NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all.

Originally posted by plube

Once again A conflict of interest.

It is only a conflict of interest if there is a conspiracy.

If there is no conspiracy then there is no conflict of interest.

Thus, is anyone going to try to contact Vin Narayanan, who works nowadays at a Casino web site, and ask him if he stood under the huge over-spanning traffic sign just after the overpass bridge that goes over the last part of Columbia Pike, that has an big Exit sign up, on its far right side, or if he stood 150 meters or so further, where a 1 by 1 meter big green traffic sign on a pole stood with the words " EXIT to Mall and River Entrances, 1/4 mile".
Or if he stood where I think he stood and I showed him there, sitting in a dark-green big pick-up, with his driver-side window down, jammed in traffic just a few meters in front of the last, smaller green exit sign on a pole beside the road, under that tree at the start of the Exit Lane to the Mall and River entrances, which also lead to Route 110 which he every day used to get to the multi-story glass covered office building of USA Today, 2 miles further north, up the western river side. He was a reporter there, as a sports-, politics- and elections-writer.
He also is a big Casino Gaming Poker fan and writes for Casino City Times as the Gaming Guru now.

It is him here on Facebook : facebook.com...
"Sign up for Facebook to become friends with Vin Narayanan"

Activities and Interests, Other :
Affilicon - International Affiliate Conference, USA Today, The New Yorker, Washington, DC, Casino City, Michigan State University - SPARTANS, Rod Beaton - Sportswriter, Itay Paz – איתי פז, Slate Political Gabfest, Justin Abdelkader
Yahoo! News The Ticket, Sports Fans, Mostly Modern Media, KFWB, Association of Players, Casinos and Webmasters (APCW), Gaming Meets, Pure Michigan, Michigan State Spartans, USA Today Sports, Official Detroit Red Wings, Slate readers help us catalogue the personality types of flight delays. - By John Dickerson, EconPost, Gambling Portal Webmasters Association (GPWA), CalvinAyre.com, Hang Up and Listen, Slate's Culture Gabfest, Sarah Palin's ignorant imperialism. - By William Saletan, Washington Caps: Red Alert

This is a picture of him :
www.casinocitytimes.com...



vinnarayanan.casinocitytimes.com...

Vin Narayanan
Vin Narayanan is the managing editor at Casino City. When he's not writing or editing stories, he likes to play Chinese Poker, Badugi, Razz and any other "non-traditional" poker game. He also thinks blackjack is his best game and loves game theory.

Before joining Casino City, Vin covered (not all at the same time) sports, politics and elections, wars, technology, celebrities and the Census for USATODAY.com, USA WEEKEND and CNN.

A proud graduate of Michigan State University, Vin can be found on most nights and weekends trying to find a way to watch the Spartans play football or basketball.

www.casinocity.com...
EDITORIAL STAFF
www.casinocity.com...


Vin Narayanan - Managing Editor

As Managing Editor at Casino City, Narayanan determines story priorities and sets the editorial calendar and direction. He is also the lead reporter on legal, political and regulatory news regarding both the online and land-based gambling industries. Narayanan has worked for USAToday.com, CNN and Capital New Service and has functioned as an anchor, reporter, producer and managing editor.

Phone: (617) 332-2850 ext. 165
E-mail: [email protected]

==============================

For Exponent :
Impact :
Latitude 38°52'14.29"N
Longitude 77° 3'30.96"W
That's what I believe to be the spot of the 9/11 remembrance plaque in the renovated west wall.

I'm trying to find the last full block of data in the last full frame of the online FDR FOIA's, then I will post that last NTSB-known official position near the Sheraton also.

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by hooper

 

Oh yes. I'm familiar with the game they play.. Very much so...

I don't know enough about the anomalies of telephoto camera shots to debate in detail with him on that subject matter. That and his misinterpretation of what was said.is nothing more that the CIT tactic of twisting words toward their conspiratorial view. That's why he's posting those walls of text now that are so convincing to HIM. I'll stick with flying issues and shove it all down his throat when he gets back to that... He's ignoring it now because he has no solution...

edit on 15-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Are guys really still debating this stuff? I would join in but there is so much misinformation and quite frankly incorrect information given in the OP that I would have no clue where to begin. Suffice it to say that the flight path has been established quite conclusively using the Plains ARSR and 4, yes 4, local ASR radars. If the FDR said the thing landed on the moon, I would believe what the ASR-9 located just 2 nmi away told me than I would it. But add 3 more local ASR's to the mix and there just is no room for debate. Beyond that, this whole debate is silly. Who cares if it flew NoC or SoC? EVERY eyewitness in a position to see it claims it impacted the Pentagon at the location in question. None, that is zero, witnesses or objective evidence to indicate it did anything else.

Reckon some folks just don't have anything better to do

But since ya'll still bored, here is a plot of ALL radar returns within 2.5 nmi of DCA 1330 through 1339. I'll just sit back and watch the fun. Which way did it go, which way did it go?






And here is the live action DCA radar and ATC audio as it happened just for the fun of it.

Do use this threads-cross-connection link
"NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all"
.......................................compared to...............................................
"The Generator-trailer its cabin roof-gouge is made by a NoC flying AA 77"

to stay tuned to every new development :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It starts to look as if the FDR end heading is not so far from being true.

EDIT :
John, that "LOOK" radar return dot, was that a white "doomsday" plane that landed at Andrews just after AA 77's impact? It's call sign disappeared at 4:12/7:22.
"CST 37" stood under it on the radar screen just before its dot was gone. Before that, when it appeared only "27" ,"28" etc stood there, up to "37". Then, around the last seconds of AA 77 existence, the "CST" was added too. And then just after impact of AA 77, its call sign was also gone.
Perhaps to refuel at Andrews? There were at least two of the three in the air around Washington DC on 9/11, what I remember quickly, without looking it up in my 9/11 files.

If I remember it right, you, "911files" are John Farmer.
I found it quite sad for us all that you took your site off-line.
You had some amazingly helpful material in there, as a handy repository for many of us.
Are you ever going to put it up again?

Can you give me and "exponent" the last positional data (lat +long) from the last fully readable data frame of the FDR that the NTSB used to construct their animation from?
I know that they later send a letter that that animation was for informational purposes only, and not to be taken as a serious piece of work from the NTSB.

However, I have read a lot of their crash reports, and these guys are top-notch investigators.
I find it highly inappropriate that the same people who gave us their Flight "800" report, which was a piece of art, did give us an animation which depicts the ground track to the north of the Annex buildings.

This should be their master piece, and then they publicize such a far from FDR reality animation???

This is a very short phone interview from Vin Narayanan with Jeff Hill from the Pumpitout forums :
www.pumpitout.com...

Vin says in there :

No, there were no trees in my way, there was....actually there was no trees there, I was up the road, right at the site where it happened.
Jeff : You did see it hit with your own eyes?
Vin : Yeah etc, the plane hit the Pentagon. etc.
The plane flew right over my head and hit the Pentagon. etc.

Observe the three and the two trees in this picture at the Pentagon side of Route 27 :




He wrote in his first article for USA Today that was printed a week after, on 17-9-2001, that "The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon".
Thus he had already one week of viewing constantly photo's of the Pentagon attack at his USA Today office behind him, which probably inserted the "tail clipping the overhanging traffic sign above me" in his own written story. His other words contradict that "overhanging" remark, and the "right over my head" one indicates it.

1. The only trees in the area on the right side of Route 27 that could have blocked his view on the impact, were the three and the two trees. If he really stood under an overhanging exit sign it can only be that huge Route 27 spanning traffic signs board, 50 meter in front of the overpass bridge. But, in that case, the plane definitely did not fly over his head, neither in SoC nor in NoC flight path. And the three trees would have blocked part of his sight on the impact.

2. If he stood in front of that 1 by 1 meter green exit sign (Exit 1/4 mile to Mall and River entrances) that stood on the right side of the road where my yellow SoC path crosses Route 27, he would be right under the SoC crossing plane, but not under an overhanging exit sign that could have been clipped by the tail of the plane.
But there are no view-blocking trees anywhere near.

3. If he stood in a dark green Pick Up a few meters in front of that small green exit sign on a small pole, in the right bank side of Route 27, that stood just a few meters in front of those two trees that stood in front of the Heli Pad; the NoC crossing plane would go right over his head, and no trees would block his view on the impact. But there was no overhanging traffic sign that could have been clipped by the tail of the plane.

What will be the best fitting spot where Vin stood on 9/11, when considering all of his words?

Originally posted by LaBTopCan you give me and "exponent" the last positional data (lat +long) from the last fully readable data frame of the FDR that the NTSB used to construct their animation from?

Why? They did not use positional data for their animation. But you can find their readout online pretty easy with Google.

Originally posted by LaBTopI know that they later send a letter that that animation was for informational purposes only, and not to be taken as a serious piece of work from the NTSB.

And so is the animation, but they did not do an investigation since the FBI handled it as a criminal matter, not an accident, I'm sure they did not pay a lot of attention to the details of how closely their satellite image was aligned in the 3D. Or who knows, maybe the simply did not plug in the magnetic declination values for every point along the path (which is required to correct for the mag heading to true). Since I did not do the animation, I can't really say.

Originally posted by LaBTopHowever, I have read a lot of their crash reports, and these guys are top-notch investigators. I find it highly inappropriate that the same people who gave us their Flight "800" report, which was a piece of art, did give us an animation which depicts the ground track to the north of the Annex buildings.

The only animation I've seen for TWA800 is the one done by the CIA, not the NTSB. But you are right, they are great investigators. Unfortunately they did not do the investigation in this case.

Originally posted by LaBTopThis should be their master piece, and then they publicize such a far from FDR reality animation???

edit on 17/6/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

A misleading statement. They did a "quick and dirty" animation for informational purposes. I just did the same thing in this image for informational purposes. I plotted the DCA radar data with and without the local magnetic declination correction. Without the correction, the radar track plots exactly like the NTSB animation visual (NoC). But then again, planes appear to come into DCA and use the Potomac for a runaway too. Like I said, this "mystery" really is no more complicated than that.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Do use this threads-cross-connection link
"NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all"
.......................................compared to...............................................
"The Generator-trailer its cabin roof-gouge is made by a NoC flying AA 77"

to stay tuned to every new development :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It starts to look as if the FDR end heading is not so far from being true.

EDIT :
John, that "LOOK" radar return dot, was that a white "doomsday" plane that landed at Andrews just after AA 77's impact? It's call sign disappeared at 4:12/7:22.

No, that was a tag applied by the ATC to assist in tracking the primary target in question (AAL77). There are no more "mystery planes". All "mystery" aircraft in the vicinity of DC around the time of the event have been identified and accounted for (except one perhaps).

Originally posted by LaBTop


And the three trees would have blocked part of his sight on the impact.

Did you know that the earth is not flat and over passes go over things. If he was on the over pass maybe he could see over the trees.

One of your trees can be seen way down there on the right.



What the plane actually did clip was the dot pole seen in the lower left of that picture with its starboard wing tip.



It also took off the top of a tree to make it easier to see over ( this is a joke, I know the tree is on the other side of the road)

Penny has a piece of the starboard wing tip.



All of the physical evidence fits together.

Originally posted by waypastvne
All of the physical evidence fits together.

But, that doesn't matter. You see, he's got all of these imaginary fans of his that he keeps referring to. They can't be disappointed. He thinks they are all waiting for his next revolutionary discovery. Haven't you noticed all of his fans just eating up this stupidity!

911files, thank you for a swift and factual response.

Waypastvne, I still have a huge problem with William Lagasse, he points in the photo I posted, to the point where he first saw the plane come into his eye sight, above the transformer on the pole beside Columbia Pike, which is definitely 50 meters or so north of the CITGO canopy.

Reheat, you seem to miss many of my remarks. I said that it's beginning to look as if the FDR is not so far from being real. That's a huge change of mind on my side. Read the other thread's last page too (the gouge thread).

Waypastvne just pointed me on an error I made in the 42° attack angle line in my GE aerial.
I switched the 48° angle to the "normal on the west wall" description text , with the 42° to the "west wall line" text. Which makes quite a difference.
I have drawn a corrected 2001 GE map which I will post shortly.

One problem I do still have, when I project the 61.2° FDR heading on my 07-09-2001 historical 9/11 Google Earth map, it's black colored-by-me line goes over the western side of that huge traffic sign board, spanning the full width of Route 27. That board stands about 50 meters southwards of the overpass.
See my coming new corrected map.

That means the belly of that plane flying 61.2° true north, is nearly scraping that board's top.
And its right wing can not scrape away that foot hold welded on that mast beside that traffic board.
And worse, the left wing cuts through that VDOT camera mast standing beside that traffic board!

That's why I keep asking to construct a precise GE map with exact angled lines on it.
I conclude from that 2006 post I copied here, that the FDR true north track was at a 61.2° angle to a true north line on the map. But when I draw that line on my 07-09-2001 GE map, it does not pass the west side of that traffic board, it goes straight over it. And that line depicts the line from nose cone to tail center. Which is the longitudinal beam from the plane.
My 62.5° line still passes just over the far left side (west side) of that board.
My 60.25° line goes even over the east side of that board.

I found all 3 values at different web sites, and ProudBird said that the plane was in a steady 070° magnetic heading in the last frames of the FDR. The magnetic declination factor at the Pentagon grounds seems to be 10.2°. Is that correct?
Which is the difference there, between magnetic heading and true north heading.

I really need to understand that Course value in the Ruler function of GE. Can I use it in any way, to draw precise angled lines? It gives illogical values when compared to my graduated 360° plastic arc.
When I blow up my GE historical 07-09-01 map to the max, measure the exact angle of 61.2° on it with my plastic graduated arc, a round 360° one; then the resulting line which depicts the longitudinal beam in the plane, goes over that traffic board !

And then 2 of the 5 lamp poles are not cut ! And the other 3 are then cut very differently.
And the left wing should have cut right through that VDOT camera-mast with the broken-off foot-hold just beside the traffic board.

reply to post by waypastvne


Waypastvne, that traffic board actually stands about 50 meter in front of that overpass.
CIT has posted a video once, where they drove over Route 27 to show just that.
That the three trees blocked sight on the impact region.
If Vin stood under that board with the exit sign to the Mall Entrance on it (the second from right, and I do not know what text the first from right shows), he could not see the impact region clearly. The plane's tail could never ever clip that exit sign, since the tail's belly is far higher than the plane's belly. He specifically says in the Jeff Hill phone interview that no trees blocked his sight.
Why don't you phone Vin, I gave you guys his recent Facebook account, his recent tel nr and his recent Email address.

Btw, that white camera on its VDOT mast you showed in that picture of the Moussasoui trial, had the top best view on any plane (SoC or NoC) that came in its sight.
Conveniently however, that camera did not function on 9/10, 9/11and 9/12. And it should be clear that when such disfunction is found, they will send a.s.a.p. a mechanic to exchange that camera for a working one. They did not. They left it their, still broken.

Cit visited the operator of the VDOT camera's at the VDOT office across the Navy Annex, and he told them that the camera malfunctioned a few days around 9/11.
When the CIT team then a few weeks later published their first NoC witnesses video, that same guy has suicided himself....says the CIT team. If true, that is some damn big coincidence.

What the plane actually did clip was the vdot pole seen in the lower left of that picture with its starboard wing tip.

It shows a broken off foot stand, and a big corrosion spot around that, which gives evidence of a far much earlier breakage of that foot stand. Aluminum corrodes slowly under its instantanious formed very hard aluminum oxide crust. Pure aluminum that is exposed to air nearly instantly forms that hard Al2O3 crust. And corrosion-creep will proceed very slowly through cracks in that oxide crust.
I.o.w., that foot stand was broken off months or even years ago, far before 9/11.

That jet engine nacelle "footprint" in the top of that tree seems to be not fitting the dimensions of the right wing plus engine. When that right wing tip really has clipped that foot stand (no corrosion then) the engine nacelle bottom would have passed that tree top several meters to the left, so to see.
It is a strongly distorted photo, so make my day and prove that that engine nacelle could cut through that tree top. I think it did not and could not because of the right wing dimensions. You must use a 90° aerial GE photo of 07-09-01 to measure the tree versus VDOT camera mast, true and undistorted dimensions.

Btw, you show a left wing tip with navigation light, and the right wing tip should be shown as having clipped that foot stand, in your opinion.
It does however not change your theory.
It still could be possible, but in my opinion it's a very poor piece of evidence.

Come on guys, do contact Vin, Penny and Christine, to once and for all decide where exactly they stood in their cars on 9/11 on Route 27, at the Pentagon.
Jeff Hill did phone Penny, but BOTH magically avoided any hint on where exactly Penny was stopped in the traffic jam, the morning of 9/11. Listen to her interview on the Pumpitout website of Jeff Hill.
Link to Vin's phone interview just given, go to that page and you will find a row of 9/11 witnesses that are phone interviewed by Jeff Hill.

Penny said during that phone call, that she thought, from her point of view (again, no indication WHERE she made that observation), the plane's wing seemed to fly over the CITGO canopy.
Her line of sight, whether near the huge traffic board in front of the overpass, or near the two trees in front of the Heli Pad, would both describe the same, a plane's wing over that CITGO canopy, it's in both cases possible for her to notice the same position.

If you show me definitive evidence that all three stood near that huge traffic board in front of the overpass, I will change my stand on the 9/11 Pentagon event, since then the NoC witnesses must be playing a prank on us all, are simply mistaken or plain out lying to us.

Make my day, make me happy again. So I can go to rest and leave this whole damn 9/11 issue alone.

Here's the corrected GE map from 2001, with the 61.2° true north attack angle in it.
It's the black line, and its angle is taken to the true north-south line.



As you can see, all possible FDR attack angles are too near or even over that huge traffic signs board in front of the Pike Overpass.

Originally posted by LaBTopIf you show me definitive evidence that all three stood near that huge traffic board in front of the overpass, I will change my stand on the 9/11 Pentagon event, since then the NoC witnesses must be playing a prank on us all, are simply mistaken or plain out lying to us.

Make my day, make me happy again. So I can go to rest and leave this whole damn 9/11 issue alone.

I don't think anyone really cares if you abandon your fantasy or not. For those of us who have spent a lifetime dealing with eyewitnesses, there is no mystery. Just the same old problems with human observation and recall that has convicted many an innocent man (and women).

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Btw, you show a left wing tip with navigation light, and the right wing tip should be shown as having clipped that foot stand, in your opinion.

If you can't get simple things right, how in the heck can anyone respect your analysis of more complicated issues?

There are two features which indicate which wing is depicted in that photo. The most obvious is the color of the lens...

reply to post by Reheat


Since you do not address the obvious, glaring problems shown in my above drawing, I'm gonna do it for you.

All three serious possible attack flight paths lines ( between 62.5° and 60.25° ) I drew in my above drawing, do have TWO impossible features in common :

(1) All three do pass over the huge traffic sign.
(2) All three do pass over the northern corner of the generator trailer's roof.

Since those lines are a depiction of the longitudinal beam in the plane's fuselage, that means that the center line of that plane's belly in all three shown cases, passed over the traffic sign board AND the gouge in the generator trailer roof.

And that's the heart of the problems with these three flight paths attack angles.

In case (1), the 5 downed light poles suddenly are not fitting one of these three attack flight-path tracks I drew.
All three attack paths do however more or less (within a 2.25° error margin) fit the internal damage path, determined by the ASCE team as a mean 42° attack angle to the normal on the west wall ( = a 90° line drawn on that west wall) .

In case (2) the generator trailer's roof gouge could have been made by something short sticking out from somewhere under the plane's belly, in fact from under its fuselage center line.
Like a short but sturdy radio antenna or perhaps a barometric pressure probe.

That also means the planes belly must have missed that roof by about 10 to 30 centimeters (12 inches max).
The left jet engine could have gone ( perhaps ) through the northern fence part its wire netting, but probably would have missed the whole corner part of that fence.
See my posted B757-200 dimensions, and my corrected pictures of a distorted gouge.

The whole non-sagged in portion of that trailer will be about 7 meters long in total, as I calculated for a 52° angled roof gouge. The gouge onset on the trailer's top of its side wall is however near the end of those 7 meters.
And its nearly exact position in those 7 meters is then easily to calculate by using my corrected gouge picture dimensions.
Measure the total length of the non sagged trailer in that gouge picture, in cm or inch. That is (a) cm/inch and relates to 7 meter real length of that portion of the trailer.
Measure the length of the onset of that gouge to the left front corner. That is (b) cm/inch.
a : b = 7 : X , etc. Thus you get a value in meters for (b). Add to that value (b) the length of the diesel tank, and that distance had to be cleared by the right side of the left engine nacelle. Determine the distance in meters/yards/feet/ between the center line of the plane's belly and that side of the jet engine. See if that left jet engine could have cleared the top of the fence, or the corner pole of the fence, or the wire netting beside that corner pole.

But in fact that is all a lost job, since more important, in any of three attack path line cases, the right jet engine would have certainly impacted the next trailer which stood very near to the generator trailer. And obliterated it.
It would also have gone through the fence its wire netting in front of that second trailer, first.
There is nothing to see of both scenarios in any pictures of 9/11, no southern second hole in the fence made by the right jet engine, no obliterated by the right jet engine, second in row trailer, no missed by the left jet engine, fully intact northern corner part of the fence.
And if that northern hole in the fence was made by the left jet engine, then the right jet engine would have shattered that second in a row trailer into a myriad of aluminum confetti pieces. And ripped the whole fence out of the soil.


This whole scenario can only be untrue, when my point of impact is grossly wrong on my GE map from 2001.
But you have to shift that impact point far to the north to even get those three lines clearing that corner fence, and that traffic board. Which is certainly not where the plane impacted.

That plane impacted at the west wall its external column number 14, which is situated beside the 5th window north of that long protruding part of the west wall. And that's a pretty short distance in my 2001 GE map.

This is my linked to, JREF based and there posted 2006 post, at page 4 in this thread, with the precise angles deduced from the FDR in it :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is my 52° to the west wall angled gouge dimensions drawing in my "Gouge" thread, based on one of the available roof gouge photos, in which I did base my 52° angle on a 1 : 3 relation between width and length of the generator part of that trailer, which seem to fit the big photos of that 2 MW Caterpillar generator trailer :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In Google Earth, I managed to start the English language version, and found that the function that resets the satellite view back to the original setting of straight to the center of the earth, of a true perpendicular camera view, can be found by clicking View, Reset, Tilt and Compass.
Any distortions caused by moving your map around, are corrected back again to the true perpendicular view, when used.

This is a 2/1/2011 GE snapshot with my 61:20° = 61.20° AA 77 attack angle deducted from the FDR drawn in it as a yellow line :
files.abovetopsecret.com...




This is the same angle drawn, but on a historical 9/7/2001 GE map :
files.abovetopsecret.com...




Note 1.
The Heading function now also works correct, when I move around my yellow Ruler line, it gives a value of 241.20° which is equal to a 61.20° opposite heading (to true north) on my plastic graduated arc, when the line starts at the fifth window at column 14.
That impact point its GE positional data are to be seen at the center bottom, since I held my squared-ruler-line-pointer at the impact point when taking my screenshot from this 2001 GE Map. The impact point lays beside the fifth window up north, from the about 1 meter protruding and quite long part of the west wall.
38°52'14.89'' N
77°03'30.16'' W
Elevation above sea level at that impact point is 31 meters. The eye altitude of the satellite camera's lens is 1.12 km. Imagery Date: 9/7/2001.

Note 2.
Still, that 61.20° yellow attack path line which is a depiction of the center fuselage beam of AA 77, crosses over the west side of that huge traffic board, and over the northern corner of the diesel tank/generator trailer.
And that certainly does not fit the damage to the 5 downed light poles, and we see no obviously cut-down by AA 77's left wing, VDOT camera mast beside that traffic board.
Which event is a result of a very low pass-over by AA 77 over the traffic board, if not low enough, it would not cut any of the 5 downed light poles.
And it surely does not fit the gouge damage on the generator trailer roof, since the yellow line/AA 77's belly, passes over the north trailer corner. The right jet engine will cut through the adjacent trailer in such case. And that one is undamaged as can be seen in all my posted photo's.

Note 3.
All the earlier fuzz about the exact attack line angle is based on a very strange effect on all these GE maps.
When I use my big 30/60/90° triangle and lay its 60/90° side against the top protruding side of my exactly square cornered screen, then its 30/90° side is a perfect north-south line. When I use my plastic graduated arc then against that north-south side of my triangle, with the arc's center point exactly at the impact point, and its 360/0° and 180/0° lines exactly over my triangles 30/90° side, then my yellow 61.20 GE line is covered by the 63.5° value on my graduated arc. Not by the 61.2 value on my arc. That's a 2.3 error. That's a significant error which should not occur.
I have no explanation yet for such a significant error between my physical measuring which offers a 63.5° value, and GE its digital measuring showing a 241.20° = 61.2° heading angle.

Note 4.
Again, Vin Narayanan could not have stood jammed in a traffic jam on Route 27 under that huge traffic signs board 50 meters in front of the Pike Overpass.
He said there were no trees where he stood.
There are three huge trees beside that board-! And two trees on the opposite side of the road.
Phone him and don't forget to tell him this fact.
He still could have stood under the 61.2° yellow line, but at the spot about 50 meter north of the Pike Overpass bridge. That's the only spot where he then stands under AA 77's flight path, but not under an "overhanging" exit sign. And the plane did not "come straight at him" at that spot, but at a sharp angle from behind him. He could never have seen it first out of his window, there at that spot, he would have seen it first when it already had passed over his car.

Note 5.
The most logical spot, based on all of Vin's printed words and his spoken words from the Jeff Hill phone interview, is the point where the South Parking exit lane to Route 27, enters Route 27. The first longitudinal white spot in my above 7/9/2001 GE map. It's also the spot where a small exit sign on a pole stood, there where the short exit lane to the Mall and River Entrances begins. Which closely passes the two trees in front of the Heli Pad.
This is the spot where an Indian looking man sits in a dark green Pick Up. Already in place to exit Route 27 to his USA Today office up north.
And also a tall man is standing on the road while using a hand-phone.
Vin said he left his car and borrowed a hand-phone from some one else to phone his mother that he was well.
So, which one is Vin?
Ask him by telephone, Facebook chat or per his Email address.

NOTE 6 :
All the above text is a lost cause, when the impact point turns out to be much further north. Many , many windows further north.
Show me wrong, please.
I want to sleep in peace again in the world I knew from before the two Kennedy and Martin Luther King killings. And before WW II.
It were more reasonable times, not like these totally crooked and greedy times.
We were mostly satisfied with what we had and could become.

NOTE 6 turned out to be true.
I have at last understand the GE 3D Building feature :

Here are some Google Earth 3D Building maps :

AA77-61.2+42degreeAttackPath3DFacade+Trailer-07092001
files.abovetopsecret.com...




AA77-61.20degreeAttackClearingTrailerPathOnA-7-9-2001GEMap
files.abovetopsecret.com...




AA77-61.20degreeAttackPathOnA-7-9-2001GEMap-3D
files.abovetopsecret.com...




AA77-61.20degreeAttackPathOnA-7-9-2001GEMapCORRECTED for preciseImpactPoint
files.abovetopsecret.com...




I hope this thread at least is of good use for anyone trying to explain to other hardheads like me, that Flight AA 77 its fuselage, when flying along a FDR deduced 61.2° attack angle flight path, did clear the huge traffic board, and the corner of the fence around the generator trailer.

Originally posted by LaBTop

Yellow line is the starboard engine track ?

You did notice that it does go right through that tree.