AA77 true course - what does the FDR data show?

[WilliamSeger]

I know you guys have discussed the AA77 FDR data here, so I thought this would be the best place to ask: The NTSB animation shows a magnetic heading of 070 just before hitting the Pentagon. Corrected by -10.5 degrees, that would be a true heading of 59.5. On the Democratic Underground September 11 forum, I posted a graphic of that heading (the same one that my friend Roger Harris has already posted here) showing how that heading would be over the bridge where the lamp posts were knocked down. (The point of the post was that Pilotsfor911truth still has the video up even after knowing that it showed an incorrect compass orientation.) JohnDoeX showed up, and among other things claimed that the FDR data from AA77 shows the plane was on a true course of 061.5, presumably because of wind. That's not much of a difference - and that course would still be over the bridge! - but is there any way to tell from the FDR data what the true course was?

[maccy]

Welcome to the forum William!

Anti-sophist is your man on FDRs. It may be worth taking a look at these threads:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65369
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047

[apathoid]

I know you guys have discussed the AA77 FDR data here, so I thought this would be the best place to ask: The NTSB animation shows a magnetic heading of 070 just before hitting the Pentagon. Corrected by -10.5 degrees, that would be a true heading of 59.5. On the Democratic Underground September 11 forum, I posted a graphic of that heading (the same one that my friend Roger Harris has already posted here) showing how that heading would be over the bridge where the lamp posts were knocked down. (The point of the post was that Pilotsfor911truth still has the video up even after knowing that it showed an incorrect compass orientation.) JohnDoeX showed up, and among other things claimed that the FDR data from AA77 shows the plane was on a true course of 061.5, presumably because of wind. That's not much of a difference - and that course would still be over the bridge! - but is there any way to tell from the FDR data what the true course was?
Hi William. To answer your last question - I'm not sure but I dont think so. You'd have to look at a wind correction chart for the true track. AFAIK, the FDR doesnt record track, only heading.

Navigation jargon can be quite confusing, but what I think JDX is possibly referring to is "track", not course. The FDR would certainly record the course selector position, but that has no bearing(pun not intended) on the direction of flight. These three terms are sometimes interchanged but they mean completely differenet things:
Heading - Direction the nose is pointing
Course - Desired track along the ground
Track - Actual path along the ground

2.5 degrees of wind drift does seem a bit much for 465 kts against 10-12 kts of wind.

ETA: 2.5 degrees is too much. By plugging in wind direction, speed, airspeed and heading to this (http://www.csgnetwork.com/e6bcalc.html) calculator - I got 1.0 degrees of wind correction angle. I used 330 degrees and 10 kts for the wind and I'm basing that on this (http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/DCA/2001/9/11/DailyHistory.html) weather report for National Airport at 0951 on 9/11/01. I used 465 kts for grounspeed and 70 degrees for the heading.

[Anti-sophist]

The heading was indeed 70 degrees plus or minus a few tenths. The resolution of the data in the FDR appears to be .3-.4 degrees, or so and the final measurement is 70 (exactly). We can probably infer that the reading was 70.0 given that precision of the data in the that column (and keeping in mind that it appears to change in increments of .3-.4).


JohnDoeX showed up, and among other things claimed that the FDR data from AA77 shows the plane was on a true course of 061.5, presumably because of wind. That's not much of a difference - and that course would still be over the bridge! - but is there any way to tell from the FDR data what the true course was?


From the FDR: The track angle (mag) was 71.4 and the track angle (true) was 61.2. The true heading was 59.8. Those were all recorded by the FDR in the final full frame (except track angle true, which was recorded in the previous time). These values were all fairly stable so I'd assume these are reasonably precise measurements.

I don't know anything about the specifics of those instruments, however. Maybe one of the local aviators can verify that all of those terms mean what I am assuming they mean.


the same one that my friend Roger Harris has already posted here


http://opendb.com/images/pentagon.jpg
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/841/headingwr1.jpg

Those are the two I've seen. There was a third one I remember seeing that showed all three lines (the animation's, the FDR, and the "corrected" for magnetic/true north). If someone could dig that one up, I'd like to add it to my library.

[Anti-sophist]

As an aside, on the FDR data. Excel chops off alot of it when you just double-click the CSV file. The "correct" way is to go to data->import, and use the import wizard. It will import as much as it can onto the first sheet. Go to a second sheet, re-use the wizard, and deselect all the columns you already have using the wizard.

Many of the most useful data points are in the first few columns, and then it's alphabetical order. My normal excel import gets to around "mach", so you are missing from M-Z, which includes the track data, the true data, and the lat/long data.

[T.A.M.]

Interesting that John Doe X told you it was on a true course of 61.5, as that would still (I believe) have it passing on the south side of the Citgo Station. he was in here, we believe as Skeptic4Sure, along with Lytetrip, claiming they had proof that the plane passed on the North side of the Citgo Station.

TAM

[apathoid]

Interesting that John Doe X told you it was on a true course of 61.5, as that would still (I believe) have it passing on the south side of the Citgo Station.
TAM
It would certainly still be on the south side and not very far from Rogers red line in the pictures above.

Has anyone actually made a map with the knocked over lightpoles highlighted and drawn a swath about 125 ft wide covering all the poles - to come up with the track angle that way? I would, but I'm too lazy :)

Its also worth noting that the 70 degrees(61.2 true track) in the last data frame may not represent the actual track at impact. So I wouldnt be suprised if the map I proposed above wielded a track a degree or so off from the FDR.

From the FDR: The track angle (mag) was 71.4 and the track angle (true) was 61.2. The true heading was 59.8. Those were all recorded by the FDR in the final full frame (except track angle true, which was recorded in the previous time). These values were all fairly stable so I'd assume these are reasonably precise measurements.
Oops, I stand corrected. :blush:

[CurtC]

he was in here, we believe as Skeptic4Sure, along with Lytetrip, claiming they had proof that the plane passed on the North side of the Citgo Station.That was right before the Thanksgiving holiday. S4S kept asking what we would do when they have definitive proof, implying that it would be forthcoming presently.

Whatever happened to that? Did they post their proof?

[WilliamSeger]

I have a graphic now that shows the 61.2 degree track, and also the plane (which might actually be a little small, but I wanted to be conservative) and the 5 light poles. Unfortunately I can't post links, but if someone can grab it and repost, it's at: opendb.com/images/pentagon3.jpg

JohnDoeX posted again on DU. Without even commenting on my graphic that showed the 061.5 course that he himself claimed, and the fact that it still passed over the bridge, he said:

Didnt have time to read your whole post but.. 061.5 degrees doesnt line up with the damage when working backwards from the impact hole based on wingspan.. etc. 2 degrees makes alot of difference when dealing with precise measurement. I dont expect you to understand.

Next.. the graphical representation (animation) has lat/long lines drawn. That is how they line up the graphical maps of the runway and pentagon sat image. If they didnt correct properly for variation at the pentagon. .the runway, Yankee and Zulu taxiways would also be off by more than 20 degrees (according to your estimates).

Basically.. what you are saying.. is that you are more competent than the professionals at the NTSB who put these types of reports/animations together on a daily basis and are given to various airlines to be used in recurrent airline safety training courses.... uhhh.. ok.. :rolleyes:

You assume too much, you make excuses for everything.. im not surprised.. The video will stay on the website until the NTSB answers for it.. not some anonymous guy on the net who thinks he knows how to produce animations and information better than the NTSB. Frankly, I can't believe he's quite that stupid, so I'd say he's proved himself to be a total fraud.

[R.Mackey]

2 degrees makes alot of difference when dealing with precise measurement. I dont expect you to understand.

What a classy guy...

Having read the Pentagon Building Performance Report (http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf) in detail, there's room for a couple of degrees of slop based on the damage path. But given the flight data recorder, we can reconstruct the last few hundred feet with pretty good accuracy, if we're careful.

Frankly, I can't believe he's quite that stupid, so I'd say he's proved himself to be a total fraud.
Yup. Billzilla tore him to pieces. His sock puppets Skeptic4Sure and weedwacker fared no better over here against myself and Anti-sophist.

It may be stupidity, or it may be a burning desire to sell his crappy DVD's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2106208#post2106208) to fellow nutballs... who can tell?

Oh, welcome, by the way. :)

[apathoid]

I have a graphic now that shows the 61.2 degree track, and also the plane (which might actually be a little small, but I wanted to be conservative) and the 5 light poles. Unfortunately I can't post links, but if someone can grab it and repost, it's at:

http://opendb.com/images/pentagon3.jpg
Great job, looks good to me.

Next.. the graphical representation (animation) has lat/long lines drawn. That is how they line up the graphical maps of the runway and pentagon sat image. If they didnt correct properly for variation at the pentagon. .the runway, Yankee and Zulu taxiways would also be off by more than 20 degrees (according to your estimates).
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/99024525c71053c56.gif

Baffling with BS may work at Loose Change, but it doesnt work on people who know their stuff Jonny.

[mcMike]

Hello, Here's new take of heading (track 61 degrees to true North). I overlaid the NIST building damage for clarity.

This is the smaller preview version:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3522/track61smallja9.jpg

Original 1905 x 1080 pixel version here:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1227/track61ek7.jpg

It's better for accuracy. Please let me know if you'd like to add something. (as it's easy since my source is in Photoshop with different layers). The plane is in scale (125 feet wingspan). The light poles are in correct places. Plane route seems to be South of Citgo :p

[W6102LA]

Hello, Here's new take of heading (track 61 degrees to true North). I overlaid the NIST building damage for clarity.

This is the smaller preview version:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3522/track61smallja9.jpg

Original 1905 x 1080 pixel version here:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1227/track61ek7.jpg

It's better for accuracy. Please let me know if you'd like to add something. (as it's easy since my source is in Photoshop with different layers). The plane is in scale (125 feet wingspan). The light poles are in correct places. Plane route seems to be South of Citgo :p

There's a couple of pics in this thread a LC that suggest the wing tip of F77 clipped a VDOT mast, if this is correct you should be able to place the plane on a fairly accurate path. It's easy to pick out the VDOT mast in the hi-rez pic that you posted.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=410&st=0

:)

[apathoid]

Hello, Here's new take of heading (track 61 degrees to true North). I overlaid the NIST building damage for clarity.

This is the smaller preview version:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3522/track61smallja9.jpg

Original 1905 x 1080 pixel version here:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1227/track61ek7.jpg

It's better for accuracy. Please let me know if you'd like to add something. (as it's easy since my source is in Photoshop with different layers). The plane is in scale (125 feet wingspan). The light poles are in correct places. Plane route seems to be South of Citgo :p

Very nice, you can even see the replacement poles in the hi-res image. I cant really think of anything that needs to be added.

[mcMike]

There's a couple of pics in this thread a LC that suggest the wing tip of F77 clipped a VDOT mast, if this is correct

Thanks for the info. Here's VDOT included:
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5027/track6025smallnl4.jpg

Original (hires)
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8002/track6025mo9.jpg

[Anti-sophist]

As predicted, JDX's claim will now boil down to the meta-issue of why the NTSB animation is wrong, and why we think we are better than the NTSB.

The actual facts pan out nicely. At the very least, who ever fabricated the FDR did a pretty good job of making everything match the official story.

This all goes back to their notion that you put FDR data into a magical machine that produces graphs and animations to 100% accuracy. No human input, no errors, no nothing. Just magic. If there is an error, it's an "anomaly", not a mistake. If you claim it's a mistake, you are calling the NTSB incompetent.

[mcMike]

As predicted, JDX's claim will now boil down to the meta-issue of why the NTSB animation is wrong, and why we think we are better than the NTSB.

Yep. NTSB heading seems not corrected all the way from Dulles. Call me lazy but just a quick check pointed the same approx. 10 degrees heading-correction missing.

http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/443/takeoffheadingso8.jpg

EDIT: I measured the very exact heading correction (aligned 302 to runaway and it is -11.3 degrees).

[Kent1]

There's a couple of pics in this thread a LC that suggest the wing tip of F77 clipped a VDOT mast, if this is correct you should be able to place the plane on a fairly accurate path. It's easy to pick out the VDOT mast in the hi-rez pic that you posted.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=410&st=0

:)

Here's another good thread on the VDOT traffic monitoring camera that was damaged

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15307

Another note, many suggest the tree may of been damaged buring the flight. You'll see some discussion on it in various threads.

Also see this photo. NOTE the top of the tree.
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pentagon/images/1265a.jpg

[WilliamSeger]

Oh, man, this JohnDoeX character is a real piece of work. On DU, he posted a graphic to "prove" that my 61.2-degree line wasn't right. His graphic said his line was at 61.5 degrees, but it was actually a little over 59.5 -- about the same as my original graphic (showing the heading without slip and wind considered), which he said was "totally inaccurate." When I pointed that out, he posted it again with a compass superimposed on it to show that his line was right at 61.5. Slight problem: his compass had apparently been rotated to match the line! (If someone can repost opendb.com/images/jdx1.jpg, check out the 90-degree bearing compared to the map grid.)

Classy guy? You bet! Check this out:

People within our organization have sworn to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies.. foreign or domestic. We are prepared to give our lives for it. Are you prepared to give yours if you stand in our way?

This was in the same posting where he said I should send him my phone number and email address so we could "chat about it."

So, the guy is a fraud and conman; he will try to cheat when cornered; and he may have psychopathic tendencies.

[Anti-sophist]

Reposted.

JDX caught hilariously

http://opendb.com/images/jdx1.jpg

He rotated his compass to match his own personal favorite orientation. That's funny.

[Anti-sophist]

So, the guy is a fraud and conman; he will try to cheat when cornered; and he may have psychopathic tendencies.

Indeed. He is pathological. I can't believe he thought he could post a rotated compass and not be caught. That takes a special kind of delusion.

There is one ingredient you (possibly) are missing though. He is _selling_ these DVDs and asking for donations. It's in his own financial interest to have as many anomalies as he can. Over time, we've debunked most of them and he doesn't have much left. What are you seeing, I believe, is him grasping as straws in desperation.


ETA: I read the DU forum and tracked down the thread, and noticed he just randomly assigned your work to me, and started attacking me. That's why he used my name in that compass. That's funny.

[Firestone]

As predicted, JDX's claim will now boil down to the meta-issue of why the NTSB animation is wrong, and why we think we are better than the NTSB.

The actual facts pan out nicely. At the very least, who ever fabricated the FDR did a pretty good job of making everything match the official story.

This all goes back to their notion that you put FDR data into a magical machine that produces graphs and animations to 100% accuracy. No human input, no errors, no nothing. Just magic. If there is an error, it's an "anomaly", not a mistake. If you claim it's a mistake, you are calling the NTSB incompetent.Has the NTSB commented on their mistake?

[Anti-sophist]

Has the NTSB commented on their mistake?

As far as I know, the NTSB is unaware. I've heard no comments, at all.

I don't suspect that the NTSB keeps up to date the conspiracy theories and debunkings of conspiracy theories. I'd consider firing off an email if I had any personal relations with the people involved. I'm sure JDX and the like will eventually realize they are wrong after the truth is beaten into the heads for a few months, and then they'll start demanding new answers... they'll coldcall the NTSB front desk and record it to get an "official" comment.

[T.A.M.]

People within our organization have sworn to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies.. foreign or domestic. We are prepared to give our lives for it. Are you prepared to give yours if you stand in our way?

This seems like a threat to me, that if you stand in their way they might kill you. Perhaps their Server might be interested in these types of posting occuring at their site. Maybe you should tell Mr. Doe X, who at time seems rational, at other times psychotic, that that comment could be percieved as a threat on your life, and in a court of law, assault and threats are based on the victims perception of such.

TAM

[apathoid]

People within our organization have sworn to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies.. foreign or domestic. We are prepared to give our lives for it. Are you prepared to give yours if you stand in our way?

Thats not Mr D'ohs first death threat - he offered to introduce Billzilla to the 2nd amendament if he ever met him. I wonder if Robert Balsamo(ya know - the real one) knows that he's making death threats to complete strangers over the internet? Maybe we should tell him? :boxedin:

Slight problem: his compass had apparently been rotated to match the line!

Oh.
My.
God.

How screwed up do you have to be in order to try something like that? And how stupid do you have to be to think that noone will notice? Those are not rhetorical questions, I'd really like to know!!

[CurtC]

Has the NTSB commented on their mistake?It was such a minor mistake that I don't expect them to. The animation was made to give someone a sense of the pre-collision maneuvers, not to be an exactly accurate recreation. I would guess that if you found the guy who put together the video, and told him about the correction, he'd just shrug.

[CurtC]

Here's another good thread on the VDOT traffic monitoring camera that was damaged
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15307
Another note, many suggest the tree may of been damaged buring the flight. You'll see some discussion on it in various threads.
Also see this photo. NOTE the top of the tree.
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pentagon/images/1265a.jpgWould the wingtip of a 757 really just leave a scuff mark on the pole, without more serious damage?

Also, the photo of the first light pole to be struck in that thread, shows it lying on the ground, with a large graceful curve to the pole. But other photos, at least of the replacement pole, show it as straight and vertical. Did the impact cause that graceful curve, or was it simply replaced by a straight one?

[Kent1]

Would the wingtip of a 757 really just leave a scuff mark on the pole, without more serious damage?

Also, the photo of the first light pole to be struck in that thread, shows it lying on the ground, with a large graceful curve to the pole. But other photos, at least of the replacement pole, show it as straight and vertical. Did the impact cause that graceful curve, or was it simply replaced by a straight one?
If it clipped it thin enough I don't see why not. It also explains the missing peg and the broken camera on top quite well.
It might also explain this.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=28

[CurtC]

If it clipped it thin enough I don't see why not. It also explains the missing peg and the broken camera on top quite well.I agree with the broken peg, but the mark on the pole? It didn't clip through the pole at all (at least from my interpretation of what I'm looking at), it just left a scuff mark that covers about half of the front aspect of the pole.

It sure looks to be in the right place, and the missing peg is intriguing, but just a scuff mark from something that hit it at 530 mph? Would there not be any piece of the outermost six inches of a 757 wingtip that would cause physical damage in that scenario?

[Kent1]

I agree with the broken peg, but the mark on the pole? It didn't clip through the pole at all (at least from my interpretation of what I'm looking at), it just left a scuff mark that covers about half of the front aspect of the pole.

It sure looks to be in the right place, and the missing peg is intriguing, but just a scuff mark from something that hit it at 530 mph? Would there not be any piece of the outermost six inches of a 757 wingtip that would cause physical damage in that scenario?
It seems possible when the tip hit the peg a piece of the plane broke off and scuffed against the pole.

But look at the shape of the wingtip and the scuff mark on the pole. Its seems to be almost a perfect match. Given the materical, I don't think it would cut into the pole either.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15307

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/Photo-6.jpg
Let's also again compare the above link with this photo.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=28

To summarize VDOT data we have:
1. Pole damage in approx. fight path.
2. Missing clip.
3. A Scuff mark that matches the wingtip shape.
4. Broken camera. (likely from shaken pole)
5. Piece of damaged wing piece.

[WildCat]

Thanks for the info. Here's VDOT included:
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5027/track6025smallnl4.jpg

Brilliant! It doesn't get any clearer than that.


And what a laugh I got from seeing the jdx compass twist! :D

[W6102LA]

I'd assume the VDOT pole would be a lot stronger than the light poles(breakaway type) and the amount of clippage by the wingtip would shake the pole violently but not enough to bend/knock over the mast hence the broken lens in the camera, well that's my guess

:)

[Russell Pickering]

I don't have a lot of time these days so I can't get way engaged here right now. But the true course was 61.5 degrees. It is represented as Track Angle True in the .csv file. JDX is aware of this.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/tat.jpg

The following is a accurate representation of the final flight path based on this data.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/finalfp2.jpg

It's base is a current Google map. Right at the wall is a matched satellite image from the 7th of September, 2001. The last time this was critiqued, I adapted the last change and it hasn't been challenged since. I was slightly off in the true north orientation of the big compass.

It was only the glass protecting the VDOT camera that was damaged. I actually talked with the guy who replaced the camera in person and he took me to the yard to show me the same model of camera. He described it as shattered in tiny pieces like a windshield (except not stuck by plastic). I interpret this as from a vibration from the striking of the pole.

I know it is improbable for the very wing to touch like that, but I have personally seen MANY improbable things in EMS. There is a point where you have to accept some of them. It appears that the very tip of the composite end of the wing did hit it.

Please read this thread in detail to understand. If people have very specific questions I will try to answer based on time availability.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15307

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

As far as I can tell from my laymen's understanding there is NO other source of external data to confirm the NTSB animation path. They took the raw data from the FDR including heading and altitude and made the animation based on that.

The heading is easy because the .csv has the correct track. The altitude will be debated as usual but there is an explanation for it. In my opinion FDR's are not infallible. I am looking into more data on it over the next couple of months.

Here is some information that you guys can start with. I am open to critique on it, but it seems from my understanding level that all other sources confirm the 61.5 degree path which lines up with the mechanical damage. Please challenge and test it.

Look at the whole final maneuver from the NTSB Flight Path Study rotated to approximately match the animation path. While your looking at it, imagine what that does to the whole rest of the flight from the Ohio/Kentucky border. It either changes the whole flight or adds a significant maneuver at the end that is not recorded by anything.

A couple of these graphics are approximate but more than close enough to illustrate the point.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/fm2.jpg

Now look at the Flight Path Study diagram.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/fm.jpg

It does approximately match the .csv. Now the question is what is a second source of confirmation? The answer is in the Flight Path Study itself.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/fm3.jpg

Radar from 3 separate reporting stations. You can read the radar study here. At the end of it are the radar paths.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Rec_Radar_%20Data_%20Study_all%20_aircraft.pdf

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/fm4.jpg

So we have a Flight Path Study based on the .csv file (or the FDR) and 3 radar stations. The navigation data is the final confirmation of the Flight Path Study versus the animation.


"At approximately 9:18, the left distance measuring equipment (DME) began receiving information from the AML VOR. After receiving the DME signal, the airplane remained on a constant heading towards the Washington area. At 9:32, both VOR receivers were tuned to the DCA VOR."

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf



http://www.russellpickering.net/lc2/fm5.jpg

http://www.russellpickering.net/lc2/fm6.jpg

This is how it all works for the alignment of the Flight Path Study which IS based on FDR data.

It is a rough alignment because of the poor quality of what the NTSB used for a map.

Start with this image.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/step1.jpg

Then line it up with this map from the NTSB (link at bottom).

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/step2.jpg

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/fo5a.jpg

Draw a line extending from the flight path to continue on beyond where the animation stops.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/fo5b.jpg

Take out your overlay and it puts you in the vicinity of the mechanical damage area.

The TRUE content of the FDR, 3 radar sources and the avionics triangulation put the aircraft on the mechanical damage path.

Like I said, critique this and I will read time permitting.

[Pardalis]

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Get a life.

Best regards.

[Anti-sophist]

Russell, you realize your compass is rotated, right?

It's not pointing at TRUE north.

(ETA, of course you do, you mention it in your opening paragraph. Sorry)

And why are you even using a compass to draw these lines? You don't need a protractor or a copy/pasted compass. If true north is the orientation of the map, and the orientation of the data, you just need the slope, in pixels, and the arctan() function.


ETA: Also, as a point of claarification, the CSV file says 61.2 not 61.5 for true track angle. It is recorded in the :43 frame. Unless my import goofed up.

On the animation difference, someone mentioned their hypothesis that the maker of the animation rotated the underlying map the wrong way when correcting between mag/true north. In other words, instead of -N degree rotation, they did +N degree rotation. I haven't looked in detail, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis. At some point I'll dive back into this and convince myself. If the difference is 2*correction, that would seem to support that hypothesis.

[Anti-sophist]

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Get a life.

Best regards.

:(

As best as I can tell, Russell is trying to tell us that multiple data sources seem to confirm that the plane's flight path agrees with the mechanical damage.

Unless I am mistaken, this seems to support the official story.

[jaydeehess]

He rotated his compass to match his own personal favorite orientation. That's funny.
Oh, my, yes that is funny.
however the comments about killing those who stand in his way are chilling. The man is a dangerous nutjob.

[Kent1]

Russell good to see your input. I have a couple questions, maybe you could help.
1. What is the wire coming out above the VDOT camera. Is this damage?
2. Do you have any more photos of the inside of the Taxi of damage?

[gumboot]

:(

As best as I can tell, Russell is trying to tell us that multiple data sources seem to confirm that the plane's flight path agrees with the mechanical damage.

Unless I am mistaken, this seems to support the official story.


Why is he asking you to critique it?

-Gumboot

[W6102LA]

Thanks for the info. Here's VDOT included:
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/5027/track6025smallnl4.jpg

Original (hires)
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8002/track6025mo9.jpg

Pretty good match up with the "9/11 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77", even Pole #3 lining up with the starboard engine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

[Pardalis]

:(

As best as I can tell, Russell is trying to tell us that multiple data sources seem to confirm that the plane's flight path agrees with the mechanical damage.

Unless I am mistaken, this seems to support the official story.

I bet this will eventually lead to their supposed "new evidence"...

I did say best regards though. ;)

[Kent1]

I bet this will eventually lead to their supposed "new evidence"...

I did say best regards though. ;)

Unless Russell changed his mind, he DOES believe Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.
From my understanding the "new evidence" is basicly some new interviews with some FDR info repackaged.

[LashL]

Why is he asking you to critique it?

-Gumboot

My guess:

Because he knows that he has no particular knowledge and zero expertise on the topic but he still desperately wants to appear to be an expert in everything related to 9/11, and because he has such a hate on for JohnDoeX over the meltdown of the LC boards that JDX precipitated (and via which Russell was able to gain for himself a more prominent position at the LC boards, as though that is something to strive for), he's willing to show up here again with more of the same old pretense (albeit on a different subject) that he has exhibited here in the past.

For CTers, Russ included, it's all about how they look to other CTers and Russ sees this as an opportunity to have JREFers assist him in taking JDX down another few notches because he can't do it himself, even while he disparages JREFers and JREF ad nauseum on the LC boards.

[DavidJames]

Keep in mind, at the end of the day Russ still believes the Pentagon crash was part of the CT since he believes, unless he's changed his mind, the plane was remotely controlled.

[mcMike]

Brilliant! It doesn't get any clearer than that.
And what a laugh I got from seeing the jdx compass twist! :D

Thanks.
I don't want to defend wrong theories but just for the sake of JDX I think he did not twist the compass intentionally. It seems like his GoogleEarth position is rotated. This happens easily with mouse-navigation unless you remember to click North in compass for precise alignment before the screen-capture.

Also if you look closely the GoogleEarth image you can see the walls of Pentagon. The satellite is not exactly overhead. IMHO this makes sub-degree accuracy impossible. You would need good hi-res (3000x2000) image directly from overhead from very high altitude to be able to measure accuracies below one degree.

[Russell Pickering]

My guess:

Because he knows that he has no particular knowledge and zero expertise on the topic but he still desperately wants to appear to be an expert in everything related to 9/11, and because he has such a hate on for JohnDoeX over the meltdown of the LC boards that JDX precipitated (and via which Russell was able to gain for himself a more prominent position at the LC boards, as though that is something to strive for), he's willing to show up here again with more of the same old pretense (albeit on a different subject) that he has exhibited here in the past.

For CTers, Russ included, it's all about how they look to other CTers and Russ sees this as an opportunity to have JREFers assist him in taking JDX down another few notches because he can't do it himself, even while he disparages JREFers and JREF ad nauseum on the LC boards.

I am SO tired of you and your literally delusional assumptions and accusations that my humor is fading.

You have an unnatural fascination with me and it is getting scary now.

[Russell Pickering]

Kent,

Yes I believe a plane hit the Pentagon - and yes I believe it was other than the official story.

My intent here is to prepare for the forthcoming "new story" that is being packaged and am preparing the arguments against it.

I have been confirming various things in the process. One you might find interesting is that I took JDX's FAA info, looked up the name, address and phone and called the number and it was him. There have also been other resources that confirmed he did work for the said airlines.

It was an interesting conversation for a couple of hours. We'll have to see how the new story comes out and his involvement in it.

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

Russell, you realize your compass is rotated, right?

It's not pointing at TRUE north.

(ETA, of course you do, you mention it in your opening paragraph. Sorry)

And why are you even using a compass to draw these lines? You don't need a protractor or a copy/pasted compass. If true north is the orientation of the map, and the orientation of the data, you just need the slope, in pixels, and the arctan() function.


ETA: Also, as a point of claarification, the CSV file says 61.2 not 61.5 for true track angle. It is recorded in the :43 frame. Unless my import goofed up.

On the animation difference, someone mentioned their hypothesis that the maker of the animation rotated the underlying map the wrong way when correcting between mag/true north. In other words, instead of -N degree rotation, they did +N degree rotation. I haven't looked in detail, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis. At some point I'll dive back into this and convince myself. If the difference is 2*correction, that would seem to support that hypothesis.

I will check the .csv for that data. I took the 61.5 from JDX.

The current map compass I posted is rotated? This should be the correction from the one where I did have it rotated.

They made the animation based on the 70 degrees from the heading data. Go back and see my post here and you can see what would happen to the whole flight path from Ohio/Kentucky if it was a map rotation.

[LashL]

I am SO tired of you and your literally delusional assumptions and accusations that my humor is fading.

You have an unnatural fascination with me and it is getting scary now.

Oh, please, stop flattering yourself, Russ. I have no "fascination" with you whatsoever. Frankly, I pity you for your delusions, and I merely note with passing amusement your continuing inabilty to substantiate your prior posts on other threads and your continuing obsession with me that leads you to post such pathetic drivel.

I am not, however, surprised at your admission that I "scare" you - like most other CT morons, you appear to be easily frightened by anyone with a functioning brain who legitimately challenges your unsourced, unsupported, and nonsensical assertions.

Edit to add: I noticed, and I'm sure many others will have noticed, that you didn't address even a single word of my post to which you purported to reply, and you entirely ignored the substance of it. Hit a little too close to home, did it?

[Pardalis]

Russell,

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Cheers.

[Lyte Trip]

Kent,

My intent here is to prepare for the forthcoming "new story" that is being packaged and am preparing the arguments against it.



Interesting.

As if this is a contest or something!

But thanks for letting us use your images.

By all means keep making even better ones like this......it helps out a lot......but really Russ......there is no need to "prepare" as if there will be some massive debate going on.

I am confident you will back our research and change your beliefs about what happened at the pentagon and no debate will be necessary.

[gumboot]

Kent,

Yes I believe a plane hit the Pentagon - and yes I believe it was other than the official story.



Why do you believe it was a flight other than AA77?

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

Interesting.

As if this is a contest or something!

But thanks for letting us use your images.

By all means keep making even better ones like this......it helps out a lot......but really Russ......there is no need to "prepare" as if there will be some massive debate going on.

I am confident you will back our research and change your beliefs about what happened at the pentagon and no debate will be necessary.

Research? You interviewed a couple people, proved the jet flew over a taxi and knocked the crap out of seat, ate food with LC on lemming's dime, who paid for a fictional movie! This is your research, to bilk money from people you tell you have the truth?

Tell us you have more than just the usual junk.

[Obviousman]

I'd ask that people go easy on Russell. He has rarely - if ever - gotten to the insult stage that most of the 9/11 believers have.

Here is our chance to have a logical discussion, and debate what we believe in.

Try to explain, and support, what & why we find no significant discrepancies with AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

If you think Russ has missed a significant point, then politely draw his attention to it.

I ask this because I have always found Russell to be open to alternatives.

Yes, we disagree, but when shown verifiable evidence, he has been willing to change his opinion. I consider this to be an admirable & hopeful trait.

(end rant)

Now, onto navigation terms. I used to be a navigator by trade (qualified in air navigation, coastal and open ocean - including astronavigation - for my Navy stuff). I haven't got the full .CSV file (thanks for the EXCEL importing tip, though I am yet to try it) and haven't confirmed the terms used by DFDR, but the basics are simple (this is for air navigation).

HEADING (HDG) - this is the direction the aircraft is pointed in, and would travel in if there were no wind.

TRACK (TR) - this is the direction across ground that the aircraft travels in, making allowance for the wind. The aircraft HEADING can remain the same, but with different amounts of wind its track will alter. It's a basic vector diagramme.

WIND VELOCITY (WV) - blows you from your aircraft heading to a ground track (there is also velocity, but that is not important to this discussion).

http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/area/maths/compass/images/an3.gif

Next we move onto the different ways of measuring your heading or track.

When you use a standard compass, the heading is refered to as a compass heading. The compass normally has some errors in it. When we correct for these errors, you get a MAGNETIC heading. All modern aircraft systems correct for these errors, so you can assume at this stage it is a magnetic heading.

A magnetic heading lines up with the magnetic lines on the Earth. These lines, however, are not constant. They vary from location to location. Sometimes they will line up with the TRUE direction, sometimes they won't. The Earth's MAGNETIC pole and TRUE pole don't always line up. Therefore you have to make a further correction. The correction you make is called VARIATION, and is always noted on charts. (BTW, variation changes over time. Variation on a chart is given for a date, and a further correction given for time - X degrees per year).

So to convert MAGNETIC to TRUE, you have to apply VARIATION.

There is a lovely little rhyme that will help you remember how to do this.

Variation EAST, magnetic LEAST.
Variation WEST, magnetic BEST.

So if you have a MAGNETIC heading of 090, and a VARIATION of 2 degrees West, that means the magnetic heading will be greater (best) than the TRUE heading.

So:

090M - 2W = 088T (use - because magnetic is going to be better than true)

Conversely, if you have a variation of 2 degree East, that means the magnetic heading will be less (least) than the TRUE heading.

So:

090M + 2 E = 092T (use + because magnetic is going to be less than true)

So, back to AA77.

I suspect the DFDR headings are magnetic, because variation... well, varys. Perhaps modern aircraft have this programmed into them, but we always had to manually change the variation.

So apply the variation to the the magnetic heading of the aircraft, and it will give you a true heading.

Once you have the true heading, you have to apply the effect of wind (as mentioned earlier). Don't forget to ensure that the wind direction type (true / mag) is the same as your heading.

So if you have a MAGNETIC heading, apply VARIATION, it will give you a TRUE heading. Apply a TRUE wind vector to that heading and it will give you a TRUE track.

That's about it, right? Not quite. Different charts use different methods to work out their gridlines and chart / map north. So you have to make sure that your chart / map north is also aligned to true north. This doesn't really come into play normally, but if you are using charts / maps / images where you are working backwards from an impact point, and you need accuracy, you have to ensure the north indication is correct (i.e. true north).

Using Google images might be fine for normal stuff, but if you are going to use it for precise measurements like we are talking about, you have to make sure that the image (map) north is the same true north.

[WildCat]

Why do you believe it was a flight other than AA77?

-Gumboot
Because that's his starting point. He is now looking for evidence that supports his pre-conceived opinion of what happened.

It's illuminating in regards to his thought process - his original thoughts, that no plane hit the Pentagon, has been obliterated by the evidence. But he won't abandon the CT, oh no! Now he has to prove something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, because he just knows there is a government conspiracy, he just has no facts or evidence to prove it yet.

You're working backwards Russell.

Lyte Trip still has no evidence apparently.

Keep chasing shadows, you heroic crusaders from Loose Change!

[uk_dave]

It's illuminating in regards to his thought process - his original thoughts, that no plane hit the Pentagon, has been obliterated by the evidence. But he won't abandon the CT, oh no! Now he has to prove something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, because he just knows there is a government conspiracy, he just has no facts or evidence to prove it yet.


That's what I find interesting: someone like russell can believe an absurd CT one minute, and then to his credit take on board the evidence which disproves it, but still clings to some form of conspiracy theory, even when he's proved to himself that he was wrong previously.

Does Russell not have any moments of introspection where he considers just what motivated him to believe the first debunked theory and how that motivation might be affecting his judgement on the second theory?

It was a rhetorical question :D

[Hellbound]

ON the VDOT pole and the scuff mark:

One thing to keep in mind is that steel is malleable, to an extent. I suspect the VDOT pole was not case-hardened (call it a hunch). As such, I'd find it likely that the windtip hit the pole, pushing it to the side as the plane passed, at which point the pole rebounded. This explains the scuff mark, the missing peg, and the violent shaking that would damage the camera. Essentially, if the amount of force needed to deform the pole temporarily 6 inches to the right is less than the force needed to break it, this is possible. Also, the wing tip would be angled, which would be conducive to shifting the pole sideways rather than cutting (a more direct impact would more likely cut).

Just my $0.02.

[ellindsey]

I agree with the broken peg, but the mark on the pole? It didn't clip through the pole at all (at least from my interpretation of what I'm looking at), it just left a scuff mark that covers about half of the front aspect of the pole.

It sure looks to be in the right place, and the missing peg is intriguing, but just a scuff mark from something that hit it at 530 mph? Would there not be any piece of the outermost six inches of a 757 wingtip that would cause physical damage in that scenario?

I suspect (although I cannot prove) that the tip of the wing would be covered by a relatively lightweight, nonstructural faring, and that this is what struck the pole, while the other poles would have been struct by the parts of the wings containing spars and other load-bearing structure. The light poles which were struck also seem to have frangible bases which would break off easily, while the VDOT pole appears to be a non-frangible type.

[Hellbound]

I also agree with ellindsey's assessment; it seems entirely plausible as well :)

[CurtC]

I suspect (although I cannot prove) that the tip of the wing would be covered by a relatively lightweight, nonstructural faring, and that this is what struck the poleYes, but what I was questioning is that the scuff mark on the pole looks like it got hit with the rightmost six or eight inches of the wingtip. If you look at pics of the 757 (I can't find closeups of the wingtips), the front right corner is a clear plastic cover, enclosing the green starboard wingtip light. It seems to me that this light would be contained in the outboard six inches, along with metal pieces to hold it. And metal pieces at 530 mph would have punched holes in the pole.

Now I'm not arguing this as definitive, but I think it's an objection that needs to be ruled out before we accept that the scuff mark and missing peg was caused by the wingtip.

What would help would be closeup pics of a 757 wingtip, showing that the outermost six to eight inches is all composite or plastic.

[stateofgrace]

Ok this is what gets me and maybe one of our conspirator chaps can clear this up for me.

There seems to me to be an absolute mountain of evidence to support the idea that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. From recovered debris, the DNA recovered from the unfortunate victims, the lampposts being hit, and eyewitnesses seeing the plane hitting the posts and flying toward the Pentagon. The FDR was recovered from the Pentagon and further more there seems to be no end of people who turned up to assist with the clean up operation.

Now this is what gets me, the perps go to all this trouble, i.e. faking it all, in broad day light, in front of potentially hundreds of people and then, five years later they can’t get the data on the FDR that was recovered to tie in with their story. This makes no sense at all. Surely somebody who is capable of planting evidence, planting eyewitnesses, planting DNA and goodness knows what else they planted would have made sure the data from the FDR was precise, but no they missed this.

So how did they miss it?

They didn’t and the conspirators know that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and this entire clutching at straws is so silly it is almost laughable.

So the question again to the conspirators is simple.

What happened to Flight 77? Where is it? They won’t answer because they know they are talking absolute rubbish.

[WilliamSeger]

There is one ingredient you (possibly) are missing though. He is _selling_ these DVDs and asking for donations. It's in his own financial interest to have as many anomalies as he can. Over time, we've debunked most of them and he doesn't have much left. What are you seeing, I believe, is him grasping as straws in desperation.


Yes, in fact that was the theme of the whole thread; not just that pilotfor911truth had it wrong, but that they knew that the path in the animation was wrong, yet continued to use it to promote their videos. But even if you exclude the sleazy profiteers, I am firmly convinced that there is not a single "9/11 truth" site that doesn't continue to use "evidence" that they know has been convincingly debunked, but they also know it's still useful to bring in the gullible "converts." Many people on the DU board continued to support the Loose Change wankers even after it became undeniably clear (even to them) that LC1 was a load of bull, because it was still "useful" to get people "asking questions." It's all about the "movement" -- #@%! the truth.

(ETA: BTW, "conspiracy theory" stuff is completely banned from the main DU boards, and only a very small fraction of all DUers participate in the September 11 sub-forum.)

[uk_dave]

Well they would no doubt claim that the planning ofthe event lead to a large amount of debris being preplaced, witnesses being briefed on their respective stories etc, but that on the day someone goofed up and the plane didn't follow the planned path.

Of course with regard to the light poles this begs the question as to why it was necessary to knock them down in the first place if the plane was supposed to do it anyway had it followed the planned path.

This kinda stuff can give you a headache!

[T.A.M.]

Guys;

Some time in the past we discussed the circular exit hole in the C-Ring, and why it was so round. I am sure some one informed me that it was cut that way by resuce workers/clearing teams, to allow things to move through the area better.

Can anyone help me out with this fact, or was it just someones opinion...ie is there a reference to this fact?

TAM

[R.Mackey]

I'd ask that people go easy on Russell. He has rarely - if ever - gotten to the insult stage that most of the 9/11 believers have.
There's no need to treat Russell Pickering with kid gloves. He dishes it out just fine, as documented here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2075169#post2075169).

I welcome, but have no expectation of, his participation in an honest debate. So far he retreats and goes ad hominem with the best of them when we don't buy his fantasies.

Yes, but what I was questioning is that the scuff mark on the pole looks like it got hit with the rightmost six or eight inches of the wingtip. If you look at pics of the 757 (I can't find closeups of the wingtips), the front right corner is a clear plastic cover, enclosing the green starboard wingtip light. It seems to me that this light would be contained in the outboard six inches, along with metal pieces to hold it. And metal pieces at 530 mph would have punched holes in the pole.

Now I'm not arguing this as definitive, but I think it's an objection that needs to be ruled out before we accept that the scuff mark and missing peg was caused by the wingtip.

What would help would be closeup pics of a 757 wingtip, showing that the outermost six to eight inches is all composite or plastic.
You should also keep in mind that the pole in question could have been flexible enough to get pushed out of the way by the wingtip -- the precise contact geometry might be difficult to figure out.

I don't know for sure that the mark was caused by a wingtip, but it doesn't seem impossible either.

[R.Mackey]

Guys;

Some time in the past we discussed the circular exit hole in the C-Ring, and why it was so round. I am sure some one informed me that it was cut that way by resuce workers/clearing teams, to allow things to move through the area better.

Can anyone help me out with this fact, or was it just someones opinion...ie is there a reference to this fact?

TAM

Scroll down to my Point 3 in this analysis (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2061604#post2061604) I did of the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report and Russell Pickering's interpretation of same. The exit hole is believed to have been caused by blast rather than impact with a solid object -- a force distribution over the entire wall -- and was in an area of unreinforced brick, which would naturally tend towards a convex shape rather than a jagged hole. A round hole is the expected result.

I'm not aware of rescue teams cutting through there, though it's possible; I also suspect such a cut would not lead to a round hole, but rather one that was widest near the bottom... anyone who knows different, please feel free to correct me!

[T.A.M.]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10761456f36c7e892d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2888)

Looking at the above, I notice a couple of things.

1. The exterior brick seems ripped away at points, but the underlying layer of wall remains, odd given the direction the landing gear was going in.

2. The hole does look wider, or at least of eqaul width, to the hole half way up from the bottom...in this pic.

TAM

[WildCat]

I'm not aware of rescue teams cutting through there, though it's possible; I also suspect such a cut would not lead to a round hole, but rather one that was widest near the bottom... anyone who knows different, please feel free to correct me!
Look at the tools next to the hole in this pic (http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200032-1.jpg). They may have tidied up the hole (to make it safe to walk through) a little, who knows.

[T.A.M.]

Look at the tools next to the hole in this pic (http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200032-1.jpg). They may have tidied up the hole (to make it safe to walk through) a little, who knows.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10761456f3e125039a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2891)

Notice in my version of the photo, I have labeled in red, and area very well cut out, very smooth, on th eoutside, the last thing that would have been hit by the landing gear or blast, which ever. Notice how inside of that, a layer of wall material closer to the inside, which extends beyond the smoothly cut external part of the hole (see green and red outlines)...this seems to me more indicative of material "cut away".

Agree or not?

TAM

[uk_dave]

[/URL][URL]http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10761456f3e125039a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2891)

Notice in my version of the photo, I have labeled in red, and area very well cut out, very smooth, on th eoutside, the last thing that would have been hit by the landing gear or blast, which ever. Notice how inside of that, a layer of wall material closer to the inside, which extends beyond the smoothly cut external part of the hole (see green and red outlines)...this seems to me more indicative of material "cut away".

Agree or not?

TAM

Notice in your pic that the wall is one brick thick, constructed in what I think might be english bond. You can see the brick courses on the outer face are laid as you might expect from a 4" (half brick) wall, with each long length of brick (the stretcher) overlapping the one below. But, since it is a solid 9" wall the inner and outer skins of 4" brickwork laid in the stretcher bond are tied together by 9" bricks laid at 90 degrees to the wall every sixth vertical brick course, so that you see the 4" end of the bricks exposed on the face of the wall.

Bearing this in mind, it is not uncommon for the two skins of brickwork to come apart, especially if impacted. An impact on the inner face of the wall could effectively pop off the outer skin of brickwork since the method of bonding the two skins together every 6 vertical courses means that there is approx 18" of wall where the inner and outer skins may not be bonded to each other.

Also, as for a clean up operation.... I would have expected to have seen alot of that crap on the ground moved away before anyone started cleaning off any loose masonry.

But, it's the army...what do you expect? :D

[WildCat]

Like I said, critique this and I will read time permitting.
Why don't you just ask all the skeptics on your own forum? Oh yeah, that's right, you banned most of them for disagreeing w/ you. Weren't thinking that through, were you Russell?

[Anti-sophist]

Actually that is a fantastic point.

Why in the world would I help Russell Pickering when I am unwelcome on his forum. He has to come to our forum to get help because him and the fascist moderators over at his forum have banned anyone that disagrees with them and continuously abused their mod powers.

Why does it take me, an obvious disinfo agent, not interested in the truth, to actually look up the correct numbers from the CSV file?

[Kent1]

Why do you believe it was a flight other than AA77?

-Gumboot
He doesn't.

[T.A.M.]

Notice in your pic that the wall is one brick thick, constructed in what I think might be english bond. You can see the brick courses on the outer face are laid as you might expect from a 4" (half brick) wall, with each long length of brick (the stretcher) overlapping the one below. But, since it is a solid 9" wall the inner and outer skins of 4" brickwork laid in the stretcher bond are tied together by 9" bricks laid at 90 degrees to the wall every sixth vertical brick course, so that you see the 4" end of the bricks exposed on the face of the wall.

Bearing this in mind, it is not uncommon for the two skins of brickwork to come apart, especially if impacted. An impact on the inner face of the wall could effectively pop off the outer skin of brickwork since the method of bonding the two skins together every 6 vertical courses means that there is approx 18" of wall where the inner and outer skins may not be bonded to each other.

Also, as for a clean up operation.... I would have expected to have seen alot of that crap on the ground moved away before anyone started cleaning off any loose masonry.

But, it's the army...what do you expect? :D


Oh, I agree. I totally recognize the wall is in two segments, but what leads me to think the outer wall was cut away, was how smooth the hole is at that area, right next to where we see the "inner wall" if the wall were blasted out there, or hit by the landing gear, I would think that it wouldnt leave such a neat smooth area.

But I am no expert, so I will leave it as inconclusive either way, until I hear from someone, or see some testimony from the clean-up crew refuting or confirming the "cut away" theory.

TAM

[gumboot]

He doesn't.


Then why did he say this:


Kent,

Yes I believe a plane hit the Pentagon - and yes I believe it was other than the official story.


Unless I am mistaking "the official story" is AA77. Therefore "other than the official story" would have to be something other than AA77.

So Russell, if you come back, I ask again: why do you believe an aircraft other than AA77 hit The Pentagon?

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Oh, I agree. I totally recognize the wall is in two segments, but what leads me to think the outer wall was cut away, was how smooth the hole is at that area, right next to where we see the "inner wall" if the wall were blasted out there, or hit by the landing gear, I would think that it wouldnt leave such a neat smooth area.


I think that, combined with the tools stacked up, is fairly conclusive evidence that the hole was widened.

I'd like to propose that it was done so by fire-fighting teams attempting to rescue people, rather than a "clean up" team, hence why other debris in the area wasn't cleared away. They were just trying to get in ASAP to save people.

It's just a theory though.

-Gumboot

[Kent1]

Then why did he say this:





Unless I am mistaking "the official story" is AA77. Therefore "other than the official story" would have to be something other than AA77.

So Russell, if you come back, I ask again: why do you believe an aircraft other than AA77 hit The Pentagon?

-Gumboot
He believes AA77 hit the Pentagon. He believes that something else may of been behind the wheel.

[gumboot]

He believes AA77 hit the Pentagon. He believes that something else may of been behind the wheel.


Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Russell, can you confirm this? Because the above is NOT what you said earlier.

If it IS what you believe, why do you believe this?

-Gumboot

[W6102LA]

Yes, but what I was questioning is that the scuff mark on the pole looks like it got hit with the rightmost six or eight inches of the wingtip. If you look at pics of the 757 (I can't find closeups of the wingtips),>snip<

What would help would be closeup pics of a 757 wingtip, showing that the outermost six to eight inches is all composite or plastic.

This might help.....

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/Photo-6.jpg

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=410&st=0

[Kent1]

It seems possible when the tip hit the peg a piece of the plane broke off and scuffed against the pole.

But look at the shape of the wingtip and the scuff mark on the pole. Its seems to be almost a perfect match. Given the materical, I don't think it would cut into the pole either.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15307

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/Photo-6.jpg
Let's also again compare the above link with this photo.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=28

To summarize VDOT data we have:
1. Pole damage in approx. fight path.
2. Missing clip.
3. A Scuff mark that matches the wingtip shape.
4. Broken camera. (likely from shaken pole)
5. Piece of damaged wing piece.

...and here

[stateofgrace]

I just read through this thread.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...topic=410&st=0 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=410&st=0)

Wow, just wow.

Maybe the cters should just slug it out and everybody should just eat popcorn.

Russell you really socked it to those guys.

By the way have you actually figured out what happened to Flight 77 yet or are you guys too busy fighting one another?

Even Killtown is getting impatient

So where's that "damaging info".

[jaydeehess]

I just read through this thread.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...topic=410&st=0 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=410&st=0)

Wow, just wow.

Maybe the cters should just slug it out and everybody should just eat popcorn.

Russell you really socked it to those guys.

By the way have you actually figured out what happened to Flight 77 yet or are you guys too busy fighting one another?

Even Killtown is getting impatient



Almost makes me yearn for the days(ok so they let me post for about a month) when I was allowed to post at the new LC. I can't even view the forums from my home 'puter now. Luckily we have internet acess at work.

[CurtC]

This might help.....

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/Photo-6.jpgIs that supposed to be a wingtip? I can't figure out the orientation, but it sure looks like a lot of solid metal pieces there.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=410&st=0I didn't want to read that whole thread, I was hoping for pictures, and I didn't see any on the three pages there. Oh wait - I just noticed that if I click the links that say "(Posted image)" it links to pictures, but clicking every one is too much work. Is there any there in particular?

[W6102LA]

Is that supposed to be a wingtip? I can't figure out the orientation, but it sure looks like a lot of solid metal pieces there.

Yeah, i don't know the orientation either, i thought someone here might of been able to

I didn't want to read that whole thread, I was hoping for pictures, and I didn't see any on the three pages there. Oh wait - I just noticed that if I click the links that say "(Posted image)" it links to pictures, but clicking every one is too much workThat happens if you're not logged into the site.

. Is there any there in particular?That's the only pic of a wingtip in the thread unfortunately

[jaydeehess]

I just read through this thread.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...topic=410&st=0 (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=410&st=0)[COLOR=black]



They did not like me there. I get
Sorry, you are not permitted to use this board

if I try to view the forum from my home computer.