IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Pentagon Rotated To Face Claimed South Path, In NTSB Flight Path Study Diagram

tnemelckram
post Jan 30 2009, 05:34 PM
Post #1





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



I don't know whether this was done deliberately or not or what significance it has, but it sure is misleading and improperly conveys the image of a square on impact from the South Flight Path.

1. Note the actual orientation of the five walls of the Pentagon in dMole's Google Earth picture:



http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/19354

One wall faces almost due north. The claimed "impact" wall faces northwest so any plane on the claimed South Path would approach at an acute angle and strike a blow hat could be fairly described as "glancing". A plane coming from North of Citgo would approach on a less acute angle and be positioned to deliver a more direct and square blow.

2. Now look at how the Pentagon is oriented in Figure 3 of the NTSB Flight Path Study that was signed by that Jim Ritter guy.



Instead of a flat wall facing due north, we have the pointed apex of two of the five sides. The purported impact wall is rotated to face southwestward, presenting an almost perpendicular face to the claimed South Path. It appears that on at at least a subliminal level someone realized that the claimed damage was only consistent with a blow more direct than that offered by the South Path.
Reason for edit: Fixed broken link
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 30 2009, 06:14 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



You'll also notice that if you extend the flight path sketch, it crosses over Columbia pike to the north flight path.. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 30 2009, 06:37 PM
Post #3





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



QUOTE
You'll also notice that if you extend the flight path sketch, it crosses over Columbia pike to the north flight path.. wink.gif


Just like dMole's Google Earth picture above. By my count, we have five sets of .csv radar data each showing, inter alia, the purported latitude and longitude of the last several radar returns (to eight decimal places!). RADES, BWI, IAD, DCA and ADW. They were extracted and plotted on GE
and then smoothed out to produce the North of Citgo extensions of the flight path shown by the lines in the drawing. There's little in that data to suggest any other path. So now I guess this makes six.

I think you've seen the thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15913

This post has been edited by dMole: Jan 31 2009, 02:28 PM
Reason for edit: Color coded lines, typo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 30 2009, 06:57 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jan 30 2009, 06:37 PM) *
So now I guess this makes six.


Make that seven... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 30 2009, 11:57 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Well TN, the RADES data (in a .XLS file) was only given to 4 decimal places (which translated to an "error radius" of ~46 feet and change at this approximate lat/lon, IIRC) although the RADES readme.doc states the radar range error is +/- 1/8 nautical mile (759.51 feet or 231.5 meters). I also threw out that final RADES return as Boeing transports don't generally make "tight" 90 degree turns, and that point clearly goes against the RADES heading trend after 09:37:00-ish EDT.

FWIW, the 1/8 nm "radii" approximately overlap when centered on those 2 final RADES returns (including the discarded one), or use ~0.83 of a Pentagon wall distance for scale. Of course the RADES error pattern would be far from circular (actually a polar "wedge")- see the RADES cover letter or Tume's analysis that opened the thread linked above for details, but the key here is "Azimuth accuracy is limited to approximately 0.2 degrees for both primary and secondary radar systems" from the RADES readme.doc

Bottom line- the RADES error is range dependent, so exactly which points is one interested in for error analysis (in the interests of efficiency)? No FAA radar specs were given with the "released" data that I'm aware of, so TN and I did a "4th decimal place" analysis just to have something there (and I think we were the first to even address the issue). I'm quite curious exactly how the decimal lat/lon data was obtained in those "released" spreadsheets though, as the 2 very large FAA raw data files appeared to be "polar" to me.

Now as to how exactly NTSB leaped from the lat/lon positions in the NTSB "AA77_tabular.csv" file to what/where they depicted above??? blink.gif whistle.gif

See posts #6, 7 and 8 on this thread regarding NTSB "location:"

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10763025

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/18929

EDIT: Also TN, your image link was broken, so I edited/added a couple of links there for you- was this one the image you meant? That was from post #18 I believe:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10763447
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 31 2009, 12:02 AM
Post #6





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Rob!

QUOTE
Make that seven wink.gif


I went back and reviewed some threads and am now confused about the number of items that might show position in the minute before the Pentagon. This short list gives a brief description of each and its import, Please let me know if I have misunderstood or misstated anything, or left anything out.

1. Summer 2006 NTSB FDR Animation - shows over Navy Annex and NoC. Hoists OCT on own petard because it claims to rely on it and is now stuck with it.

2. August 2008 FAA Crash Animation - shows over Navy Annex and NoC. Purpose and intent undetermined so importance and meaning unknown as of now.

3. Summer 2006 NTSB FDR DME - shows over Navy Annex and NoC at 1.5 because other position on south path is too far away. Hoists OCT on own petard because it claims to rely on it and is now stuck with it..

4. Summer 2006 NTSB FDR Inertial Navigation - shows flight ending 17 miles away in Chantilly. and is just silly. Hoists OCT on own petard because it claims to rely on it and is now stuck with having relied on nonsense. After looking at it properly, should be discarded for positional purposes but used to show the sloppiness of the the OCT.

5. Summer 2007? FAA? RADES Radar Data - shows path tending toward over Navy Annex and NoC when last obviously too late and out of position return is excluded, both by itself and in conjunction with DCA, ADW and IAD Radar Data. Hoists OCT on own petard.

6. August 2008 FAA DCA Radar Data - shows path tending toward over Navy Annex and NoC whether or not last obviously too late return is excluded, both by itself and in conjunction with RADES, ADW and IAD Radar Data. Not used to create or support OCT; significant because it should have been used.

7. August 2008 FAA ADW Radar Data - shows path tending toward over Navy Annex and NoC both by itself and in conjunction with RADES, DCA and IAD Radar Data. Not used to create or support OCT; significant because it should have been used.

8. August 2008 FAA IAD Radar Data - shows path tending toward over Navy Annex and NoC both by itself and in conjunction with RADES, DCA and ADW Radar Data. Not used to create or support OCT; significant because it should have been used.

9. August 2008 FAA BWI Radar Data - shows path heading much further northeast of Navy Annex and NoC than RADES, DCA, IAD and ADW. Not used to create or support OCT; significant because it should have been considered. Should be discarded for positional purposes while pointing out that this was an informed decision, unlike the OCT.

10. August 2008 FAA ZDC Radar Data - doesn't shed light on what happened down low near the Pentagon. Not surprising because it's not supposed to. Unlike the OCT, this stone wasn't left unturned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 31 2009, 12:43 AM
Post #7



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I'm fairly sure that the USAF 84 RADES data was released in mid-October 2007 (and Tume and I had drawn our general conclusions before Christmas 2007 there), and the collective "release" of all the FAA data began in mid-September 2008. Strangely, there has been what could best be described as a "controlled" release of this FAA data set by the primary/sole? source for reasons unknown...

EDIT: Also the FAA DCA "graphical average" trends to over the northern/middle part of the Citgo canopy, where the other extension lines all trend NoC (as in fully north of the canopy's NW corner, which I have marked as a reference point in Google Earth)

See this "zoomed" version of the above image:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/19358

Also, 1 of the 2 links in the OP is broken again now- image servers... dunno.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 31 2009, 12:58 AM
Post #8





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi dMole!

QUOTE
Of course the RADES error pattern would be far from circular (actually a polar "wedge")- see the RADES cover letter or Tume's analysis that opened the thread linked above for details, but the key here is "Azimuth accuracy is limited to approximately 0.2 degrees for both primary and secondary radar systems" from the RADES readme.doc

Bottom line- the RADES error is range dependent,


In the data the azimuth column number ranged from 1 to 360 so I gathered that wedge shapes from the base were important. The wedge gets wider the further you move away from the base, but its still denominated as one wedge, so I think I understand roughly how the distance would affect accuracy. The BWI radar is furthest away so that might explain why the BWI returns were so different and ended first.

But on the other hand, the DCA radar was right next door and its last return at 13:37:46 appears to be 2-3 seconds too late from a time and distance perspective.

QUOTE
so exactly which points is one interested in for error analysis (in the interests of efficiency)?


I noticed a pattern where the sequence of the separate returns from each airport seemed to zig zag a bit. Maybe using all of them might be the best control. You have four overlaid zig zags from RADES, ADW, IAD and DCA. Would basically determining the mean or median or whatever with a line down the middle of all of them that puts an equal number on each side best account for error?
Of course there would have to be an accepted mathematical method to determine the line, I don't propose eeenie meenie miney mo.

QUOTE
I'm quite curious exactly how the decimal lat/lon data was obtained in those "released" spreadsheets though, as the 2 very large FAA raw data files appeared to be "polar" to me.


When I studied the general outlines of this data to try to get a better understanding of it I saw that the FAA has some facility that converts or exchanges coordinates between the various projections and datum. Some of the data files have code or other lines on them that appear to me to be the result of this process. I even downloaded a "TatuGIS" Calculator to try to get a feel for it. You still don't want me to sail a ship for you.



QUOTE
Now as to how exactly NTSB leaped from the lat/lon positions in the "AA77_tabular.csv" file to what/where they depicted above??? blink.gif whistle.gif


DO you mean from the Chantilly INS to the RADES? It seeems to me that the Commission gave the bum's rush to the four airport radar data but did hang their hat on RADES.
S
[
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 31 2009, 01:10 AM
Post #9





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



dMole - I don't know if you have seen this before but I'm reading it now. Its the Recorded Radar Study
in the NTSB Release and looks like it will shed some light or excuses on the matters in your earlier Post.

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

Edit to add:

I just read it. Real Scientific. They used only the RADES and FDR data "if available and necessary" to determine the big picture of the flights. They did not even look at the end of AA77 in detail. They did explain how the coordinate data was translated and touched on the margin of radar error.

IF we just split 'em in two and draw some lines we'd do better..

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jan 31 2009, 01:32 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 31 2009, 02:12 AM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jan 30 2009, 11:10 PM) *
dMole - I don't know if you have seen this before but I'm reading it now. Its the Recorded Radar Study
in the NTSB Release and looks like it will shed some light or excuses on the matters in your earlier Post.

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

I hadn't seen that before. You would think it would have been referenced somewhere along the line, especially in the most recent FAA release (or the USAF 84 RADES documentation)...

The problem is if we "add 25.3 seconds" for the "NEADS lag" (as instructed on p.3 of 21 in that .PDF) to the final AA77 RADES return it turns this Zulu time:

13:37:47.810 (this approximate EDT: 9:37:48 ) into this specific EDT:

09:38:13.110

I think NTSB needed to look a little closer at that alleged "impact" time, which is listed at Paul Thompson's website as around 09:37.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?...#a937c130near77

The ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Report appears very careful to use the phrase "at the time of the crash" [or impact], but didn't ever say what that was exactly, in my search of b03017.pdf just now. Hmmm...

EDIT: According to:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

p.4 of 19 states:

"... with the last recorded data occurring at 09:37:44 EDT."

The parameter list begins at p.5 of 36, and the plots start at p.19 of 36 in the .PDF.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 1:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.pdf

p. 27 of 46 in the .PDF:

"...The Pentagon had been struck by American 77 at 9:37:46. The Langley fighters were about 150 miles away.154
..."

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm

EDIT: According to:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/techpaperAA77

"The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

* Animation stops at 09:37:44. NTSB calculates impact time at 09:37:45. Many CSV file parameters terminate at 09:37:45."
Reason for edit: Added FDR report link
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 31 2009, 04:31 AM
Post #11





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi dMole:

I threatened to draw some unscientific lines on the strength of that Radar report and here they are:

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id3869956544.html

I'll explain my method once I know this link takes. I tested it and it zooms in and everything. I have learned that doesn't guarantee success. My method is as good and arbitrary as the Radar Report.

Might as well explain it in an edit. Both lines start on the icon for the first DCA return. One takes account of the three BWI icons while the other does not. Both try to bisect as many icons as possible in a straight line, while keeping an equal number of non bisected icons on each side of the line, and keeping the total distance of all icons on either side as close to even as possible. Poor Man's Calculus.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jan 31 2009, 04:36 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 31 2009, 06:14 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Yes, that imported fine (except messing with those 2 lines' properties still crashes my "beta" version of GE- grrrrrr...). I added 4 folders for ADW, BWI, IAD, and DCA and dragged the corresponding points into the applicable folder. This makes it "CAD-like," and you can turn the datasets on & off, which is nice. The northernmost of those two lines falls at the "SE" corner of my 09:37:36 marker, and they are both still between that 2nd last RADES point and the "NW" Pentagon corner.

I'll see if I can import a 2nd image layer into my existing CAD file for comparison without too much hassle (using the new image with 2 lines).

Did anyone else notice that this NTSB "Recorded Radar Data Study" dated February 15, 2002 did not list registration "N" numbers for the "Boeing 767"s listed on the first page (AA11 and UA175) and that they were not listed as B767-200 aircraft? Then we have that "UAL83" on p.4 of 21...

I suppose that's "reasonable" though, since USAF thought one of the 4 aircraft was a Boeing 747... At least theyTM are consistent.

Here are a couple of captures from p.2 and 3 of that NTSB document:

p.2
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/20040

p.3
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/20041
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 31 2009, 02:23 PM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jan 31 2009, 02:31 AM) *
Both lines start on the icon for the first DCA return. One takes account of the three BWI icons while the other does not. Both try to bisect as many icons as possible in a straight line, while keeping an equal number of non bisected icons on each side of the line, and keeping the total distance of all icons on either side as close to even as possible. Poor Man's Calculus.

Well TN, you must have either a pretty good eyeball or a pretty good ruler... wink.gif The "northeast" end of those two lines fell between my USAF RADES trend (after discarding that last erroneous point) and the ADW resultant trend. In fact, that northern of the two (which I drew in dark red) was very nearly on top of my yellow "graphical average" on the "Pentagon end." The white hand icon in the images had lat/lon coordinates of N 38.874774 W 77.055221 deg.

I did get ~45 feet of "offset" with the Pentagon image roughly NW of my existing "Image1" datum on the initial import. I haven't corrected this yet (as it is about the 4-decimal "error radius" that we both found before), but it is worth mentioning. I can fix this with about a dozen clicks/keystrokes, and I only made one initial scale adjustment when importing your new "Image2" drawing with the 2 lines. I also added some small green "error circles" of the ~46.25 foot radius I analyzed on the other thread, and the 2 blue circles are the "1/8nm" RADES error (although the angular error "wedge" should be much smaller). These are relative to the initial "Img1" import, not the new "offset" "Img2" with your 2 white lines.

Here are the results:

TN's 2 lines, with "Image2":
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/20145

Same thing, "Img2" off:
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/20146

"Img2" with all trend extension lines turned on
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/20147

Same thing, "Img2" off:
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/20148
-----------------------------------------
For initial image import "offset" comparison, here is "Img1"- compare it by switching between this and the first (TN's 2 lines, with "Image2"):
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/20149
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 31 2009, 06:49 PM
Post #14





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi dMole!

Thanks for your quick work on my "lines".


QUOTE
Well TN, you must have either a pretty good eyeball or a pretty good ruler... wink.gif


Hillbilly Calculus.

What I'd like to find is a government plot of the waypoints that make its South Flight Path. I guess what I would first like to find is whether or not such a thing exists. Can you tell me where to find one?

Given the at least ten data sources for plotting that I listed above, and the tortured history of the data releases, and all of the interpretations of same, I'm now not sure of what data the government actually used to lay out the South Flight Path. Can you tell me? Right now it looks like its the RADES data alone, maybe that in conjunction with some other FDR data (INS, DME)

I'd like to take the government waypoints (if any), plot them on our GE diagrams, and see how they relate to our data. I suspect the result would be total disregard of all our data (which would mean total disregard of their own data). Or cherrypicking.

Of course, if there is no South Flight Path backed with specific waypoints drawn from some source, that would raise other issues and even more serious issues.

I did a diligent search of this Board to answer these questions myself and although I think I have seen the answers to my questions I could not find them for use now..

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jan 31 2009, 10:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Feb 5 2009, 09:55 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I've noticed that nearly all the Pentagon maps and drawings are rotated "anti-north" for whatever reason(s). Since the Sep 2001 magnetic declination near the Pentagon was approx. 10.5 degrees, I wouldn't even mind magnetic (as opposed to geographic or "true" North). Oh well...

Here is a fairly good diagram from the Washington Post (sourced to DoD) with a "scale Boeing":

http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/imgs/...avy_command.gif


There are other strange maps/diagrams listed in the related threads:

Pentagon Maps And Dimensions- Reference
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13365

http://www.dtic.mil/ref/html/Welcome/PDFs/Pent.pdf

Coordinates of Key Locations, Google Earth, etc., Split from RADES M2 TBI Aircraft
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=14832

Some informative information may be in the thread:

Google Earth Howto, and a Bit on File Servers- split
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=16090

EDIT: More resources can be found linked at my post #10 on Enver's "Damage Path" thread:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10764142
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Feb 5 2009, 10:17 AM
Post #16





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



So if you rotate the Pentagon to align to the "north" indicated in the diagram, would the plane have to miss the light poles and take not the "South Path" indicated by the FDR INS data but instead a new
"South of South Flight Path" to hit the Pentagon?

Let's check it out if possible!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Feb 5 2009, 10:29 AM
Post #17



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



See the synopsis/links that I just posted on post #7 of the "South Flight Path- A Myth?" thread, TN:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10764192

It links to post #13 on Enver's "damage path" thread (that I edited in above). That horse looks pretty durn' dead to me at this point. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Feb 5 2009, 11:50 AM
Post #18





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



HI dMole!


QUOTE
That horse looks pretty durn' dead to me at this point. wink.gif


What I think is significant is not that we killed the horse, but rather that it was DOA when delivered to us because the government never claimed it on the first place. Nor did they claim the downed poles as support. All we did is develop the probable reasons why they didn't make those claims.

In essence, the government claim is this: "The FDR data and RADES data show that the plane flew in from the west and struck the Pentagon." However, the details of that FDR and RADES data were not used to support the government claim and the claim does not include any explanation of how those details support it or any refernce to them at all. Nor does it include the South Path or the poles.

Up above, I listed ten or eleven items of supporting data that was available to the government. Their claim uses none of it, including the FDR INS data and severed poles that would facially support it. That's because none of that unused data supports it.

It appears that the video showing the North Path was derived from 1.5 off of DME as Rob did. Apparently the government recognized that this was the way to go as well when they made the video. Hence no claim to a specific path.

SO the only question I have left is what readout of the FDR was corrected by 21 minutes longitude to arrive at the "Chantilly Course"? It doesn't appear to be the Readout 2, from which come the INS data showing a "South Path" , which also had DME data that Rob cojoined with the INS to show the North Path, the sum of which appears to be reflected in the NTSB Video.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Feb 5 2009, 04:09 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 1-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Feb 5 2009, 09:50 AM) *
SO the only question I have left is what readout of the FDR was corrected by 21 minutes longitude to arrive at the "Chantilly Course"? It doesn't appear to be the Readout 2, from which come the INS data showing a "South Path" , which also had DME data that Rob cojoined with the INS to show the North Path, the sum of which appears to be reflected in the NTSB Video.

Well, if I add 21 arcminutes of longitude to that last "official" NTSB position at 09:37:44, that takes us from Chantilly to The Plains, VA (close to the NEADS/RADES radar station, I believe):

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/21010

Subtracting 21 arcminutes of longitude puts us just north of the I395/Highway 37 interchange (mostly south of the Navy Annex parking lot?):

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/21011

Zooming in on that location:

[ 38.866670 -77.066667, where the elevation shows 124 feet]

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/21013

Finally, here is the distance (in US feet to the approximate "impact" location from that "-21 arcmin" location):

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/21012

[approx. 2845 feet]

Some "good news-" there is a new Google Earth 5.0 beta version out. I just upgraded to it since my old one crashed so often, and it adds many new features (bearing plus distance, flyover tours, image timeshifting, etc.). I can also now work with/edit those waypoint paths, so I do recommend this over my older version.

You can find it at:

http://earth.google.com/download-earth.html

So what was the "justification" reference for the +/- 21 arcminutes again? I'll look at the start of that NTSB data and see how they compare when I get time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bjohnson
post Feb 5 2009, 04:20 PM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 22
Joined: 22-April 08
Member No.: 3,204



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 31 2009, 02:23 PM) *
Here are the results:

TN's 2 lines, with "Image2":
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/20145

Same thing, "Img2" off:
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/20146

"Img2" with all trend extension lines turned on
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/20147

Same thing, "Img2" off:
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/20148
-----------------------------------------
For initial image import "offset" comparison, here is "Img1"- compare it by switching between this and the first (TN's 2 lines, with "Image2"):
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/20149


I'm a little under the weather today, so forgive me if the answer is obvious...but is that trajectories calculated from government supplied radar returns using claimed margin of error and showing a North of Citco flight path and not a OCT flight path?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st September 2017 - 09:46 PM