IPB




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 )

18 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
USAF 84 RADES Data For UA175 Indicates Mach 1 Speed?, edited title

tit2
post Sep 25 2007, 03:51 AM
Post #41





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 126
Joined: 27-April 07
Member No.: 999



Quote :

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/...that-ua175.html

“A Boeing 767-200 can't fly 500 mph at an altitude of 700 feet!!! So says Boeing!”

I suppose that the same remark can be made for a Boeing 757-223 (airplane which hit the pentagon)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

Officially:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

“At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour. All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.”

530 miles per hour, at a distance much nearer to the ground than 700 feet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 25 2007, 08:27 AM
Post #42





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (tit2 @ Sep 25 2007, 02:51 AM)
Quote :

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/...that-ua175.html

“A Boeing 767-200 can't fly 500 mph at an altitude of 700 feet!!! So says Boeing!”

I suppose that the same remark can be made for a Boeing 757-223 (airplane which hit the pentagon)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

Officially:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

“At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour. All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.”

530 miles per hour, at a distance much nearer to the ground than 700 feet.

Correctly noted, tit2. As you say the Pentagon Plane is an impossibility. Much work has been done here at Pilots that further substantiates this. The perps really had people going for a little while didn't they? I think, however, that the curtain is lifting. thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Sep 25 2007, 11:13 AM
Post #43



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,688
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 24 2007, 09:25 AM)
On another note:  waterdancer's sample google map reminded me of something.  DulceDecorum, over at Progressive Independent, pointed out that Flight 175 didn't depart from Logan (Airport reference code: KBOS) according to the NTSB accident report below:

NTSB accident report

Note on page 3: it says UA 175 departed from Boston MA, and the identifier is listed as 1MA3.  Now, 1MA3 is the code for Boston Heliport!!!

That is really strange.

This tells me one of two things...

1. They tasked someone so incompetent to write up the reports that they wouldnt look into details...

or...

2. Someone did that on purpose as a sort of "flag" to others look closer at the departure...


I cannot fathom someone that incompetent at the NTSB not getting the Airport ID correct for BOS... so im leaning towards number 2.

I'll be researching NYC events in depth once i get done with UA93 work. Keep up the good works guys...

(as for missles launched from Mass Bay, try to keep that in the alt theory section... i'd hate to move this thread..)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 25 2007, 04:04 PM
Post #44





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Sep 25 2007, 10:13 AM)
QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 24 2007, 09:25 AM)
Note on page 3: it says UA 175 departed from Boston MA, and the identifier is listed as 1MA3.  Now, 1MA3 is the code for Boston Heliport!!!

That is really strange.

This tells me one of two things...

1. They tasked someone so incompetent to write up the reports that they wouldnt look into details...

or...

2. Someone did that on purpose as a sort of "flag" to others look closer at the departure...


I cannot fathom someone that incompetent at the NTSB not getting the Airport ID correct for BOS... so im leaning towards number 2.

I'll be researching NYC events in depth once i get done with UA93 work. Keep up the good works guys...

(as for missles launched from Mass Bay, try to keep that in the alt theory section... i'd hate to move this thread..)

Point taken about the Missile Launch theorizing and I'll back off from more of that here, but it did stem from the equally strange NTSB notation on their groundtrack diagram of the flight 175 origination point as being ten miles out to sea. This is curious, isn't it?

On the one hand they assert take off was from Boston Heliport, on the other they indicate an offshore take off. As for a reason for this strangeness in the NTSB fact documenting: I lean towards your #2 also. Is this a whistle blower attempt to clue people in: a message in a bottle as it were?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Sep 25 2007, 04:49 PM
Post #45



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Regarding reviewing the flight data recorder files for a Boeing 757 that was supposed to be flying at 500+ mph near the ground -

Between accepting a lie as the official data as it's presented and then showing it to be a lie, or claiming it to be a lie before reviewing it, which is more effective when all is said and done?

wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Sep 25 2007, 05:48 PM
Post #46





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 25 2007, 03:04 PM)
Regarding the:

"strange NTSB notation on their groundtrack diagram of the flight 175 origination point as being ten miles out to sea."

I looked over each of the NTSB ground track diagrams from the 9/11 flight reports.

AA 11 Report

AA 77 Report

UA 93 Report

UA 175 Report

All four reports are dated 2/19/02 and signed off by Jim Ritter, Chief Vehicle Performance Division, NTSB Office of Research and Engineering, Washington D.C.

The ground tracks all correctly document the flight take off points as occurring from the planes' respective airports, i.e. Boston Logan, Washington Dulles, and Newark NJ, apart from the one for United Airlines Flight 175 which, as I've noted previously, documents a take off point approximately ten miles East of Boston Logan, and offshore.

Hmmmm...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 1 2007, 05:58 PM
Post #47





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



genghis6199 has made a video entitled "Cruising Speed" summarizing the above findings (including the offshore launch aspect) packaging it with shure's (aka Jeff) wonderful phone call to the Boeing company and a neat comparison with the space shuttle.

Cruising Speed

Nice Work, genghis6199, and thank you much for helping to propagate this "Nail In The Coffin" information.

Cheers, Factfinder General cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
genghis6119
post Oct 1 2007, 10:39 PM
Post #48





Group: Newbie
Posts: 30
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 1,730



my pleasure. keep it up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 1 2007, 11:44 PM
Post #49





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (genghis6119 @ Oct 1 2007, 09:39 PM)
my pleasure. keep it up.

You too. thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 2 2007, 12:35 PM
Post #50



Group Icon

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



Good work,

I don't want to start a "no plane" or "pod" flame war here with my 2nd post, but my time working on various NASA/USAF/NRO/AFRL/ONR engineering projects has had me pointing to existing F-22 Raptor technology when the subject of "pod" debunking comes up (the proper term is "hardpoint!" not "pod!!"-- grrrr):

Two simple questions (hinted at VERY well by the RATTLR link above which caused me to post this):
1. Where does an F-22 Raptor store its missiles?
2. Why? (One word answer starting with "S" if a hint is needed).

Or take a look at this USAF sub-sonic? "low observable" that has been in service since 1990:

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3548

I didn't see a maximum velocity listed- my money says the real number is classified anyway IMHO... I'm just sayin'

Okay, here's a "spoiler" on the F-22A Raptor questions:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=199
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 2 2007, 12:44 PM
Post #51



Group Icon

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



Oh and FfG,

I've got CAD software installed and a means to get angles and distances with my image software, if this helps to lock down your "full military power" Boeings- just let me know what maps or images and waypoints you want measured.

dM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Oct 2 2007, 01:11 PM
Post #52



Group Icon

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



Okay 2 more things- I've got TopoUSA if that would help

Also see the following "vector based" online map (read that accurate, like CAD)

http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapbrowse-tbl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 2 2007, 01:22 PM
Post #53





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 2 2007, 12:11 PM)
Okay 2 more things- I've got TopoUSA if that would help

Also see the following "vector based" online map (read that accurate, like CAD)

http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapbrowse-tbl

A warm hello to you, dMole, and I hope you aren't (a "Mole" that is, as in "double agent") wink.gif

Come on over to u2r2h's missile thread if you please:

Go To Thread Here

Your capabilities are going to be useful I imagine. I think I should hook you up with my pal m-v-b. Let me PM him on this and I will get back to you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 2 2007, 03:46 PM
Post #54





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (Factfinder General @ Sep 24 2007, 08:25 AM)
The infamous point (G) happens to be, more or less, at the end of Nami Lane, Hamilton, NJ 08619 (Latitude and Longitude: 40 25 88 50 - 74 68 26 90)

Things get even more curious: It's of great significance to me that the NTSB flight path diagram shows a departure point several miles away from the four letter Logan code symbol.

NTSB report with Ground Track

Now having checked out the flight path departure point from the diagram above and referring to the map below, you will notice that the ground track diagram shows the departure point as being 10 miles due East of Logan Airport, and roughly due South of Manchester.

That's in the bloomin' drink! blink.gif

This specifies an offshore launch.

dmole, my good man, 2 questions if you will:

(1) How far, by your estimation, would it precisely be from my point G of Nami Lane to what was the southerly face of WTC2?

(2) How far exactly is the flight origination point of UA 175 into the water as per the NTSB Groundtrack diagram. What are it's precise coordinates by your calculations?

Lastly, is it possible to indicate these findings with a relevant map based diagram?

Cheers, FfG. salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Oct 2 2007, 03:56 PM
Post #55


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



Great work, Monsieur le General, this is the best timeline for Flight 175's path I've ever seen.

I've done some research on Flight 175, too, so let me contribute this here:


- 1 - the departure of Flight 175

Is the strange "departure airport" of Flight 175 related to the two different wheels-off times 8:13 (official) and 8:23 (BTS database)? I.e., are there maybe two departing Flight 175's?

The 8:13 Flight 175 definitely departed from BOS, runway 9. Here's the ATC transcript:

8:12:21 -- UAL175: Position and hold runway niner United one seventy five
heavy.
8:13:26 -- Local Control East: United one seventy-five heavy runway niner
cleared for takeoff traffics holding in position on four right.
8:13:32 -- UAL175: Cleared for takeoff runway niner uniteds one seventy five
heavy.


http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/foru...ewtopic.php?283

The only source for the 8:23 Flight 175 is the BTS database. Interestingly, the gate departure time 7:59 matches the official story, but the wheels-off time 8:23 definitely does not. These data are generated automatically by mechanical triggers (brakes, landing gear) and are transmitted directly from the aircraft to the airline via ACARS.

So the BTS data show that the plane that lifted off at 8:23 is identical to the plane that pushed back from the gate at 7:59, and that its tail number is N612UA.

So here's my working hypothesis: the plane that lifted off at 8:14 was not N612UA. N612UA lifted off "inofficially" at 8:23 - therefore the strange departure site.

- 2 - the near-collision with Delta 2315

About the same time, the transponder code suddenly changed on United Flight 175, which was flying near the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border. The hijackers had taken over the plane, and the jet began to head back east. This time, the controllers could read the altitude because the hijackers hadn't turned the transponder off; instead they had just changed the code.

But now the jet was headed into the path of other aircraft.

Chris Tucker was working Yardley sector, a busy slice of space, when he saw the United jet turn toward the path of a Delta Boeing 737, which was headed southwest at 28,000 feet. Tucker told the Delta pilot that the aircraft was a suspected hijacking and he didn't know what it was going to do next. The United plane continued to turn. "Delta 2315 turn left immediately heading two zero zero," Tucker said. He had to guess; he didn't know which way the hijacked plane was headed, or if it was going to climb or descend. Just below and four miles behind the Delta was USAir Flight 542, another Boeing 737. Tucker turned him left, too.

The hijacked jet began to speed up and turn toward the northeast, and as the radius of its turn became wider and wider, it came closer to both planes. Tucker told the Delta to take evasive action. On the USAir jet, an on-board collision alert system sounded an alarm as the planes came closer and closer.

"I thought they were going to hit," Tucker said later.

They didn't. The closest they got was half a mile. But the relief was short-lived. United Flight 175 was descending fast and heading for the city.



http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/newsday091002.html


New details also emerged yesterday about the final moments of the two hijacked airliners that slammed into the World Trade Center. United Flight 175, a Boeing 767 headed from Boston to Los Angeles, was on a collision course with at least two other airliners after it veered off course and descended toward Manhattan.

In one case, the hijacker controlling the plane appeared to maneuver the flight to avoid a collision, according to government sources.

Another aircraft descended rapidly after being warned of an imminent collision with a hijacked plane by the on-board collision warning system.

As it flew toward Manhattan, United 175 turned to the left and began descending. One controller reported to investigators that he realized the plane had turned head-on toward a Delta aircraft, "and was descending into his face." The Delta plane began a turn, but the other aircraft also turned, and their radar targets merged on the screen, sources said.

However, the hijacked plane leveled off for a moment, perhaps to avoid the Delta aircraft, then began its descent again. The hijacker pilot "knew what he was doing," a controller said.

Shortly after that, the hijacked plane was headed straight for a US Airways flight. The US Airways plane's collision-avoidance system detected the approaching plane and advised the US Airways pilot to descend, which he did, averting a collision.

Controllers scrambled to direct other planes out of the way of both United 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 -- which also originated in Boston -- as they headed toward the twin towers.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/wpost091701.html


How does this fit into your timeline?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 2 2007, 04:43 PM
Post #56





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (woody @ Oct 2 2007, 02:56 PM)
Great work, Monsieur le General, this is the best timeline for Flight 175's path I've ever seen.

I've done some research on Flight 175, too, so let me contribute this here:


- 1 - the departure of Flight 175

Is the strange "departure airport" of Flight 175 related to the two different wheels-off times 8:13 (official) and 8:23 (BTS database)? I.e., are there maybe two departing Flight 175's?

The 8:13 Flight 175 definitely departed from BOS, runway 9. Here's the ATC transcript:

8:12:21 -- UAL175: Position and hold runway niner United one seventy five
heavy.
8:13:26 -- Local Control East: United one seventy-five heavy runway niner
cleared for takeoff traffics holding in position on four right.
8:13:32 -- UAL175: Cleared for takeoff runway niner uniteds one seventy five
heavy.


http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/foru...ewtopic.php?283

The only source for the 8:23 Flight 175 is the BTS database. Interestingly, the gate departure time 7:59 matches the official story, but the wheels-off time 8:23 definitely does not. These data are generated automatically by mechanical triggers (brakes, landing gear) and are transmitted directly from the aircraft to the airline via ACARS.

So the BTS data show that the plane that lifted off at 8:23 is identical to the plane that pushed back from the gate at 7:59, and that its tail number is N612UA.

So here's my working hypothesis: the plane that lifted off at 8:14 was not N612UA. N612UA lifted off "inofficially" at 8:23 - therefore the strange departure site.

- 2 - the near-collision with Delta 2315

About the same time, the transponder code suddenly changed on United Flight 175, which was flying near the New Jersey-Pennsylvania border. The hijackers had taken over the plane, and the jet began to head back east. This time, the controllers could read the altitude because the hijackers hadn't turned the transponder off; instead they had just changed the code.

But now the jet was headed into the path of other aircraft.

Chris Tucker was working Yardley sector, a busy slice of space, when he saw the United jet turn toward the path of a Delta Boeing 737, which was headed southwest at 28,000 feet. Tucker told the Delta pilot that the aircraft was a suspected hijacking and he didn't know what it was going to do next. The United plane continued to turn. "Delta 2315 turn left immediately heading two zero zero," Tucker said. He had to guess; he didn't know which way the hijacked plane was headed, or if it was going to climb or descend. Just below and four miles behind the Delta was USAir Flight 542, another Boeing 737. Tucker turned him left, too.

The hijacked jet began to speed up and turn toward the northeast, and as the radius of its turn became wider and wider, it came closer to both planes. Tucker told the Delta to take evasive action. On the USAir jet, an on-board collision alert system sounded an alarm as the planes came closer and closer.

"I thought they were going to hit," Tucker said later.

They didn't. The closest they got was half a mile. But the relief was short-lived. United Flight 175 was descending fast and heading for the city.



http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/newsday091002.html


New details also emerged yesterday about the final moments of the two hijacked airliners that slammed into the World Trade Center. United Flight 175, a Boeing 767 headed from Boston to Los Angeles, was on a collision course with at least two other airliners after it veered off course and descended toward Manhattan.

In one case, the hijacker controlling the plane appeared to maneuver the flight to avoid a collision, according to government sources.

Another aircraft descended rapidly after being warned of an imminent collision with a hijacked plane by the on-board collision warning system.

As it flew toward Manhattan, United 175 turned to the left and began descending. One controller reported to investigators that he realized the plane had turned head-on toward a Delta aircraft, "and was descending into his face." The Delta plane began a turn, but the other aircraft also turned, and their radar targets merged on the screen, sources said.

However, the hijacked plane leveled off for a moment, perhaps to avoid the Delta aircraft, then began its descent again. The hijacker pilot "knew what he was doing," a controller said.

Shortly after that, the hijacked plane was headed straight for a US Airways flight. The US Airways plane's collision-avoidance system detected the approaching plane and advised the US Airways pilot to descend, which he did, averting a collision.

Controllers scrambled to direct other planes out of the way of both United 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 -- which also originated in Boston -- as they headed toward the twin towers.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/wpost091701.html


How does this fit into your timeline?

Well, Woody, I'll offer a 'wild' (and please don't bump the thread to AT, Mr. Balsamo) spitball speculation here:

A "decoy" plane took off at 8:13 AM, possibly from Logan (possibly from the Heliport.) Either way, it needed a head start on the missile that was about to be launched from offshore and that was going to "Take" over the flight. The missile was launched from an offshore sub or boat at 8:23. The Missile was set to generate a launch signal which was duly recorded by BTS.

BTS was assigned to monitor the missile's radar returns in case the switch ploy wasn't effective, i.e. at least there would be something of a record of a whole flight. The missile, flying at top speeds, caught up with the track of the decoy plane during the noted deviation from normal routine and the changing of beacon codes that occurred between 8:47 and 8:51 (as per NTSB report).

My guess is that the seemingly gratuitous altitude change noted by the NTSB at 8:51 from 31,000 feet to 33,500 feet has something to do with the missile necessarily flying "safe height above decoy".

The decoy plane was then suitably diverted while the missile achieved target acquisition, leading to it's fateful trajectory towards WTC2.

All the "noise" involving near collisions with other planes probably served to cover up the plane to missile switch.

This all sounds extremely far fetched, huh? Of course, as I said it's just a spitball speculation. I'll probably regret having made it in an hour or so. wink.gif

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Oct 2 2007, 05:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 3 2007, 04:34 PM
Post #57





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



Update:

Using this NASA terrestrial distance calculator:

Mileage Guide

and after inputting the latitude and longitude coordinates for Nami Lane (lat. 40.258850 long. -74.682690) and WTC (lat. 40.710510 long. -74.011140) the distance between the two points works out to 47.4 miles

47.4 miles in 4 mins 40 seconds = 609.42 mph
47.4 miles in 4 mins 30 secs = 632 mph

If Nami Lane is correct for Point G (target aquisition point) then, according to NTSB records, for it's final 47.4 miles, United Airlines Flight 175 was flying at an average speed of approximately 610 - 630 mph as it headed straight toward WTC2 in a mind blowing rapidly descending flight path.



This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Oct 3 2007, 04:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 4 2007, 02:08 PM
Post #58





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



Update on United 175's Takeoff Point

dMole has done some calculations on the waypoint labelled A on the NTSB groundtrack diagram. Here is his report to me that he sent me via PM:

[quote=dMole, via PM October 3 2007]I used TopoUSA 6.0 to lay out WTC's GPS coordinates and to find the "size" of the New Jersey "northwesterly" state line at 48.18 miles. Takeoff at waypoint A is 9.1291 miles out into the Atlantic at a bearing of 92.54 degrees east of geoN. The flight path meets the MA coast 7.2855 statute miles south of Boston Logan (this forms the "Boston Triangle" that apparently spits Boeings out of the water that I posted about).

My question- what happens to the 2 jet engines when a "Boeing seaplane" takes off? My experience in thermodynamics and hydrodynamics say it wouldn't be pretty!

There could be some scaling or import issues, but I scaled directly from the NTSB diagram and from their NJ state line.

Many thanks to dMole for his effort in calculating this location. salute.gif
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id3057635291.html

"What happens to the 2 jet engines when a "Boeing seaplane" takes off? My experience in thermodynamics and hydrodynamics say it wouldn't be pretty!" laughing1.gif

But dMole, maybe Flight 175 was really one of these?


(A-40 Albatros)

THUNDERBIRDS ARE GO! thumbsup.gif
Reason for edit: Fixed link to .PDF
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ashoka
post Oct 6 2007, 12:28 PM
Post #59





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 94
Joined: 12-December 06
From: Italy
Member No.: 312



Now we have official data :-)

John Farmer received radar data from the 84th Rades for all four flights.

Here's a screen capture of the data for flight 175



Original Excel table

12:57:35 – Lat:40,2554 ; Long: -74,6742
...
13:02:24 – Lat:40,6874 ; Long: -74,0379

You can do the math smile.gif

***

The first radar return listed is 8:16:04 – Lat: 42,3646 ; Long: -70,8364 so the plane is over the Atlantic Ocean...



but the plane took off 2 minutes earlier (8:14) and if you compare that to flight 11



you can see that it's the normal departure path for planes out of Boston.

Ashoka
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Factfinder Gener...
post Oct 6 2007, 01:52 PM
Post #60





Group: Newbie
Posts: 743
Joined: 23-August 07
Member No.: 1,808



QUOTE (Ashoka @ Oct 6 2007, 11:28 AM)
Now we have official data :-)

You can do the math smile.gif

Thanks for this info Ashoka. I am looking into it right now in detail. Report back later. salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: 1st October 2014 - 04:11 AM