Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath? - Page 11

GregoryUrich · 23rd September 2008, 01:46 PM

According to Mackey the VDOT tower is 3400 ft from impact. At 781 ft/sec that gives us 4.35 seconds. The range you have given for the altitude at that point is 400-440 ASL. At the lower bound, the average fps (based on the impact point, 39 ASL) would be 82. At the upper bound the average fps would be 91.2. What does the FDR fps data average out to over the last 3.5-4.5 seconds? I get 70 fps from the data you posted on the other thread, but that's not the entire time interval.

dudalb · 23rd September 2008, 01:55 PM

The sad thing is there is enough to blast the Bush Adminsitration for without having to resort to crackpot Conspiracy theories. If anything, I could make the case that the Truthers have helped Bush last as long as he did in terms of popularity because they made his critics look like a bunch of crackpots.

beachnut · 23rd September 2008, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

According to Mackey the VDOT tower is 3400 ft from impact. At 781 ft/sec that gives us 4.35 seconds. The range you have given for the altitude at that point is 400-440 ASL. At the lower bound, the average fps (based on the impact point, 39 ASL) would be 82. At the upper bound the average fps would be 91.2. What does the FDR fps data average out to over the last 3.5-4.5 seconds? I get 70 fps from the data you posted on the other thread, but that's not the entire time interval.

Those values are over 6 seconds from impact.

The terrorist were at 400 MSL to 440 MSL over 6 seconds from the VDOT tower, and 77 was see at the level of the VDOT tower or lower. Someone thought 77 hit the VDOT tower.

If you want you can make up 400 feet from VDOT tower, but it is not true.

I posted the last 26 second on the FDR, then the data stops at :44, I showed a RADAR fix of 77 at :47.

There is no data after the FDR stops within 1500 feet of the YELLOW Dot. FDR time 13:37:44. The best you can get is 2 seconds to the VDOT tower when the FDR stops. The altitude at the yellow dot is 400 to 440 feet MSL.

The last twenty six descents. Take your pick for the terrorist to hit the Pentagon.

30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65. feet per second. In order to the last data point at 13:37:44 FDR time.

GregoryUrich · 23rd September 2008, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

Those values are over 6 seconds from impact.

The terrorist were at 400 MSL to 440 MSL over 6 seconds from the VDOT tower, and 77 was see at the level of the VDOT tower or lower. Someone thought 77 hit the VDOT tower.

If you want you can make up 400 feet from VDOT tower, but it is not true.

I posted the last 26 second on the FDR, then the data stops at :44, I showed a RADAR fix of 77 at :47.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...ointfarmer.jpg

There is no data after the FDR stops within 1500 feet of the YELLOW Dot. FDR time 13:37:44. The best you can get is 2 seconds to the VDOT tower when the FDR stops. The altitude at the yellow dot is 400 to 440 feet MSL.

The last twenty six descents. Take your pick for the terrorist to hit the Pentagon.

30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65. feet per second. In order to the last data point at 13:37:44 FDR time.

Sorry, I misquoted you on the altitude at the VDOT. Doesn't the NTSB say the impact occured at 13:37:45?

beachnut · 23rd September 2008, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

Did they change the lawn? Today the lawn is nearly perfectly flat at 9m elev. The highway is at 10m elev. Did they move the highway?

Here are some images from GoogleEarth:

yes the lawn has changed. The lens is bad, the plane was in a descent, everyone saw a steep approach, the VDOT camera tower clipped slight at 100 MSL supports an average of 2600 feet per minute to impact.

you are using Google earth for TERCOM data?

The grass sloped towards the Pentagon. The overpass has to be higher than the Pentagon area so trucks can get under the road and this is why 40 foot post are at 100 feet MSL due to the elevation rising to the road.

Show me how the plane levels off with the stupid overpass in the way. Large planes go very straight at 463 KIAS, you can't do a box maneuver to level off on the grass, it is impossible.

Are you arguing about what you called a slight descent at 60 fps, when I am talking about 43 fps? With the TERRIBLE lens 43 fps would and did look level; you are one funny guy.

It is highly unlikely 77 leveled off, unless by accident, the trajectory dynamics do not support rapid changes. Show me a change grater than 40 fps by the terrorist?

Where 77 really is gives about 66 fps to impact the Pentagon. This rate is reflected in the last data, and I cheated, the terrorist just inputted the biggest down stick ever, may be the big dive some witnesses saw. So to get to the mark on the VDOT camera tower, you have to beat 66 fps. The next values after 68 and 65 will be near 90 or 100 fps.

If we clip the VDOT tower we need 65 fps to hit the Pentagon. If 77 levels off at the overpass, 77 hits too high. 77 has to descend past the 100 foot MSL tap of the VDOT camera tower with 1.3 second to go. 77 also has to go 60 more feet to the impact point. Please humor me and show me the level off.

Just do it. 60 feet to go down, and only 1.3 second, and in the prior 30 seconds the terrorist best change in fps was 30 feet! We are missing .7 second to complete the level flight maneuver as the terrorist has been flying.

If we are level at the overpass tapping the VDOT camera post at 100 MSL, we must push over to impact at 40 MSL and again we are unable to justify with terrorist dynamics making the 60 feet down.

The last twenty six descents. Show me a 40 fps change in any second to second.

30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65. These are second by second descent rates the terrorist is making. Not one supports a 40 fps pull out to make level fight by impact.

Go ahead make my day. ...

I missed this, this is funny stuff. The road allows 1 m tall trucks to pass under the infinitesimally thin overpass bridge. Google earth. Little trucks 1 m tall. neat It is true, google earth does not have the correct data for terrain. So even on my Google trucks are 3 feet tall. Or paper thin.

Caustic Logic · 23rd September 2008, 02:54 PM

Great analysis, Beachnut. Just so I've got this right, fps here means feet per second, meaning of descent/ascent, correct? And the 26 numbers are the feet descended for those 26 seconds?

So, does anyone have a problem with the number of feet needed to drop from that last frame to the tower in app. 2 sec? That's low enough to perhaps hit the tower, below its top, near it and the roof of the FoB says Paik, 30-50 feet over the roof says Morin. Then we agree it'd have to be like 4 sec to impact from there, with so many feet to allocate according towitnesses and damage... shouldn't be too hard.

Hint to all - I think giving ranges is more useful here than exact numbers

Quote:

GU: Sorry, I misquoted you on the altitude at the VDOT. Doesn't the NTSB say the impact occured at 13:37:45?

Yes, they also say what it did at that second is crash into the pentagon, at least 1/2 mile from where the FDR shows it, 400 feet below where its at, with a slightly different headin, different bank, different pitch.

They didn't actually say this, but it's implied.

So they also cite 9:37:44. Hmmm... what to conclude?

beachnut · 23rd September 2008, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Great analysis, Beachnut. Just so I've got this right, fps here means feet per second, meaning of descent/ascent, correct? And the 26 numbers are the feet descended for those 26 seconds?

So, does anyone have a problem with the number of feet needed to drop from that last frame to the tower in app. 2 sec? That's low enough to perhaps hit the tower, below its top, near it and the roof of the FoB says Paik, 30-50 feet over the roof says Morin. Then we agree it'd have to be like 4 sec to impact from there, with so many feet to allocate according towitnesses and damage... shouldn't be too hard.

Hint to all - I think giving ranges is more useful here than exact numbers

Yes, they also say what it did at that second is crash into the pentagon, at least 1/2 mile from where the FDR shows it, 400 feet below where its at, with a slightly different headin, different bank, different pitch.

They didn't actually say this, but it's implied.

So they also cite 9:37:44. Hmmm... what to conclude?

Feet per second, fps, yes. Feet lost per second.

bje · 23rd September 2008, 06:01 PM

Here's a reference using GIS software. It's the line of sight view from the top of the VDOT tower, 169 feet above ground level, 303.8 feet above MSL, to the impact point at the Pentagon using 10 feet MSL at the target point.

The data is derived from the United States Elevation Data (NED) with 30 meter resolution. The green area is the terrain height along the path without structures.

If it's useful I can do other profiles.

GregoryUrich · 24th September 2008, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by bje

Here's a reference using GIS software. It's the line of sight view from the top of the VDOT tower, 169 feet above ground level, 303.8 feet above MSL, to the impact point at the Pentagon using 10 feet MSL at the target point.

The data is derived from the United States Elevation Data (NED) with 30 meter resolution. The green area is the terrain height along the path without structures.

If it's useful I can do other profiles.

What's the best resolution you can do? I would interested in the part closest to the pentagon.

beachnut · 24th September 2008, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

What's the best resolution you can do? I would interested in the part closest to the pentagon.

The lawn area and added hills will not be in the data base. In reality the road is not 36 feet and the lawn at 33 feet, with 3 foot cars in that underpass.

77 would never hit some of the posts if the posts were not up on a raise area.

Why do truthers fail to look before they leap to the "ample evidence"?

I don't care if the lawn is flat; 77 hit in a dive; there is proof; it involves geometry, a tool not in the truther bag. It also takes interpretation of witness statements, another tool absent from the truther tool box.

Wish the truth movement would use facts, evidence, math, geometry, physics, engineering, and other disciplines, instead of hearsay, lies, and junk science, based on what Einstein said; ""Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

It will take a couple of months, if not years part-time, to understand 77 and the Pentagon as you wade through the ignorance of the truth movement many lies on 77 and the Pentagon. Hundreds of witnesses, thousands of pieces of evidence are ignored. Witnesses are call government agents as the paranoid terrorist apologist spew implications of lies. Why are truthers apologizing for terrorist who take credit freely?

bje · 24th September 2008, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

What's the best resolution you can do? I would interested in the part closest to the pentagon.

This has 10 meter resolution:

Pentagon 2.jpg

GregoryUrich · 24th September 2008, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by bje

This has 10 meter resolution:

Attachment 11958

Thanks.

beachnut · 24th September 2008, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by bje

This has 10 meter resolution:

Attachment 11958

Looks like 2600 feet per minute will hack it.

Caustic Logic · 25th September 2008, 01:31 AM

Thanks for the graphs, bje. They look not far off from my earlier analysis, using various sources and photos, but probably more accurate. I'll keep these around in case I ever look at topography again.

As far as the OP, it looks like radar is the base source, some odd system of lines and cirves between alternating returns responsible for the anomalies, is the best guess.

As for WHY it matches CIT's assembled path almost to a "T", coincidence is only one possibility.

Craig's statements regarding it, to spur renewed discussion:

Quote:

But the precise north side banking maneuver depicted can not simply be an accident or coincidence given all the independent evidence proving a general approach of this nature.

This was clearly created for a reason.

It may simply be an obfuscation effort to make it seem like there is a large enough margin of error between north or south of the citgo that it would be an easy "mistake" to make.

Didn't work on me! I'm aware that a radar-based animation and on-the-ground witnesses do not suffer the same types of errors!

Quote:

What's actually comical about this is how hard the pseudo-skeptics tried to claim this flight path is "impossible"!

Would the FAA really go out of their way to animate something so precise and deliberate with such a drastic bank if it was "impossible"?

I think not.

There ya go... if it can happen in a cartoon...

Quote:

Ok.....what this data means is that people who DO accept government data as valid evidence are now forced to move towards believing the north side approach.

If you put the evidence in a "statistical process control" chart it would be off the hook in favor of north side.

But WE do not have to embrace it since the witnesses already prove the north side approach anyway.

So in essence it gives us more fire to throw in their faces while we can remain as non-committal on it as we want.

Yeah! I like the sounds of that!

Sure he would. [hypnotized]I have seen the plane north of the Citgo in two different cartoons now, and must obey the evidence[/hypnotized]

Caustic Logic · 25th September 2008, 03:48 AM

Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

Just found an interesting clue at the Pilots for Truth Forum: a presentation by AGI President and CEO Paul Graziani, regarding their 9/11 animations. http://www.informs-cs.org/wsc02papers/001.pdf

Quote:

Actual FAA radar data was used to accurately recreate the events and model the flight paths of hijacked airlines as well as the responding military aircraft.

Of interest is the line:

Quote:

Complex problems that once took weeks or months to complete, now take only seconds or minutes when employing software capabilities.

Maybe they should have at least spent hours on this one.

Dang, this truther person offers something useful:

Quote:

they have a forum, if anyone wants to ask some questions,
though of course,
there is no guarantee that they will or are able to respond,
but perhaps worth a try none the less?

http://www.stk.com/agiforum/
https://www.stk.com/MyAccount/index.cfm

Eh?

16.5 · 25th September 2008, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

Craig's statements regarding it, to spur renewed discussion:

There ya go... if it can happen in a cartoon...

Sure he would. [hypnotized]I have seen the plane north of the Citgo in two different cartoons now, and must obey the evidence[/hypnotized]

What baffles me about Craig and his band of merry tricksters is that they are talking about a cartoon that shows it hitting the freaking pentagon! C'mon Craig, you psuedo-Truther, lets see the math that levels that bank out and takes that plane up and over the impact site at the Pentagon

Caustic Logic · 25th September 2008, 03:58 PM

Re: presentation cited above -this is definitely it. Check the Powerpoint presentation, page 5.
http://www.agi.com/downloads/events/...NORAD_9-11.ppt

Caustic Logic · 8th October 2008, 02:56 AM

I've formalized my thesis in the proper and professional format for peer review - an online video. Not youtube, just to be different from everyone else I use veoh. I think it looks better, but it does have these annoying ads at times. http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16173694JAyGmyrE

Essentially, the explanation is the thing i posted earlier about the loop made of alternating returns filled in with curves and lines seems to extend to the final loop, although the usual pattern of every second as anchor seems to be thrown a bit off at the end, or it'd have an even steeper north trend (the last on-track return seems a bit off-track, actually). Obviously after the last real return, it was too low to see, and anything from there would have to be improvised. The final curve seems to be framed by the aberrant final "returns" (??whatever these are???) flanking the Pentagon.

On closer inspection, it seems that the path is from one of the final real returns straight towards the north pin, until it enters a certain orbit of the south one, then arcs right, is straightened again at about route 27, and impacts, of course too high due to the steep wing bank. I think that's the technical reason, anyway.

A change of tune from the northy cartoon proponents at PfffT - Rob and the others were quite excited about it over at their forum, and had dug up all kinds of info, hoping to contact its creator, Sheri Gott, to find out how it was made, and what data this was that seemed to support NoC, or obfuscate it, or whatever... At some point around when I posted these findings, they sorta dropped off the issue and the thread got sidetracked into FAA FOIA stuff that seemed to show Flight 93 landing at Reagan nat'l at 10:28.

Now that is interesting, indirectly anyway. Anyone want to check that out? Is it worth a thread?
PfT forum post

16.5 · 8th October 2008, 11:14 AM

Caustic: Very nice.

What do the CIT and Pfffft boys claim those "aberrant returns" are?

Say, the CIT boys have been awful quiet lately. Maybe they are upset that their latest video dropped like a rock, never to be heard from again?

R.Mackey · 8th October 2008, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic

I've formalized my thesis in the proper and professional format for peer review - an online video. Not youtube, just to be different from everyone else I use veoh. I think it looks better, but it does have these annoying ads at times. http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16173694JAyGmyrE

Good summary.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that the last two bizarre radar returns, apparently from after impact, are false echoes induced by the impact itself. Upon collision, a huge thermal plume laden with shredded aluminum and other reflective debris was thrown up, and this is quite likely to produce a confusing radar return.

We appear to see something similar in the final moments of AA 11, and this erroneous reading seems to have led the 9/11 Commission to overestimate the impact time at WTC 1 by several seconds.

I could be wrong, of course, but this would certainly explain this last anomaly.

Regardless, the only conflict here is that some people (guess who) are extracting an accuracy from this animation that it was never designed to have. Most people, especially early in the investigation, did not care about the aircraft trajectory to within a few meters. They were after a general timeline. The animation was probably as accurate as it needed to be, even though it clearly has shortcomings, e.g. the squared-off loop.

The problem only arises when conspiracy theorists ignorantly push beyond those limits of accuracy. Remember, they're not after answers, they're after "anomalies." Well, if you exceed the limits of accuracy, you will always get experimental errors, and to the deluded those are all "anomalies." SOP for those guys.

Caustic Logic · 8th October 2008, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Caustic: Very nice.

What do the CIT and Pfffft boys claim those "aberrant returns" are?

Say, the CIT boys have been awful quiet lately. Maybe they are upset that their latest video dropped like a rock, never to be heard from again?

Thanks! I'm not sure of their overall takes, and I forget if Farmer had a thought, but CIT tried once to use them to say radar supported NoC. I had to explain how it couldn't be the plane as it had gone well below coverage. (ATS thread)

There's some good debate in the comments under my two latest FF posts.

If ya need a fix.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Good summary.

I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that the last two bizarre radar returns, apparently from after impact, are false echoes induced by the impact itself. Upon collision, a huge thermal plume laden with shredded aluminum and other reflective debris was thrown up, and this is quite likely to produce a confusing radar return.

We appear to see something similar in the final moments of AA 11, and this erroneous reading seems to have led the 9/11 Commission to overestimate the impact time at WTC 1 by several seconds.

Good research over there. You say "I speculate that the final return wasn't from the aircraft at all, but instead from the huge cloud of debris that emerged after impact -- pieces of aircraft, aluminum cladding from WTC 1, and the thermal bubble, all spreading to create a much larger and brighter radar reflector than the aircraft itself." That makes more sense at WTC since the plume originated at nearly 1000 feet up or so, so nut much below radar coverage. At the pentagon, it came from the ground. I can't say if this is right, but something I thought of was how they frame the Pentagon west area N and South, perhaps some inserted markers to say "it ended somewhere between here." Can/would they do that?

Good summation as well on the anomaly-philes. We've seen the depths they'll go to even pretending to have found holes in the narrative.

23rd September 2008, 01:46 PM	#401
GregoryUrich Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Main Street USA Posts: 1,316	According to Mackey the VDOT tower is 3400 ft from impact. At 781 ft/sec that gives us 4.35 seconds. The range you have given for the altitude at that point is 400-440 ASL. At the lower bound, the average fps (based on the impact point, 39 ASL) would be 82. At the upper bound the average fps would be 91.2. What does the FDR fps data average out to over the last 3.5-4.5 seconds? I get 70 fps from the data you posted on the other thread, but that's not the entire time interval.
	__________________ "My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil

23rd September 2008, 02:12 PM	#403
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,903	Originally Posted by GregoryUrich According to Mackey the VDOT tower is 3400 ft from impact. At 781 ft/sec that gives us 4.35 seconds. The range you have given for the altitude at that point is 400-440 ASL. At the lower bound, the average fps (based on the impact point, 39 ASL) would be 82. At the upper bound the average fps would be 91.2. What does the FDR fps data average out to over the last 3.5-4.5 seconds? I get 70 fps from the data you posted on the other thread, but that's not the entire time interval. Those values are over 6 seconds from impact. The terrorist were at 400 MSL to 440 MSL over 6 seconds from the VDOT tower, and 77 was see at the level of the VDOT tower or lower. Someone thought 77 hit the VDOT tower. If you want you can make up 400 feet from VDOT tower, but it is not true. I posted the last 26 second on the FDR, then the data stops at :44, I showed a RADAR fix of 77 at :47. There is no data after the FDR stops within 1500 feet of the YELLOW Dot. FDR time 13:37:44. The best you can get is 2 seconds to the VDOT tower when the FDR stops. The altitude at the yellow dot is 400 to 440 feet MSL. The last twenty six descents. Take your pick for the terrorist to hit the Pentagon. 30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65. feet per second. In order to the last data point at 13:37:44 FDR time.
	Last edited by beachnut; 23rd September 2008 at 02:14 PM.

23rd September 2008, 02:37 PM	#404
GregoryUrich Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Main Street USA Posts: 1,316	Originally Posted by beachnut Those values are over 6 seconds from impact. The terrorist were at 400 MSL to 440 MSL over 6 seconds from the VDOT tower, and 77 was see at the level of the VDOT tower or lower. Someone thought 77 hit the VDOT tower. If you want you can make up 400 feet from VDOT tower, but it is not true. I posted the last 26 second on the FDR, then the data stops at :44, I showed a RADAR fix of 77 at :47. http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/l...ointfarmer.jpg There is no data after the FDR stops within 1500 feet of the YELLOW Dot. FDR time 13:37:44. The best you can get is 2 seconds to the VDOT tower when the FDR stops. The altitude at the yellow dot is 400 to 440 feet MSL. The last twenty six descents. Take your pick for the terrorist to hit the Pentagon. 30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65. feet per second. In order to the last data point at 13:37:44 FDR time. Sorry, I misquoted you on the altitude at the VDOT. Doesn't the NTSB say the impact occured at 13:37:45?
	__________________ "My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil

23rd September 2008, 02:54 PM	#405
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,903	Originally Posted by GregoryUrich Did they change the lawn? Today the lawn is nearly perfectly flat at 9m elev. The highway is at 10m elev. Did they move the highway? Here are some images from GoogleEarth: yes the lawn has changed. The lens is bad, the plane was in a descent, everyone saw a steep approach, the VDOT camera tower clipped slight at 100 MSL supports an average of 2600 feet per minute to impact. you are using Google earth for TERCOM data? The grass sloped towards the Pentagon. The overpass has to be higher than the Pentagon area so trucks can get under the road and this is why 40 foot post are at 100 feet MSL due to the elevation rising to the road. Show me how the plane levels off with the stupid overpass in the way. Large planes go very straight at 463 KIAS, you can't do a box maneuver to level off on the grass, it is impossible. Are you arguing about what you called a slight descent at 60 fps, when I am talking about 43 fps? With the TERRIBLE lens 43 fps would and did look level; you are one funny guy. It is highly unlikely 77 leveled off, unless by accident, the trajectory dynamics do not support rapid changes. Show me a change grater than 40 fps by the terrorist? Where 77 really is gives about 66 fps to impact the Pentagon. This rate is reflected in the last data, and I cheated, the terrorist just inputted the biggest down stick ever, may be the big dive some witnesses saw. So to get to the mark on the VDOT camera tower, you have to beat 66 fps. The next values after 68 and 65 will be near 90 or 100 fps. If we clip the VDOT tower we need 65 fps to hit the Pentagon. If 77 levels off at the overpass, 77 hits too high. 77 has to descend past the 100 foot MSL tap of the VDOT camera tower with 1.3 second to go. 77 also has to go 60 more feet to the impact point. Please humor me and show me the level off. Just do it. 60 feet to go down, and only 1.3 second, and in the prior 30 seconds the terrorist best change in fps was 30 feet! We are missing .7 second to complete the level flight maneuver as the terrorist has been flying. If we are level at the overpass tapping the VDOT camera post at 100 MSL, we must push over to impact at 40 MSL and again we are unable to justify with terrorist dynamics making the 60 feet down. The last twenty six descents. Show me a 40 fps change in any second to second. 30, 24, 48, 54, 58, 58, 48, 44, 50, 52, 50, 62, 70, 100, 104, 110, 94, 86, 82, 102, 92, 96, 98, 92, 68, 65. These are second by second descent rates the terrorist is making. Not one supports a 40 fps pull out to make level fight by impact. Go ahead make my day. ... I missed this, this is funny stuff. The road allows 1 m tall trucks to pass under the infinitesimally thin overpass bridge. Google earth. Little trucks 1 m tall. neat It is true, google earth does not have the correct data for terrain. So even on my Google trucks are 3 feet tall. Or paper thin.
	Last edited by beachnut; 23rd September 2008 at 03:23 PM.

24th September 2008, 08:33 AM	#409
GregoryUrich Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Main Street USA Posts: 1,316	Originally Posted by bje Here's a reference using GIS software. It's the line of sight view from the top of the VDOT tower, 169 feet above ground level, 303.8 feet above MSL, to the impact point at the Pentagon using 10 feet MSL at the target point. The data is derived from the United States Elevation Data (NED) with 30 meter resolution. The green area is the terrain height along the path without structures. If it's useful I can do other profiles. What's the best resolution you can do? I would interested in the part closest to the pentagon.
	__________________ "My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil

23rd September 2008, 01:55 PM	#402
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,807	The sad thing is there is enough to blast the Bush Adminsitration for without having to resort to crackpot Conspiracy theories. If anything, I could make the case that the Truthers have helped Bush last as long as he did in terms of popularity because they made his critics look like a bunch of crackpots.

23rd September 2008, 02:54 PM	#406
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Great analysis, Beachnut. Just so I've got this right, fps here means feet per second, meaning of descent/ascent, correct? And the 26 numbers are the feet descended for those 26 seconds? So, does anyone have a problem with the number of feet needed to drop from that last frame to the tower in app. 2 sec? That's low enough to perhaps hit the tower, below its top, near it and the roof of the FoB says Paik, 30-50 feet over the roof says Morin. Then we agree it'd have to be like 4 sec to impact from there, with so many feet to allocate according towitnesses and damage... shouldn't be too hard. Hint to all - I think giving ranges is more useful here than exact numbers Quote: GU: Sorry, I misquoted you on the altitude at the VDOT. Doesn't the NTSB say the impact occured at 13:37:45? Yes, they also say what it did at that second is crash into the pentagon, at least 1/2 mile from where the FDR shows it, 400 feet below where its at, with a slightly different headin, different bank, different pitch. They didn't actually say this, but it's implied. So they also cite 9:37:44. Hmmm... what to conclude?

23rd September 2008, 03:16 PM	#407
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,903	Originally Posted by Caustic Logic Great analysis, Beachnut. Just so I've got this right, fps here means feet per second, meaning of descent/ascent, correct? And the 26 numbers are the feet descended for those 26 seconds? So, does anyone have a problem with the number of feet needed to drop from that last frame to the tower in app. 2 sec? That's low enough to perhaps hit the tower, below its top, near it and the roof of the FoB says Paik, 30-50 feet over the roof says Morin. Then we agree it'd have to be like 4 sec to impact from there, with so many feet to allocate according towitnesses and damage... shouldn't be too hard. Hint to all - I think giving ranges is more useful here than exact numbers Yes, they also say what it did at that second is crash into the pentagon, at least 1/2 mile from where the FDR shows it, 400 feet below where its at, with a slightly different headin, different bank, different pitch. They didn't actually say this, but it's implied. So they also cite 9:37:44. Hmmm... what to conclude? Feet per second, fps, yes. Feet lost per second.

24th September 2008, 10:03 AM	#410
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,903	Originally Posted by GregoryUrich What's the best resolution you can do? I would interested in the part closest to the pentagon. The lawn area and added hills will not be in the data base. In reality the road is not 36 feet and the lawn at 33 feet, with 3 foot cars in that underpass. 77 would never hit some of the posts if the posts were not up on a raise area. Why do truthers fail to look before they leap to the "ample evidence"? I don't care if the lawn is flat; 77 hit in a dive; there is proof; it involves geometry, a tool not in the truther bag. It also takes interpretation of witness statements, another tool absent from the truther tool box. Wish the truth movement would use facts, evidence, math, geometry, physics, engineering, and other disciplines, instead of hearsay, lies, and junk science, based on what Einstein said; ""Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." It will take a couple of months, if not years part-time, to understand 77 and the Pentagon as you wade through the ignorance of the truth movement many lies on 77 and the Pentagon. Hundreds of witnesses, thousands of pieces of evidence are ignored. Witnesses are call government agents as the paranoid terrorist apologist spew implications of lies. Why are truthers apologizing for terrorist who take credit freely?

24th September 2008, 12:56 PM	#411
bje Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: On Solid Ground Posts: 1,280	Originally Posted by GregoryUrich What's the best resolution you can do? I would interested in the part closest to the pentagon. This has 10 meter resolution: Pentagon 2.jpg
	__________________ - There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.

24th September 2008, 01:01 PM	#412
GregoryUrich Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Main Street USA Posts: 1,316	Originally Posted by bje This has 10 meter resolution: Attachment 11958 Thanks.
	__________________ "My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil

24th September 2008, 02:06 PM	#413
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,903	Originally Posted by bje This has 10 meter resolution: Attachment 11958 Looks like 2600 feet per minute will hack it.

25th September 2008, 01:31 AM	#414
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Thanks for the graphs, bje. They look not far off from my earlier analysis, using various sources and photos, but probably more accurate. I'll keep these around in case I ever look at topography again. As far as the OP, it looks like radar is the base source, some odd system of lines and cirves between alternating returns responsible for the anomalies, is the best guess. As for WHY it matches CIT's assembled path almost to a "T", coincidence is only one possibility. Craig's statements regarding it, to spur renewed discussion: Quote: But the precise north side banking maneuver depicted can not simply be an accident or coincidence given all the independent evidence proving a general approach of this nature. This was clearly created for a reason. It may simply be an obfuscation effort to make it seem like there is a large enough margin of error between north or south of the citgo that it would be an easy "mistake" to make. Didn't work on me! I'm aware that a radar-based animation and on-the-ground witnesses do not suffer the same types of errors! Quote: What's actually comical about this is how hard the pseudo-skeptics tried to claim this flight path is "impossible"! Would the FAA really go out of their way to animate something so precise and deliberate with such a drastic bank if it was "impossible"? I think not. There ya go... if it can happen in a cartoon... Quote: Ok.....what this data means is that people who DO accept government data as valid evidence are now forced to move towards believing the north side approach. If you put the evidence in a "statistical process control" chart it would be off the hook in favor of north side. But WE do not have to embrace it since the witnesses already prove the north side approach anyway. So in essence it gives us more fire to throw in their faces while we can remain as non-committal on it as we want. Yeah! I like the sounds of that! Sure he would. [hypnotized]I have seen the plane north of the Citgo in two different cartoons now, and must obey the evidence[/hypnotized]
	Last edited by Caustic Logic; 25th September 2008 at 01:34 AM.

25th September 2008, 03:48 AM	#415
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath? Just found an interesting clue at the Pilots for Truth Forum: a presentation by AGI President and CEO Paul Graziani, regarding their 9/11 animations. http://www.informs-cs.org/wsc02papers/001.pdf Quote: Actual FAA radar data was used to accurately recreate the events and model the flight paths of hijacked airlines as well as the responding military aircraft. Of interest is the line: Quote: Complex problems that once took weeks or months to complete, now take only seconds or minutes when employing software capabilities. Maybe they should have at least spent hours on this one. Dang, this truther person offers something useful: Quote: they have a forum, if anyone wants to ask some questions, though of course, there is no guarantee that they will or are able to respond, but perhaps worth a try none the less? http://www.stk.com/agiforum/ https://www.stk.com/MyAccount/index.cfm Eh?

25th September 2008, 07:29 AM	#416
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,695	Originally Posted by Caustic Logic Craig's statements regarding it, to spur renewed discussion: There ya go... if it can happen in a cartoon... Sure he would. [hypnotized]I have seen the plane north of the Citgo in two different cartoons now, and must obey the evidence[/hypnotized] What baffles me about Craig and his band of merry tricksters is that they are talking about a cartoon that shows it hitting the freaking pentagon! C'mon Craig, you psuedo-Truther, lets see the math that levels that bank out and takes that plane up and over the impact site at the Pentagon
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,695

25th September 2008, 03:58 PM	#417
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Re: presentation cited above -this is definitely it. Check the Powerpoint presentation, page 5. http://www.agi.com/downloads/events/...NORAD_9-11.ppt

8th October 2008, 02:56 AM	#418
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	likely explanation I've formalized my thesis in the proper and professional format for peer review - an online video. Not youtube, just to be different from everyone else I use veoh. I think it looks better, but it does have these annoying ads at times. http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16173694JAyGmyrE Essentially, the explanation is the thing i posted earlier about the loop made of alternating returns filled in with curves and lines seems to extend to the final loop, although the usual pattern of every second as anchor seems to be thrown a bit off at the end, or it'd have an even steeper north trend (the last on-track return seems a bit off-track, actually). Obviously after the last real return, it was too low to see, and anything from there would have to be improvised. The final curve seems to be framed by the aberrant final "returns" (??whatever these are???) flanking the Pentagon. On closer inspection, it seems that the path is from one of the final real returns straight towards the north pin, until it enters a certain orbit of the south one, then arcs right, is straightened again at about route 27, and impacts, of course too high due to the steep wing bank. I think that's the technical reason, anyway. A change of tune from the northy cartoon proponents at PfffT - Rob and the others were quite excited about it over at their forum, and had dug up all kinds of info, hoping to contact its creator, Sheri Gott, to find out how it was made, and what data this was that seemed to support NoC, or obfuscate it, or whatever... At some point around when I posted these findings, they sorta dropped off the issue and the thread got sidetracked into FAA FOIA stuff that seemed to show Flight 93 landing at Reagan nat'l at 10:28. Now that is interesting, indirectly anyway. Anyone want to check that out? Is it worth a thread? PfT forum post

8th October 2008, 11:14 AM	#419
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,695	Caustic: Very nice. What do the CIT and Pfffft boys claim those "aberrant returns" are? Say, the CIT boys have been awful quiet lately. Maybe they are upset that their latest video dropped like a rock, never to be heard from again?
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,695

8th October 2008, 11:33 AM	#420
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by Caustic Logic I've formalized my thesis in the proper and professional format for peer review - an online video. Not youtube, just to be different from everyone else I use veoh. I think it looks better, but it does have these annoying ads at times. http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16173694JAyGmyrE Good summary. I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that the last two bizarre radar returns, apparently from after impact, are false echoes induced by the impact itself. Upon collision, a huge thermal plume laden with shredded aluminum and other reflective debris was thrown up, and this is quite likely to produce a confusing radar return. We appear to see something similar in the final moments of AA 11, and this erroneous reading seems to have led the 9/11 Commission to overestimate the impact time at WTC 1 by several seconds. I could be wrong, of course, but this would certainly explain this last anomaly. Regardless, the only conflict here is that some people (guess who) are extracting an accuracy from this animation that it was never designed to have. Most people, especially early in the investigation, did not care about the aircraft trajectory to within a few meters. They were after a general timeline. The animation was probably as accurate as it needed to be, even though it clearly has shortcomings, e.g. the squared-off loop. The problem only arises when conspiracy theorists ignorantly push beyond those limits of accuracy. Remember, they're not after answers, they're after "anomalies." Well, if you exceed the limits of accuracy, you will always get experimental errors, and to the deluded those are all "anomalies." SOP for those guys.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

8th October 2008, 03:34 PM	#421
Caustic Logic Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 3,979	Originally Posted by 16.5 Caustic: Very nice. What do the CIT and Pfffft boys claim those "aberrant returns" are? Say, the CIT boys have been awful quiet lately. Maybe they are upset that their latest video dropped like a rock, never to be heard from again? Thanks! I'm not sure of their overall takes, and I forget if Farmer had a thought, but CIT tried once to use them to say radar supported NoC. I had to explain how it couldn't be the plane as it had gone well below coverage. (ATS thread) There's some good debate in the comments under my two latest FF posts. If ya need a fix. Originally Posted by R.Mackey Good summary. I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that the last two bizarre radar returns, apparently from after impact, are false echoes induced by the impact itself. Upon collision, a huge thermal plume laden with shredded aluminum and other reflective debris was thrown up, and this is quite likely to produce a confusing radar return. We appear to see something similar in the final moments of AA 11, and this erroneous reading seems to have led the 9/11 Commission to overestimate the impact time at WTC 1 by several seconds. Good research over there. You say "I speculate that the final return wasn't from the aircraft at all, but instead from the huge cloud of debris that emerged after impact -- pieces of aircraft, aluminum cladding from WTC 1, and the thermal bubble, all spreading to create a much larger and brighter radar reflector than the aircraft itself." That makes more sense at WTC since the plume originated at nearly 1000 feet up or so, so nut much below radar coverage. At the pentagon, it came from the ground. I can't say if this is right, but something I thought of was how they frame the Pentagon west area N and South, perhaps some inserted markers to say "it ended somewhere between here." Can/would they do that? Good summation as well on the anomaly-philes. We've seen the depths they'll go to even pretending to have found holes in the narrative.