why? Becuase you have a determined flight path based on
the "physical damage" we were told about on 9/11.


REMEMBER those light poles that were *cough* knocked over? Remember
the ACSE report and damage path through the PENTACON?

Well guess what, if the plane really made that damage, then it must have
flown along a path IN LINE with the damage.

Want to know something else? The 1.5 nm radius +/- 0.1 mn MUST
interesct that flight path.

PRESTO! We have all the co-ordinates we need including a vertical position!

So glad you brought that up! One NM is 6,067 feet. One tenth of that is about 607 feet. SO....+/- 607 feet means an error (per the manufacturer's data) of 1,214 feet. Correct?

NO.

It means an error of +/- 0.1 nm, or +/- 607 feet. A value Plus, or minus
607 feet....not a value +/- 1,214 feet.

Got it? 607 feet or less (typically calibrated for zero error by the MFG.
These are worst case values).

Without going through anything else (because lengthy replies seem to
confuse you), you can deal with all the above fact.

When you comprehend all of the above, I want you to answer why
the final altitude in the CSV file is different from the final altitude in
the animation.

I'll even show you how to correct for local pressure and properly figure
the result for the animation's final P.A.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by turbofan]

reply to post by scott3x


All the RADAR ALT data, and deconstruction of the NTSB data can be
found at the same link I presented earlier (sub forums of Pentagon,
and AA77).

There are videos with explanations, diagrams, etc. to help clarify all the
research.

If you want specifics I'd be happy to explain them here, but I wont
copy all of the data that is readily available for everyone at P4T.

reply to post by scott3x

Originally posted by weedwhacker
edit for turbofan....

I found an excellent bunch of information, but as it is from another forum I won't cross-post.

In it are some external references cited, so I think it's OK to bring those along...at first glance, this is going to be good info from someone who KNOWS exactly how Flight Recorders work, and he discusses the CSV file...I'll read it and then put it into my words.

His cred? An MS in Electrical Engineering, worked as a civilian with the UASF on F-15s in data recording and telemetry. He's designed, built, tested and maintained flight data acquisition units. He comments that the FDR in question is a "very low-bit-rate version."

(I want to point out a very odd coincidence also, that I just noticed from the other forum...OK, someone else already linked it on a different ATS thread...it is from "JREF". Well, this was from back in 2006...I never even HEARD of the place -- although I had heard of James Randi before, as a debunker of faith healers and stuff -- I had no idea that blog existed UNTIL quite some time after I found ATS!!! SO, imagine my surprise to see a user there -- banned, I might add -- with the name "weedwacker", Note the spelling... Anyway, that dude was not and never was ME!!! In fact, it's one from the OTHER side! LOL!!!)



Where's the linkies ;-)?

JREF

Originally posted by weedwhacker

imagine my surprise to see a user there -- banned, I might add -- with the name "weedwacker", Note the spelling... Anyway, that dude was not and never was ME!!! In fact, it's one from the OTHER side! LOL!!!)

That confused me for a long time.

reply to post by waypastvne




LMAO!!!

Did you read the end of that thread? I've already schooled the JREF
members on that topic.

You know what their final conclusion is after about six different failed
excuses?

A BRID STRIKE CAUSED THE DATA LOSS IN THE FDR!!!

That has been DEBUNKED TOO!



Tell Mackey I'm still waiting for him to debate me live on camera. We
were going to set it up, BUT HE BACKED OUT!

See here:

pilotsfor911truth.org...

He proably chickened out when he realized I was a technologist, and not
a car mechanic

Originally posted by scott3x
In the last post, Rob Balsamo from Pilots for 9/11 Truth mentions that the plane that approached the pentagon would have crashed long before it hit the pentagon if it had actually hit the light poles. He explains why in another video from PFT, 9/11: Attack on the Pentagon, starting at 8:52:

Placing the aircraft on the south path, lowered from the FDR altitude of 699 feet above sea level at this point in space to the top of the VDOT antenna, we can examine the pull up needed at pole 1 and measure the radius using a 3 point ark radius tool provided with this 3d animation software program.

Remember, the scale of this presentation is 100 feet= 1 cm box. To get an idea of how we demonstrate this in 3d software, we switch to an orthogonal view. An orthogonal view is different than a perspective view in that it eliminates the effect of distance from a viewpoint. Therefore, we can accurately determine radius of an ark and precisely draw an ark based on the pull up needed in this view.

Here is the ark drawn in the orthogonal view. We will remove the topography and obstacles in order to get a better view of the ark drawn. Again, we we will demonstrate the accuracy of the scale and topography at the end of this presentation.

The radius of this ark is 20.85 centimeters. But remember the scale of this presentation is 1 cm= 100 ft. So we need to multiply 100 to 20.85 and we get a radius of 2,085 feet.

With the radius, we can use a simple formula required for measuring acceleration as "a = v^2 / r". This is the proper formula to use for such a problem.


Using the velocity as provided by the NTSB for both scenarios, 781 f/s, we need to square that, then divide by 2085, to get 292.5 f/s squared. We then divide that by 32 f/s squared to get 9.14 G.

[The math involved]:
781*781 = 609,961
609,961/2085 = 292.5 f/s squared
292.5 f/s squared/32 f/s squared = 9.14G

G force calculation for this pull up equals 9.14 Gs. We also need to add 1 G for earth's gravity, for a total of 10.14 Gs required.

Transport category aircraft are limited to 2.5 positive Gs. Although a 757 could perhaps withstand more G forces then 2.5, it's highly unlikely it could withstand more than 5 or 6.

Remember, this calculation is for the least challenging pull. If we hypothetically lower the aircraft altitude from the NTSB plotted altitude, to the lower height of the VDOT antenna.

As we can see G loads required to pull out of a dive from the top of the VDOT antenna are impossible for a 757. It is off the charts if we account for altitude as plotted and produced by the NTSB.

Placing the aircraft at the FDR altitude, the most challenging pull, we can measure the radius of the ark needed to pull out of such a dive.

Again, we switch to the orthogonal view, for accurate measurements and we get a radius of 576.9 feet. Plugging that radius into the same formula, and adding 1 g for earth's gravity, we get 34 Gs.

781*781 = 609,961
609,961/576.9 = 1057.3
1,057.3/32 = 33G

Impossible.

This is the proper way to determine G loads in a 2 dimensional problem such as aircraft pulling out of a dive.

"Ark"? radius? Really, once is a typo, 6 times is "I don't know what I am talking about". Round file.

reply to Mark_Amy's post #16

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
I think all the technical aspects of things like this should be left with Pilots 4 Truth or at least be examined by people who know what they're talking about. Otherwise you just end up with a bunch of amateurs taking bits and pieces of information and getting confused. Once you get truthers contradicting each other, that just fuels the fire for the debunkers to jump on the bandwagon and then the original purpose of getting to the truth gets lost.

I would contend that the people behind 9/11 would -love- it if we left things up to the "experts". This isn't to put down experts, but rather to point out that those who are too trusting of others can be easily fooled. There is also the fact that when arguing something with someone, one tends to focus on the weakest links in their arguments. Clearly, if we leave the technical stuff to the respective experts, be it the official story experts or the truth movement experts, the other side will easily be able to point out our own ignorance. I personally dislike relying on experts when it comes to things that are so important, which is why I've been asking experts questions concerning various aspects of 9/11 to further educate myself and to thus ameliorate the weaknesses in my knowledge base.

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
My own belief is that the government never thought their original story would get picked to pieces or questioned, so they made up this sloppy sequence of events to just cover what happened.

I agree to some extent. However, I would contend that it wasn't -that- sloppy, or else people wouldn't be arguing about it 8 years after the event.

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
I think a plane did approach the Pentagon, but on the other approach that's being talked about, not the one in the OS.

We definitely agree there.

Originally posted by Mark_Amy
As it got near, a missile was fired to hit the precise target and the plane flew over the Pentagon instead. A missile is the only probably explanation of the perfect entry and exit holes and lack of debris.

Not so; in fact, CIT has mentioned that there is no evidence of a missile being fired and PFT, despite initially considering the possibility, apparently has now backed out of it. Wall breaking kits are good at making nice round holes like the ones observed at the pentagon, as SPreston has mentioned here in the past, complete with a video a wall breaking kit in action, as well as a comparison of it to the pentagon "exit" hole.

[edit on 2-10-2009 by scott3x]

reply to weedwhacker's post #25

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by scott3x

 

What's VVI info? And would Pilots for 9/11 Truth would have this?

I did it again...

Lol :-). It's understandable. So much to say, and then there's the emotions involved in this type of a discussion as well, which can get one to just try to say what one wants to say as quickly as possible ;-).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
'VVI' would be the term for the instrument that measures Vertical Velocity (speed).

Ah ok.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You will also see it referred to as the VSI, ('Vertical Speed Indicator'), IVSI and IVVI. The first 'I' in the last two means 'Instantaneous', and it is standard in today's modern high performance airplanes. [Older purely analog, not digital inputs, had a certain 'lag' when displaying changes in vertical speed trends...)

Ok.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
We all still call it 'vertical speed' when referring to it...the 'velocity' terminology came along from somewhere....I think some "genius" somewhere in Human Concepts Engineering thought that it was too "confusing" to use the term 'speed' anymore, because we stupid pilots might get confused...I was sarcastic, but it's probably close to the truth...

Lol :-)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Reason I brought it up was to dispel one of the P4T myths they bring up, about the "incredible" rate of descent of AAL 77, and the "impossible" pull to the nearly level last few feet of the flight path. This they "calculate" the way I did, just from watching the animation video; timing the change in altitude to determine a rate of descent in feet per minute.

That's not my understanding. My understanding is that they calculated the necessary pull up based on the CSV file.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
IF they have the actual FDR data from the IVVI then they're ignoring it. Maybe they don't have it.

My understanding is that they have all the FDR data. I'm not sure why you think they're ignoring it.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Found a pretty good photo for the intrument panel (USAir in this case):

airliners.net...

The IVVI is below the altimeter, just right of the EHSI (lower CRT screen there).

Thanks for the picture; however, since I don't know where the altimeter or the EHSI is (what's that stand for?), don't know where the IVVI is ;-).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
They're at the gate, it looks like...the FMC is programmed, but I can't read it on my monitor...(those small computer screens with green lettering, have the flight plan info and other stuff). BUT the photog says they were in MCO, sothe 353 HDGand 5000 Altitude setting soudns right. I don't know their checklists, but since they have the lower EICAS screen showing the flight control position indices, and the hydraulics aren't turned on yet, I'm guessing they've completed their "Receiving Aircraft" (or whatever they call it, that's what we call it) checklist. Probably real close to push back. SO, the "Engine Start and Push" (or similar) checklist will be run, hydraulics turned on (and anything else on their checklist) and the flight control movement verified, THEN the lower EICAS screen will be switched to display the rest of the engine instruments to monitor the engine starts.

TMI????

( Just noticed the Parking Brake is off...AND the Captain is turned slightly, probably to talk to the photog. SO, still some minutes away from pushback...not sure why the door lights are all out...maybe they have a delay on the gate, waiting for clearance to push...because we start getting paid as soon as ALL doors are closed, AND the Parking Brake is released...

)

I see :-). So what's FMC, EICAS and TMI ;-)?

Not that I mind this lesson, but.. how does this all relate to what the PFT video said?

reply to turbofan's post #30

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by scott3x

 

All the RADAR ALT data, and deconstruction of the NTSB data can be
found at the same link I presented earlier (sub forums of Pentagon,
and AA77).

Can you link to it again?

Originally posted by turbofan
There are videos with explanations, diagrams, etc. to help clarify all the
research.

If you want specifics I'd be happy to explain them here, but I wont
copy all of the data that is readily available for everyone at P4T.

Ofcourse.

reply to waypastvne's post #31

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by scott3x

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I found an excellent bunch of information, but as it is from another forum I won't cross-post.

In it are some external references cited, so I think it's OK to bring those along...at first glance, this is going to be good info from someone who KNOWS exactly how Flight Recorders work, and he discusses the CSV file...I'll read it and then put it into my words.

His cred? An MS in Electrical Engineering, worked as a civilian with the UASF on F-15s in data recording and telemetry. He's designed, built, tested and maintained flight data acquisition units. He comments that the FDR in question is a "very low-bit-rate version."

Where's the linkies ;-)?

JREF

Thanks. I assume the MS in Electrical Engineering is in that thread, but what's his name?

reply to post by turbofan


Your style is becoming more and more typical, in its arrogance even when proven wrong. It is Attack, Attack, Attack....and no manner of logic nor sensibility will stop you.

Well guess what, if the plane really made that damage, then it must have flown along a path IN LINE with the damage.

That's right. Following backwards from the very thoroughly investigated and reported line of damage INSIDE the Pentagon, the ground track can be extrapolated out...OVER the intersecton of Rte 27 and Rte 244 (where the lightpoles were) and South of the gas station.

Want to know something else? The 1.5 nm radius +/- 0.1 mn MUST
interesct that flight path.

Yes.....+/- the 0.1 NM margin of error that YOU admitted to...correct???

Later, we will see how you (again) twisted my EXACT words. Reading and comprehension? Zero points. Arrogant attitude because there is NO WAY you could ever be wrong? A big whoppin' TEN!

Now, this:

PRESTO! We have all the co-ordinates we need including a vertical position!

Oh please, 'Sky King', explain to all of us the geometry...not only in TWO dimensions, but now you assert in THREE? How can you determine, with only one line, and one arc, "all the co-ordinates we need including a vertical position" (your words).

Let me make it simple, first. Draw a line. Pick a focus, draw an arc. You will find TWO places on that line that are the same length (in this case let's use 1.5NM)

Where is the vertical component? Well, the actual true airplane altitude is in doubt, has been debated...I guess you could try to use trigonometry and the slant-range angle...but still you're guessing.

There are a multitude of errors that will be accumulating, because of several uncertainties...the true altitude AND as mentioned below, the DME error margin....so still we have to approximate position, it won't be accurate to an inch...

NOW...here is your comprehension = Zero point:

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So glad you brought that up! One NM is 6,067 feet. One tenth of that is about 607 feet. SO....+/- 607 feet means an error (per the manufacturer's data) of 1,214 feet. Correct?

MY exact quote, in its entirety. To reiterate: ....

+/- 607 feet means an error (per the manufacturer's data) of 1,214 feet.

Let this sink in a bit.........

..............because, YOU wrote:

NO.

It means an error of +/- 0.1 nm, or +/- 607 feet. A value Plus, or minus
607 feet....not a value +/- 1,214 feet.

See it yet? It went by pretty quickly, and those not paying attention might have been left (again) with the impression that YOU are always right... there's that arrogance problem once more....


YOU:

not a value +/- 1,214 feet.

See it now? Twist and shout, twist and shout....was that an old Chubby Checker song?

Got it? 607 feet or less (typically calibrated for zero error by the MFG. These are worst case values).

Oh, I GET IT, allright. I get your game, here... and I suspect so does everyone else.

Example as exhibit....let's see, I've used up so many already...this is Exhibit 'J':

Without going through anything else (because lengthy replies seem to confuse you), you can deal with all the above fact.

Your witness......


[edit on 2 October 2009 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

No, not ALL credible witnesses. Many more disagree with the "North of Citgo allegations. In your opening you mention CIT's 13 witnesses. Those are the only witnesses that they (CIT) wished to include in their "investigation". In other words, CIT wished to have a pre-determined outcome, to fit their pre-conceived version of "facts" -- so they used only those witness' statements that were supportive of their case.

Originally posted by trebor451

More cartoons, huh? Any "flight path reconstruction based on witness testimony" would be based on only the witnesses CIT choose to accept - hardly an acceptable nor credible base of data. There are dozens of "witnesses" that do not adhere to CITs preconceived and prejudged record of events that CIT choose to discount for any number of hilarious reasons, many of which could be applied to their OWN witnesses. CIT is the non-aeronautical bookend to PfT. Their aeronautical analysis is only slightly worse than yours.

I will just back these quotes up by confirming that if one researches the subject they will find there are approximately three times as many eyewitnesses to the South of Citgo flight path and/or impact than there are to a North of Citgo approach. If you attempt to present this evidence on the P4T or CIT forums you will be suspended/banned/censored (speaking from experience). I believe that says it all about the methods employed by these groups and the lack of support for their theory.

reply to post by scott3x

I see :-). So what's FMC, EICAS and TMI ;-)?

LOL!!! TMA = Too Many Acronyms!!!

Oh, and "TMI" is just "Too Much Information"....that's the easy one....

Adding...'MSL' = Mean Sea Level. Sorry 'bout that one. maybe I'll look for a compete compendium of avitaion acronyms for you...there has to be one somewhere.

If I screw up and type 'AGL' know in advance it means 'Above Ground Level'....(simply, the difference between the ground's elevation above MSL and an airplane's altitude. That's one reason we always refer to the airpane "altitude", and fixed objects' "elevation"...( and remember, 'elevator' is not the Otis box in a building ... they're the flappy thingies that go up/down on the tail of the plane )


The EICAS is the 'Engine indicating and Crew Alerting System'. On the B757/767 it is the two CRT (cathode ray tube) screens in the center panel. Actually, the EICAS is described in brief on Wiki.

You may have heard the term "Glass Cockpit"? The B757/767 design is a sort of in-between 'glass' concept --- actually in General Aviation, including modern Business jets, the advances are more pronounced than in Transport category jets...FAA is slow to approve (and the customers - airlines - less likely to accept) new concepts and technologies. Of course, FAA approves in other segments of aviation...smaller fleets, different training syllabi and esptablished procedures...but, I digress.

'FMC' is 'Flight Management Computer'. The computer inputs are from various instrument sources, and from the crew via the CDU (Control Display Units) that I pointed out with the green characters on the little screens.

Why is any of this relevant? Well, partly to show I actually DO know what I'm talking about, and to help assist in describing the clues that lead me to believe that the American flight 77 was piloted by Humans...the real pilots until the hijacking, and then the terrorists until impact.

Knowing the full complexities of the various systems, how they interact and are programmed and utilized means that I can look for inconsistencies in the "story"...and it seems to me that it would be exceedingly difficult to "fake" all of this so well, IF that was the true plan all along.

It just doesn't pass the smell test.

Each time I bring something to the trhead I'll try to check to see if it's also online somewhere...and then ADD to it just where clarity might be needed.





[edit on 2 October 2009 by weedwhacker]