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


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

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

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
New Fdr Analysis By Frank Legge - Discussion, What do you think?

rob balsamo
post Jan 26 2011, 12:04 PM
Post #61



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 26 2011, 09:33 AM) *
Given that the claim is that the aircraft lines up with the directional damage, you must know exactly
what point the now highly questionable RADALT reading of "4ft" was recorded?


This is nearly impossible to determine the exact point given the speed data and the varying heights of objects along the path.

Again, from Dennis....

Q - The 757 LRRA has a 330 fps tracking capability. What exactly happens when the aircraft is flying faster than the tracking capability of the LRRA?

A - it gets behind and doesn't provide real time altimetry.


Let me see if i can expand a bit further after speaking with Dennis... take a look at this picture again.. along the approach to CRW Runway 23.



Along the approach, the Radio waves are bouncing off the hills and valleys at the speed of light. At approach speeds, you will see these changes in real time because that is the speed the processor can handle to produce those values and display them on the device.



http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/LRA-900.html

Now imagine you are traveling 2 times faster. The radio waves are still bouncing off the hills and valleys at the speed of light, but the processor cannot handle the increased forward speed, so it will only display hits from perhaps all the valleys and not the tops of the hills. Or vice versa, or maybe a sporadic combination/average. You will not get a display of real time mapping of the entire path. Your display will be a a series of sporadic hits outside the tracking capability of the device.

When you add objects such as trees, buildings, light poles, road signs, trucks, whatever.. .along the path of rolling terrain, it is impossible to determine exactly from what object the RA is measuring.

The LRRA built for civil aircraft is not meant for precise terrain mapping at high speed nor is it forward looking. It is highly accurate during the approach within the tracking capability of the device, but even then it cannot be used for determining your True Altitude, that is why a Sensitive Altimeter which can be adjusted for Pressure is required for instrument flight.

The only way to tell if the RA is measuring from the ground (and not from a building, trees... etc), is to cross check it with your Primary Altimeter. You can be flying at 31,000 feet, and see the RA displaying 1000 feet. This is because an aircraft below is overtaking you. I see it all the time...

The definition of RA is Absolute Altitude. It shows your absolute altitude above whatever object you are flying within the tracking capability of the device. In order to determine your True Altitude from a known reference (sea level), you must look at your Primary altimeter, that is why it is located directly in front of the eyes of the pilot, on all aircraft.

Now lets take a similar scenario but using GPWS.

If you were heading into the ground on the above approach at approach speed, it will give you the warning.

If you were heading into the ground beyond the tracking capability, it will still give you the warning as the sporadic hits will be showing a high rate of change, reducing in height.

If you were on the glide slope at approach speed, you will get a GPWS as the earth is rising to meet you at the runway. This is considered a false warning.

If you were on the glide slope at a high rate of speed, you will get a GPWS because higher forward speed means increased rate of descent, and even though you are getting sporadic averages outside the tracking capability of the device, the change in rate is great enough to give you a warning, but still you wont hit anything (if you level across the runway).

This is why GPWS still "works" even outside the tracking capability of the RA. But it can also give false warnings.

Clear as mud? smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 27 2011, 11:38 AM
Post #62



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



From your paper Warren:

QUOTE
There have, however, been other interested parties who looked at the available data and
came to different conclusions. Researcher John Farmer concluded that there was indeed a
defect in the file and that about 4 to 6 seconds of data was missing from the end.

If this is true it would be easy to find a flight path which would permit the plane to descend and pull
up safely.


Do you agree that the directional damage could have been caused from an "easier" flightpath?

If so, "easier" in what way exactly? Trajectory? Altitude?

Were there any g-forces found on the "extra data" that correspond with the math J.REF have used to counter Rob's?

Do you agree with Frank Legge in that Rob's calculations were "way off", given that he used the proper formula and data from the NTSB released data? Or that Legge's and J.REF's are based on your "extra 4 (or is it 6?) seconds?

QUOTE
They continue to maintain that the official account of the path of the plane, which
necessarily includes impact with the Pentagon, is false. A number of analyses have been
presented which indicate that there are elements of the official account of the attack on the
Pentagon which are false but it is our purpose to show that the FDR data is not one of them.


Did Frank Legge ever elaborate on which "elements of the official account" are "false"?

If certain elements are claimed by Frank Legge to be "false", why should we accept selective information released by the same people based solely on the word of these same people?

Was the FDR ever identified through documentation, serial number or even recorded electronically on the FDR itself?

Was any part of "Flight 77" ever documented and released?

If there in fact are "4 seconds of extra data" contained on the FDR, which the NTSB nor FBI has ever commented on or verified, should this dataset be accepted at face value or would it be true to say that we have been presented with a "dataset" and nothing more?

Do you not find this process counterproductive in that it should have been left to the NTSB and FBI to explain the discrepancies/anomalies?

QUOTE
The course of the plane as determined by radar and the course calculated from the FDR
are strikingly similar. This supports the view that these are reporting the same plane.
Both
sources indicate that the plane was approaching from a direction which would make the
observed damage possible. Radar, however, is unable to provide accurate information when
a plane is close to the ground and the FDR data apparently had the final section of data
missing, thus the opportunity for controversy arose.


This image relating to the RADAR was linked to by Frank Legge in the paper:

http://i27.tinypic.com/1zgrimq.png

Given his assertion that the radar and FDR are "strikingly similar", what does he say about the last reported timeframe in the same image?



Now, Frank ha claimed later in the paper the "clock on the plane may be wrong", but how likely is this given the official "impact time" claimed by the NTSB?



Does the timeframe of the anomalous two last points correlate with the data?

I know that this RADAR system has inherent problems at low altitude when there are many objects interfering with the signal but given the separate datapoints within the Pentagon basin, do you believe that this data is conclusive of anything? Especially considering that one of them was recorded NOC?

(FTR I would not use this data to prove anything regarding NOC)

Apparently you both have no problem accepting that this RADAR is directly affected by interference in this system at low altitude, yet refuse to acknowledge the documented limitations of the RA at low altitude (330fps) on the aircraft, from which Frank Legge has based many assertions on in your paper.
You don't see this as contradictory?

QUOTE
The series of position reports, however, provides the track angle with considerable accuracy. Inspection of the last 20 reported positions prior to the Navy Annex, shows a track of about 61.3 degrees. The possible range of track just prior to impact is limited to about 61 to 63 degrees to ensure that all the correct light poles, and only the correct light poles, will be hit, and that the impact with the Pentagon will occur in the right place.


Tell Frank that the directional damage through the lightpoles is very specific. 61.5.
You claim that the original course has been altered to correlate with the aircraft's position on the runway before take-off. Could you draw the revised plotted path accordingly as per the data from the Annex through to the Pentagon?

Was there a change in the data regarding the Pressure Altitude altered or affected in any way around Route 27? Given the claims by Frank (and okayed presumably by you Warren) that the data now extends to the Pentagon facade, it's not just the lat/long that has been changed but also the entire dataset for each second that has been moved?

QUOTE
The roll (bank) recorded in the data file at impact is zero, hence either the right wing, or portion of it, was severed or buckled and projected upwards, or there is some lag in recording the bank
angle, or some combination of both.


Ignoring the unfounded speculation by Frank on the fate of the wing, is the claim that the "4ft RADALT reading" was recorded at "impact"? I understood it that the course of the aircraft was recorded minus 0.7 seconds.



That the right bank data was found to level out at the point shown in your image:



Did you find "more seconds" or were the recorded datasets moved forward?

Does that mean that the Pressure Altitude recorded an even higher value at the lightpoles? The Pentagon facade?

Cheers

OSS

ETA: Please remember that many of us are laymen on this subject, so linking to a set of data isn't going to answer anything Warren. That's why I've asked questions on layman's terms.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 27 2011, 01:21 PM
Post #63





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jan 31 2011, 01:59 PM) *
It sounds like you took the original data and manipulated it until you got the results you wanted. That's not how good science is done.
Exactly which data are you referring to. Do you mean the positions?

QUOTE
If you used the original data, it seems it would be easy to prove that something is seriously wrong with the FDR file from the government. But is seems you'd rather waste your time tearing down the work of PFT by trying to put lipstick on pig, in order to prove the government's version of events.
I disagree. If the time recorded in the FDR file was wrong by a few seconds would that mean there is something seriously wrong with the FDR file or that the clock that the time was recorded from was wrong?

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 27 2011, 02:05 PM
Post #64





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



OSS,

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 31 2011, 03:33 PM) *
Right, the officially released NTSB data as it stood before your program didn't add up to "impact".

Even when "the extra 4 seconds" were "found". It still didn't add up to "impact" as could be seen in your plotted paths and acknowledged by you.
Have you proved that the extra 4 seconds are not in the FDR file?

QUOTE
To the point where the sircraft lines up exactly at the correct angle and height of a very specific directional damage path?
We adjusted all the positions from when the radio altimeter came on by the same distance in the same direction.

It is reasonable to do this because the inertial navigation system which works out the positions, works them out cumulatively. For example, if the plane moves north by 1 mile, then it changes its recorded position to be 1 mile further north. If the previous recorded position was wrong then so will the changed recorded position.

This is the same way a clock works. A clock does not know the time. It just adds one second to its record of the time every second. If the clock has the wrong time, then one second later the time on the clock will still be wrong.

QUOTE
Whatever happened to the Randikids claims that there was a "margin of error" (particularly John Farmer) that would explain the discrepancy in your plotted path?
Can you provide a link?

QUOTE
Given that the claim is that the aircraft lines up with the directional damage, you must know exactly what point the now highly questionable RADALT reading of "4ft" was recorded?
We calculated that the impact point on the wing for the 3rd light pole was 696 feet from the impact point on the Pentagon when the 4 ft was recorded which is very close to where the 3rd light pole was. See the paragraph split between pages 6 and 7.

QUOTE
The "right tilt data" through the last 7 seconds still adds up to a "straight line", (which interestingly enough you previously claimed "windspeeds" may explain the "discrepancy" - is that out the window too?) which raises serious issues throughout the entire witness pool in that NOBODY saw this path.
Didn't some witnesses describe the plane as banking to the right?

QUOTE
Is the claim now that the "0.7 before end of data" point on your plotted path has been resolved and you now have all of the data right up to the facade?
That's correct. See the paragraph I referred to above. The longitudinal acceleration went from slightly positive (since the plane was accelerating) to the most negative value (deceleration) that the FDR could record. We took the time of the deceleration as the time of impact.

QUOTE
<snip>

I'm sure I've seen this point argued before (Beachnut?)

The main points that don't square with me is that with so much "tweaking", alleged grave discrepancies (the major one being that there were allegedly 4 extra seconds on a dataset designed to record accidents) and now the the govt loyalist site "margin of error" argument has been turned on its head (along with "windspeed")
Just to make the aircraft "fit"? It seems to me that you've worked backwards from a desired conclusion ( la NIST) whether intentionally or not and are now just ploughing on regardless of what legitimate points Rob and Dennis Cimino have raised.

OSS
Adjusting all the positions by a constant distance in a constant direction will not change the track angle. If the track angle was incorrect to hit the correct light poles and impact the Pentagon, then the way we adjusted the positions wouldn't have changed that.

Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 27 2011, 02:32 PM
Post #65



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (DoYouEverWonder @ Jan 31 2011, 01:59 PM) *
It sounds like you took the original data and manipulated it until you got the results you wanted. That's not how good science is done.


That is exactly what they did, mixed in with tons of errors, lots of speculation, and a poor understanding of aeronautical knowledge in general.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 27 2011, 04:04 PM
Post #66



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 26 2011, 11:04 AM) *


I just been informed the above url is now 404. Wow. It cannot even be found in the wayback machine.

This one works,
http://211.232.57.48/Documents/docu/EN/COM...ML/LRA-900.html

Here it is cached from Google.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sear...=www.google.com


I've also attached the html pages if the above links go dead as well.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  LRA_900.html ( 21.26K ) Number of downloads: 543
Attached File  LRA_900_Google_Cache.htm ( 23.38K ) Number of downloads: 286
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 27 2011, 06:32 PM
Post #67



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 27 2011, 07:05 PM) *
OSS,

Have you proved that the extra 4 seconds are not in the FDR file?


That wasn't what I was referring to. I was saying that both the officially released data and your data didn't add up to "impact".
You claim that now it does. What drove you to devote 4 years of your time to ignore all of the pointers Rob gave to you? I propose that you were determined to line the data up with the directional damage no matter how much the data had to be tweaked and legitimate points raised by experienced pilots/FDR experts then and apparently at this moment. As I said. " la NIST". Work backwrds from a desired conclusion.

Bad scientific method.


QUOTE
We adjusted all the positions from when the radio altimeter came on by the same distance in the same direction.
It is reasonable to do this because the inertial navigation system which works out the positions, works them out cumulatively. For example, if the plane moves north by 1 mile, then it changes its recorded position to be 1 mile further north. If the previous recorded position was wrong then so will the changed recorded position.


My point is, the entire flightpath has gone from being claimed to be prone to "margin of error", ignoring the L3 Communications maximum 0.5 second lag, ignoring the 330fps limitation of the RA, ignoring the fact that there are no g's recorded anywhere on the NTSB data or your data (AFAIK) that correspond with the necessary manouevre to pull up at the lightpoles, to being an "end all and be all" precision plotted course to within feet of a highly defined directional damage path from lightpole 1 through to C Ring.

Is it that accurate?

QUOTE
Can you provide a link?


I'll have to search for Farmer's repeated "margin of error" claims but trust me, he said it.

QUOTE
We calculated that the impact point on the wing for the 3rd light pole was 696 feet from the impact point on the Pentagon when the 4 ft was recorded which is very close to where the 3rd light pole was. See the paragraph split between pages 6 and 7.


Even if your original course is moved laterally to line up ith the damage en bloque, how does it reach lightpole 3?
I've looked through the paper and can't find this lateral displacement from it's original path to that specific lat/long point.

Has the PA reading changed at that point too or is it still 174ft MSL?

Given Rob and Dennis' clarification on the fallibility of RA at low altitude (330fps), how can you place all of your faith in this reading?


QUOTE
Didn't some witnesses describe the plane as banking to the right?


Sorry,I worded that badly. I meant to ask if it didn't ring alarm bells that nobody described the path or manouevre to line up with the directional damage path.
Yes, many people described a "right bank". The majority of these witnesses also claimed to see the aircraft on the NOC flightpath.

QUOTE
That's correct. See the paragraph I referred to above. The longitudinal acceleration went from slightly positive (since the plane was accelerating) to the most negative value (deceleration) that the FDR could record. We took the time of the deceleration as the time of impact.


So this is out the window then?




QUOTE
Adjusting all the positions by a constant distance in a constant direction will not change the track angle. If the track angle was incorrect to hit the correct light poles and impact the Pentagon, then the way we adjusted the positions wouldn't have changed that.

Warren.


I'd like to see the revised plotted path Warren if you don't mind.
If the "4ft RADALT reading" is now at lightpole 3, doesn't that mean that the entire dataset is moved as well? PA, etc?

Cheers
OSS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 28 2011, 12:01 AM
Post #68



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (onesliceshort)
I'll have to search for Farmer's repeated "margin of error" claims but trust me, he said it.


Okay, had a wade through the swamp tonight...

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=849

QUOTE
That little 'bell shape' is what I am talking about in regards to 'error'. It is normal and it did not exist then one might think someone was making something up (pulling numbers out of their a%!). So if someone disputes the error band in the correlation of multiple measurement systems, then the dispute would only be to the variance of the band, not whether it exists or not. I have already pointed out that there are issues with both the accuracy and precision of the model. However, I understand those issues and have offered a data based adjustment to compensate for them. Sadly for P4T, the adjustment is still well SoC


I posted your path warren to gauge a response without telling them it wasn't mine:

AWSmith piped in here:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php...675#post5639675

QUOTE
What did I ask you a few days ago about the accuracy of the google earth overlays? and if the pin locations were verified via GPS on site? The physical evidence of the flight path trumps all mudlark.


I replied here:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=880

AWSmith piped in again:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=890

QUOTE
And there you go with your push pins again, Are you that stupid? Did you not read where I asked you TWICE if the locations of your pins was verified with GPS on site? Did you not remember the problems with accuracy Google Earth has with overlays?


And here:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=902

Beachnut had a pop here:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=895

and here:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=947

QUOTE
Farmer is right, there are errors,.....

Too bad the air was moving on 911. Farmer is right because the air moves, the compass is not exact,


Farmer discussed "margin of error" here: (and has since removed an image)

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=923

QUOTE
Mudlark, you have no idea what you just posted do you? Take the Warren decode and plot it at take-off at Dulles, then come back and we'll talk INS drift and measurement system error.

Oh never mind, I've already done it for you

...

Don't tell him there are errors on google earth, then he might understand the "error band" and have to learn math.


http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=988

QUOTE
Get the claims straight mudlap. BCR claims that the MEASURED path by the various instruments has an error range associated with it. The actual flight path does not have a "margin of error", only the techniques used to measure it.


All of this started because I called them out on their insistence that the aircraft could fly parallel to the Nvy Annex, North of columbia Pike and still line up with the damage. This is false.
I asked them for the "SOC path" according to the FDR data and none f them would pin their colours to the official path. That there was a margin of error in the flightpath and that unless the plotted points are done with GPS, they will also have a margin of error.

How is your path plotted Warren? I ask because i genuinely don't know.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 28 2011, 02:12 PM
Post #69



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



OSS,

There are all kinds of problems with the positional data in the files. This is another major problem Stutt and Legge have with their paper, especially since it is clear they do not understand how an INS works. But we're taking this one step at a time... first they need to correct their error sourcing an FAR for a Cessna 172 to support their argument, then i'll move onto their other gross errors.

Those who have said Legge and Stutt worked backwards from a conclusion and then fit the pieces to their bias are exactly right. Stutt admits it himself above.


QUOTE
We took the time of the deceleration as the time of impact.


They assume a deceleration of 1 G is an "impact", and then worked backwards from there. Unfortunately for them, the "impact" happened above the Pentagon and a 1 G deceleration can be caused by a multitude of reasons, especially if the pilot wanted to decrease his turning radius.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 28 2011, 06:17 PM
Post #70



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Cheers Rob,

I just don't understand how Warren can listen to the J.REF forum when they constantly move the goalposts and contradict themselves to suit each individual argument.

If we are looking at a "peer review" mark 10, 11, 12.. Legge needs to take a good hard look at himself (as should everybody else take a good hard look at him) and ask if this data was designed to drag on for years.
It's a Nirvana for disinfo.

There are a couple of ways of looking at this. Either they messed up big time with the data or the op itself. They have been sewing doubt and intermingling NOC "evidence" through the NTSB animation, NORAD animation and RADES last two data points.

What wasn't fabricated are the growing number of confirmed NOC witnesses who funnily enough certain "imaginative" bloggers have been throwing shit at for years.

First we had Arabesque - blatant disinfo blogger.

Then we had Russell Pickering who denied his own research and immediately jumped on the Pentagon OCT bandwagon when Craig and Aldo began digging in the right places.

Then we had Adam Larson - the "NOC witnesses are COINTEL" blogger.

Then we had (and still have) Eric Larson, Ashley and Hoffman influencing an entire "Truth" Forum to propogate these same lies and censor researchers who have constantly rebuked any accusations against them (and anybody who sees through the crap used against them and the evidence)

Then we had John Farmer who tried to infiltrate both P4T and CIT,pushed the "two plane theory" and strangely enough provided the FOIA for the RADES "North of Citgo datapoint".

Now we have Frank "gammy" Legge, aided by a notorious NPT "advocate" (7 YEARS!) who just saw the light and is a fully confirmed OCT/LIHOPPER and his dishonest cohorts, poisoning the entire witness pool against CIT's investigation.

I believe this whole episode has the dual purpose of discrediting P4T and CIT while at the same time burying us all in never ending disinfo and waste all of our time. "Run the clock down", so to speak.

I'm not accusing Warren Stutt of being an op, maybe he's been caught in the tide, but I can't wait to see this phase of disinfo (the "extra data" , that is) to be killed off so we can get back to the job at hand.

Don't be too surprised at the next phase or who takes the reins. CIT and P4T have survived this long because they deal in facts and aren't afraid to follow them.

Rant over..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 29 2011, 03:20 PM
Post #71





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



OSS,

I've split this reply up, since I exceeded the limit on quote blocks.

QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 1 2011, 04:38 PM) *
From your paper Warren:



Do you agree that the directional damage could have been caused from an "easier" flightpath?
Yes.

QUOTE
If so, "easier" in what way exactly? Trajectory? Altitude?
Easier as in lower g-forces that the plane could withstand.

QUOTE
Were there any g-forces found on the "extra data" that correspond with the math J.REF have used to counter Rob's?
There are g-forces in the extra data. You can see them plotted in Figure 14 in the paper at the top of page 12. As to whether the correspond "with the math J.REF have used", could you be more specific? There are many individuals that post in the J.REF forums. Do you have a link to the math that you are referring to?

QUOTE
Do you agree with Frank Legge in that Rob's calculations were "way off", given that he used the proper formula and data from the NTSB released data?
I agree with Frank Legge that the the calculated value of 10.14G shown in the Attack On The Pentagon video is much too high.

Consider the following frame from the video where a straight red line is drawn from the top of the VDOT antenna to the light poles:

Notice that the slope of the straight red line is about 11 horizontal squares to 1 vertical square.

Now consider the following frame from the video which shows the segment of the circle in purple from which the radius is calculated. I have added a straight black line with the same slope as the red line in the previous picture and which goes through the start point of the segment of the circle which would be the point where the pull up commenced:


Notice how the purple curve dips beneath the straight black line. This means that the slope of the purple curve is greater than the slope of the straight black line at the point where the pull up commenced. This means that the purple curve is showing a steeper dive at the beginning of the pull up than it should and therefore will require a higher number of Gs to pull out of than it should. The segment of the circle in purple should have a larger radius so it does not dip below the straight black line. A larger radius produces a smaller number of Gs using the formulas shown in the video.

QUOTE
Or that Legge's and J.REF's are based on your "extra 4 (or is it 6?) seconds?
The calculations in the paper are based on the extra seconds. John Farmer calculated that there was 4 to 6 seconds of FDR data missing based on correlating radar data with the FDR. I subsequently found 4 seconds of extra data which was within the range that he predicted.

QUOTE
Did Frank Legge ever elaborate on which "elements of the official account" are "false"?
Not in the paper no. You can read about his views on his web site

QUOTE
If certain elements are claimed by Frank Legge to be "false", why should we accept selective information released by the same people based solely on the word of these same people?
You'd need to ask him that.

QUOTE
Was the FDR ever identified through documentation, serial number or even recorded electronically on the FDR itself?
I have found the following parameter values with the following values in the FDR file that may lead to the identification of the FDR, aircraft or parts
CODE
A/C NUMBER = 35
EICAS OPC PART NUM = 221305
EICAS OPS PART NUM = 199731
EICAS SELECT SW = LEFT
ENGINE IDENT = 3204
FLEET IDENT = 1
Dennis Cimino said that
QUOTE
... the AC ID FIELD number is directly traceable to an N-Number in the F.A.A. registry, and the FLEET ID shows which carrier it went to
so it should be possible to identify the aircraft.

QUOTE
Was any part of "Flight 77" ever documented and released?
Do you mean parts of the plane? If so, then I don't know.

QUOTE
If there in fact are "4 seconds of extra data" contained on the FDR, which the NTSB nor FBI has ever commented on or verified, should this dataset be accepted at face value or would it be true to say that we have been presented with a "dataset" and nothing more?
Definitely not. You can install and run the decoder program yourself from here using Internet Explorer. The source code of the decoder program is available here.
I have discussed three ways of verifying my decode.

QUOTE
Do you not find this process counterproductive in that it should have been left to the NTSB and FBI to explain the discrepancies/anomalies?
I was challenged to take a stand, so now I have.

Part 2 follows
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wstutt
post Jan 29 2011, 03:39 PM
Post #72





Group: Troll
Posts: 255
Joined: 27-December 07
From: Brisbane, Australia
Member No.: 2,603



Part 2

QUOTE
This image relating to the RADAR was linked to by Frank Legge in the paper:

http://i27.tinypic.com/1zgrimq.png

Given his assertion that the radar and FDR are "strikingly similar", what does he say about the last reported timeframe in the same image?

I don't know why you're asking this, since you later acknowledged that the radar has problems at low altitudes.

QUOTE
Now, Frank ha claimed later in the paper the "clock on the plane may be wrong", but how likely is this given the official "impact time" claimed by the NTSB?

The NTSB used other sources to obtain the time. See Section II - Time Correlation of this document

QUOTE
Does the timeframe of the anomalous two last points correlate with the data?
I don't know what those two last points are. The purpose of including the image was to show that the radar path was similar to the one in the FDR.

QUOTE
I know that this RADAR system has inherent problems at low altitude when there are many objects interfering with the signal but given the separate datapoints within the Pentagon basin, do you believe that this data is conclusive of anything? Especially considering that one of them was recorded NOC?
The last two points appear to be inconclusive. I don't know enough about the RADAR system to say why.

QUOTE
(FTR I would not use this data to prove anything regarding NOC) Apparently you both have no problem accepting that this RADAR is directly affected by interference in this system at low altitude, yet refuse to acknowledge the documented limitations of the RA at low altitude (330fps) on the aircraft, from which Frank Legge has based many assertions on in your paper. You don't see this as contradictory?
I have not seen satisfactory evidence that the tracking capability of 330 fps is the speed of the aircraft and not the rate of change of distance between the aircraft and the ground. I can see that the Doppler effect could potentially be an issue with a rapid change in distance between the aircraft and the ground. If the aircraft is flying level over a level surface, why would it matter how fast the aircraft is moving?

QUOTE
Tell Frank that the directional damage through the lightpoles is very specific. 61.5.
Why not tell him yourself? He can be contacted through his website

QUOTE
You claim that the original course has been altered to correlate with the aircraft's position on the runway before take-off. Could you draw the revised plotted path accordingly as per the data from the Annex through to the Pentagon?
The course was actually altered to correlate with the impact as described in the paper. I may be able to provide a drawing.

QUOTE
Was there a change in the data regarding the Pressure Altitude altered or affected in any way around Route 27?
It doesn't appear so. The pressure altitude is plotted in Figure 13 in the paper.

QUOTE
Given the claims by Frank (and okayed presumably by you Warren) that the data now extends to the Pentagon facade, it's not just the lat/long that has been changed but also the entire dataset for each second that has been moved?
I don't know what you're getting at here. The purpose of adjusting the lat/long was to get the correct elevations.

QUOTE
Ignoring the unfounded speculation by Frank on the fate of the wing, is the claim that the "4ft RADALT reading" was recorded at "impact"?
The paper says it was recorded 0.758 seconds before impact

QUOTE
I understood it that the course of the aircraft was recorded minus 0.7 seconds.

It was recorded about 0.7 seconds before end of data. The longitudinal deceleration indicating impact was recorded about 0.07 seconds before end of data.

QUOTE
That the right bank data was found to level out at the point shown in your image:



Did you find "more seconds" or were the recorded datasets moved forward?
The roll angle would have gone to 0 about the time of impact.

I have not decoded any more data than what I use to create those images. Although subframes are recorded once per second, different data within the subframe is recorded at different times throughout that second.

QUOTE
Does that mean that the Pressure Altitude recorded an even higher value at the lightpoles? The Pentagon facade?
The pressure altitude is recorded once per second but at a different time than any other parameter since only one parameter can be recorded at a time. My decode shows the pressure altitude that was recorded in the FDR file for each subframe.

QUOTE
Cheers

OSS

ETA: Please remember that many of us are laymen on this subject, so linking to a set of data isn't going to answer anything Warren. That's why I've asked questions on layman's terms.


Regards,
Warren.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Jan 29 2011, 07:30 PM
Post #73





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



As a complete layman bewildered by all the (to me) almost impenetrable technical issues,

(tho I do thank Mr. Balsamo for his short video on the Flight 175-EgyptAir comparison, after giving up early the first couple tries I finally perservered and "got it")

and so primarily an interested observer going back and forth between "Pilots" and 911Blogger, I think Pilots winning the debate on Legge's paper.

Pilots techs seem better credentialed, and if only because 911Blogger is now essentially blocking debate, allowing Legge, Bursill etc to comment freely and blocking anyone attempting to refute them (including myself, apparently, my first comment went through but all since then a message comes up saying it has to be vetted first and then nada).

Blocking debate seems one-sided, unfair and (dare I say it) un-American, especially when 911Blogger posted the other paper by Chandler and his co-author that at least first graciously lists the various Pentagon concerns before it goes on to attack CIT.

Plus some at 911blogger are arguing the Pentagon issue based on long outdated/debunked information. One basically insulted me on two issues, one being research (and so far after a number of days 911Blogger has not given me the opportunity to publicly respond).

Then he points me to HIS research, which with just one glance I noticed he was still quoting the Cissell "faces in window" quote as fact even though Cissell himself contacted prisonplanet in 2006 and said he never saw any such thing (physically impossible at the stated speed of the plane)

that he was drastically misquoted, and that the plane went over so fast he did not even see what airline it was from

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...606flight77.htm

Personally I lean toward Honegger over CIT. One of the survivors interviewed by Honegger is now suing Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

Bombs at 9:32 destroying comptrollers office (INSIDE explosions), the fighter pilot sent to investigate reports no observable outside damage (THIS is the "high speed turn and dive plane" observed by ATC), leaves, something hits at just after 9:40 (OUTSIDE explosions) as reported by outside witnesses.

The witnesses with the best viewpoint were all the apt window witnesses who observed the small plane. Khavkin posting on the BBC comment board on 911 said the small plane first swung around and took out the lightpole(s?). What if the Boeing E4 sent up by Cheney/Rumsfeld was actually controlling the smaller plane, arrived first at a much slower speed ("loitering in the air"), descended to 100 feet above the Pentagon (with its blue stripes along the side doubling for Flight 77 whether they meant it to or not) and guided it in?

The outside explosions thus covering for the earlier inside explosions, the actual plane possibly arriving late, or even sent in after they made sure the comptrollers offices were destroyed.

Did 911blogger mainly post Legge's paper because Dr. Jones has "approved" it? I don't really understand the antipathy the WTC crowd has for the Pentagon crowd. I don't think it will ever really happen, but if the general public ever does come to understand/accept the problems with NIST/WTC basic physics, they would become even more open to the same physics problems at the Pentagon. I think though a great portion of the public questions how the Pentagon could have been allowed to be hit at all, and also questions the absence of crystal clear security footage.

At least one videographer examining the footage released (sadly I no longer have the links) says the Pentagon frames are "enhanced" by someone with no idea of how to create "3D" effects (plane's tail drawn on, exhaust must penetrate the ground, at least two frames have to be missing before the explosion)

The obvious problems with the Pentagon witnesses are the numerous discrepancies, which itself illustrates why in the U.S. judicial system judges routinely instruct jurors that circumstantial evidence is to be given greater weight than eyewitness testimony.

Most of these witnesses barely had a glimpse of what happened, especially (as is demonstrated in the case of Cissill) with something that was going over their heads at nearly the speed of a bullet. We also cannot rule out that some witnesses are lying or deliberately obfuscating the issue (one has admitted he lied to draw attention to himself), or planted Operation Northwoods style witnesses (Probst being a prime candidate for that).

Once a body like the NIST says we must ignore basic physics, a LOT becomes "possible" (tho I personally draw the line at "holograms"). Especially when you then go on and read the Operation Northwoods plot, which the major media was willing to report on BEFORE 911 but nothing since.

thanks for the forum (in which at least Pilots allows the posting of dissenting views!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jan 29 2011, 08:24 PM
Post #74


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,036
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (9elevened @ Jan 29 2011, 06:30 PM) *
The witnesses with the best viewpoint were all the apt window witnesses who observed the small plane. Khavkin posting on the BBC comment board on 911 said the small plane first swung around and took out the lightpole(s?).


about khavkin's pov:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/69071/5/
(scroll down thru the page)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9elevened
post Jan 29 2011, 08:52 PM
Post #75





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 27
Joined: 12-January 11
Member No.: 5,583



QUOTE (paranoia @ Jan 29 2011, 07:24 PM) *
about khavkin's pov:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/69071/5/
(scroll down thru the page)


thanks for the link.

I also saw in another post that Khavkin has refused to return CIT calls and refuses to be interviewed. That's not necessarily a problem with her statement, it's possible that she just does not want to be involved.

I wasn't aware of the POV problem but it does limit her statement. She could have seen the flight line of the small plane until it was out of view and then the explosion (much like the C-130 pilot's first description, until his story changed in 2004), and watching the rest of it on TV based on that assumption.

I think it's exceedingly strange tho to suggest that the govt was planting witness stories about a SMALL plane hitting the Pentagon on the day of 911. The same sort of thing has been accused of apartment window witness Steve Patterson (I think CIT has even said, "for our purposes he never existed!"). From what I remember, Patterson was interviewed before it was announced it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

Tho I do think somebody at the Pentagon who has crystal clear footage of whatever hit it is having quite the giggle watching us all debate it. Remember, the gas station owner said the FBI was there within MINUTES to gather up all the security footage, before he and his employees even thought to look at it. That completely smacks of foreknowledge/foreplanning.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 29 2011, 09:49 PM
Post #76



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (9elevened @ Jan 29 2011, 06:30 PM) *
As a complete layman bewildered by all the (to me) almost impenetrable technical issues,

(tho I do thank Mr. Balsamo for his short video on the Flight 175-EgyptAir comparison, after giving up early the first couple tries I finally perservered and "got it")

and so primarily an interested observer going back and forth between "Pilots" and 911Blogger, I think Pilots winning the debate on Legge's paper.


Exactly.

All this posturing doesnt mean anything to the laymen unless Legge and Stutt can convince at least one verified aviation professional, then they may have an argument with someone who at least can speak the language. All of those who i have talked to, just laugh at what is offered by Legge and Stutt.

I invite anyone who is an aviation professional to look over Legge and Stutts paper, then talk to us.

Legge and Stutt still have yet to find one verified aviation professional to sign their name to their paper, while our lists grows based on our work.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

This is also the reason 911Blogger bans anyone who challenges Legge, Stutt or Bursill, while we give them all the rope they need and let them post freely here (although Legge and Bursill refuse to post here, they apparently dont like direct debate).


Warren, why do you think modern Jets have an AOA vane on both sides of the fuselage? You think it's there for looks? For pilots to play with during pre-flight walk-arounds?

I've asked you these type of questions numerous times, as well as the numerous questions you tap dance around... while you refuse to answer others.

Tell us Warren, where is your last data point represented in the below diagram?



(even the average layman can figure it out.. remember to reduce V-speeds by 10 knots for 757)

Do you think the above diagram is "fake"? Have you and Legge figured out the "Safety Margin" yet? You dont even need to speculate (as you did in your paper), its right there above, and well defined.

In retrospect, I can only laugh that Legge claimed his initial paper (which needed 8+ revisions, and needs more), was written to "unite the movement". Yet all Legge has done is drive a wedge into a crack and pry it open further. What's worse, is he has done it with pure speculation, gross errors, and arguments he once used to support his theories, but now feels they are "trivial" when proven wrong (and leaving such errors in his papers confirming he is spreading disinformation). Freakin joke...

"If it quacks like a duck..."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Aldo Marquis CIT
post Jan 30 2011, 01:57 AM
Post #77


Citizen Investigator


Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,179
Joined: 16-August 06
Member No.: 10



QUOTE (9elevened @ Jan 29 2011, 11:30 PM) *
Personally I lean toward Honegger over CIT. One of the survivors interviewed by Honegger is now suing Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

Bombs at 9:32 destroying comptrollers office (INSIDE explosions), the fighter pilot sent to investigate reports no observable outside damage (THIS is the "high speed turn and dive plane" observed by ATC), leaves, something hits at just after 9:40 (OUTSIDE explosions) as reported by outside witnesses.

Most of these witnesses barely had a glimpse of what happened, especially (as is demonstrated in the case of Cissill) with something that was going over their heads at nearly the speed of a bullet. We also cannot rule out that some witnesses are lying or deliberately obfuscating the issue (one has admitted he lied to draw attention to himself), or planted Operation Northwoods style witnesses (Probst being a prime candidate for that).


I am sorry, but that is a faulty argument.

Honegger is simply mistaken. Clocks don't run at the same time.

You are talking about a difference of 8 minutes. No officers were called there, no 9/11 calls or emergency transmissions indicate anything.

Can you explain how the officers we interviewed were standing there for 8 minutes until the plane went by on the north side and the explosion went off and THEN they went to the Pentagon, NEVER getting a single call about explosions inside?

14+ witnesses at opposing vantage points all describing a plane on the north side of the gas station, some even being able to see the required right hand bank to aim toward the explosion site is what I would lean towards over clocks all running a different times.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jan 30 2011, 05:34 AM
Post #78


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,036
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



in response to 9elevened:


I also saw in another post that Khavkin has refused to return CIT calls and refuses to be interviewed. That's not necessarily a problem with her statement, it's possible that she just does not want to be involved.

if she didnt want to be involved then she should have known better to sign her name to an online posting about the event (if it was indeed she who posted it). granted she may not have realized how scrutinized her account would be later, but no one forced her to go online and make specific assertions about events and to sign her name to them.

regardless - the "probelm with her account" is khavkin allegedly claiming she saw a plane hitting light poles, which came AFTER the fact, and thus such details may have found their way into her alleged story after she heard of it in the news. given her physical pov, whats clear is that she could not have seen that happen, so why she allegedly claimed it is anyone's guess. note i say "allegedly" cuz its unclear if khavkin herself actually wrote and posted that comment in the comments section of the ukguardian or if someone else did. unlike some of the video "news" reports which contained actual accounts recorded by reporters on air, the comments section of an online site is open to whoever and without any sort of verification. so if an entity was indeed planting witness accounts, the easier place to get away with it would be semi-anonymous unverified online posts - like khavkin's.


I wasn't aware of the POV problem but it does limit her statement.

it more than limits it, it negates at least a key part of it - the claim about witnessing the light poles being hit.


She could have seen the flight line of the small plane until it was out of view and then the explosion...

what small plane? isnt she contradicted by her own statement? a small plane would not have shaken her apartment with the force and velocity of a commercial-sized jet airliner (which is what supposedly drew her attention to it in the first place). so no matter how small the plane may have visually appeared to her, her own account actually indicates the presence of what all the VERIFIED witnesses described: a 2 engined commercial sized airplane that was extremely loud and low.


...(much like the C-130 pilot's first description, until his story changed in 2004), and watching the rest of it on TV based on that assumption.

please elaborate further; im not sure exactly what you're proposing.


I think it's exceedingly strange tho to suggest that the govt was planting witness stories about a SMALL plane hitting the Pentagon on the day of 911. The same sort of thing has been accused of apartment window witness Steve Patterson (I think CIT has even said, "for our purposes he never existed!").

i think to a large degree what you see in unverified witness accounts is not "government planted" so much as it is folklore and embellishment (that itself may have been borne from intentionally planted govt rumors/lies). officially - these are the asssertions allegedly attributed to patterson:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro...p01/attack.html

QUOTE
Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. The plane was about 150 yards away, approaching from the west about 20 feet off the ground, Patterson said.

He said the plane, which sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter jet, flew over Arlington cemetary so low that he thought it was going to land on I-395. He said it was flying so fast that he couldn't read any writing on the side.

The plane, which appeared to hold about eight to 12 people, headed straight for the Pentagon but was flying as if coming in for a landing on a nonexistent runway, Patterson said.

"At first I thought 'Oh my God, there's a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon ... I was watching the World Trade Center go and then this. It was like Oh my God, what's next?"

He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building.

"It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."


i dont think patterson was lying, but his perception of the size of craft may simply have been mistaken. unlike other witnesses, he was at an uncomfirmed location somewhere in pentagon city (anywhere from a 1/2 a mile or more away from the scene - google pentagon city map), while other witnesses like the anc workers were privy to a more complete view of both the plane and its path, since they were under it as opposed to being in some distant building somewhere.

but i'd like to highlight a contradiction in his alleged assertions:

QUOTE
"...a plane truly misrouted from National,'" Patterson said. "Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon...."


but here:

QUOTE
"...seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low..."


so did it appear to be "truly misrouted" or was it "flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing? it cant be both.


The same sort of thing has been accused of apartment window witness Steve Patterson (I think CIT has even said, "for our purposes he never existed!".

without confirmation of him and his account, basically all we have are words, not facts. so in essence he may as well not have existed at all. so i would agree with cit on that.

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1577
(link to the thread in question - please 9elevened try to cite your sources)

From what I remember, Patterson was interviewed before it was announced it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

this is the byline of the washington post article that is the source for patterson's alleged quote:

QUOTE
By Barbara Vobejda
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 11, 2001; 4:59 PM


-almost 5pm that day, so it would be more likely that he had indeed already heard about "flight 77" and its alleged "impact into the pentagon". perhaps semtantically at least - i partially agree with you btw - he may not have know that "flight 77" was alleged to have hit the pentagon, BUT he beyond any logical doubt was aware that the general claim floating around was that A PLANE had hit the pentagon. in other words he may not have known what flight number it was but he did know that the story that was widely being reported had one main element: that a plane hit and penetrated the building. and even if he hadnt heard it elsewhere, if he had seen a plane fly by and then a giant explosion, his natural inclination would be to ASSUME that the plane he saw did in fact hit/penetrate the building. actually to be exact these are the phrases he allegedly uses:

QUOTE
"Then this thing just became part of the Pentagon..."


QUOTE
"...he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out ..."


-as with almost all (if not all) the other supposed impact witnesses, the actual penetration is not described. there is no solid object meeting solid object and pushing its way through, there is simply a plane there one second, then a giant explosion, and then no further recollection of the plane. its not that it wasnt there, people like roosevelt roberts whose focus and sight was not blinded by the explosion managed to catch a glimpse of it on its exit path, but the majority of people in a position to see the explosion seem to have been deceived or distracted by its awe-inspiring visual display by becing fixated on it (at least momentarily - who wouldnt be?). even people inside the building - NONE of them (those that lived) describe a plane crashing through, all they remember is a massive explosion rocking them. no fuselage, no giant mass, just boom! heat and concussion. but anyway, without confirmation of patterson's exact location and his labeling of what he saw, it would unwise to draw any solid conclusions with regard to the veracity of his alleged claims.


since you seem at least somewhat familiar with the evidence cit has presented 9elevened, im wondering, what say you about the fact that none of the VERIFIED witnesses describe a "small jet"? and aside from steve patterson, who else thought they saw a small jet?

there is steve gerard who (like patterson) was probably at least some distance away, and saw the event from a building in pentagon city somewhere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTpd9NbLN0U...player_embedded

and don chauncey (another small jet witness) who was roughly 10 miles away:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s...t&p=2084127

-i dont think these people are lying, they are very likely unintentionally mistaken. imo seeing an object at a distance, with nothing in the air (other than empty blue skies) to use as a frame of reference for size, might make it hard to distinguish what size plane they were seeing.


Tho I do think somebody at the Pentagon who has crystal clear footage of whatever hit it is having quite the giggle watching us all debate it.

while i get your point, i disagree about the state of such a person. i imagine that anyone in possession of a tape of the actual incident (which would show a plane NOT hitting the pentagon) would be afraid for their lives, as would any witnesses to the event who saw what actually happened (even if they didnt videotape it). but being in possession of a smoking gun video (or memory) would make its owner a HUGE liability to alot of things and no one (dumb or smart) would be unaware of the implications. that is unless of course whoever does have such a tape is soo high up and soo involved that they needn't worry about being neutralized. but even then i doubt they are laughing - at least not at those of us who have realized what happened, for they must appreciate the gravity of the actual truth and how vulnerable that truth is to being exposed wider and further everyday (even without video of the event). but my guess is that the only people they are probably amused by are the one's who are trying so hard to establish/prove that a plane did hit that building, so if thats what you're suggesting i would agree.


Remember, the gas station owner said the FBI was there within MINUTES to gather up all the security footage, before he and his employees even thought to look at it. That completely smacks of foreknowledge/foreplanning.

indeed it does. in fact, i believe the planners must have taken inventory of ALL the available cameras in and around the area, a considerable length of time before 9/11 (how long would depend on logistics). given the location it would have been highly unlikely for anyone to be walking around with a camera so i dont think they had much to worry about in that way. a few key security cameras at the navy annex location would belong to sources they controlled, so no worries there either. all that would be left would be businesses or commercial buildings, places like the gas station or the buildings on army navy drive (some of them also belonging to the government - like the one next to the doubletree which has cameras but belong to the GAO). since we know the citgo's tapes were taken minutes after the event, its likely the other potential videotapes of the event were also confiscated very quickly after the event. how quickly doesnt really matter for we know that to this day, we have NOT seen one actual picture of the plane while flying over this area, nor have we seen any video that actually shows it in any sort of conclusive way. (anyone who thinks they see a plane in those 5 frames they did release is projecting it there with their imagination - cuz there is no plane there and the frames are at the very least tampered with).


most importantly with regard to would-be footage of the plane that day:


source: http://www.511va.org/Cameras.aspx?r=1

the KEY camera of them all, the vdot washington blvd traffic camera (#740 - circled in red above) which would have had a prime view of things:



- was allegedly (and very conveniently) not operating that day (at least not at the time in question). if it was, no footage of what it saw has ever been released or found anywhere. and if you think a plane hit the pole this camera was on top of - rendering said camera inoperable, and then this plane managed to keep flying (only 4 or less feet above the ground) and then disappeared into that building, when its been verified and repeatedly corroborated that the plane flew north of this pole, then you suffer a confirmation bias which cant be overcome by logic and or facts. not you personally 9elevened, but anyone who denies the truth and its implications regarding this incident, is going out of their way to do so. normal people who can get past the shock and awe of an inside job, can examine all the pieces and come to a simple no-rocket-science-required conclusion that the plane (a big loud one with 2 jet engines) flew by but did not hit that building.






***

eta:
http://mouv4x8.perso.neuf.fr/11Sept01/A008...%20aircraft.htm

QUOTE
However, Joel Skousen reported that:

"I have, so far, been unable to locate a Steven Patterson in the Pentagon City area of Arlington, Va. None of the graphic design firms in the area that I called have heard of him. Barbara Vobejda told me she didn’t have a contact number for him either since his testimony was picked up by one of the dozens of "stringers" they had out in the field that day interviewing people on the ground.

WORLD AFFAIRS BRIEF / March 8, 2002 (link below)

http://www.centrexnews.com/columnists/skousen/2002/0308.html
(dead link not available at waybackmachine either)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrodway
post Jan 30 2011, 09:01 AM
Post #79





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 283
Joined: 5-August 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,609



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Jan 24 2011, 03:31 AM) *
I'm just genuinely confused as to why the sudden change in Warren's stance.
He had always proclaimed himself to be "neutral" regarding impact/flyover and that he was just showing what he had found on the FDR dataset regardless of what conclusions may be reached. Rob has for years imparted his aviation knowledge on any question Warren asked him.


I'd like to know just how "neutral" he was as well.

He was obviously familiar with the work of J.REF six months before he started posting to this site (See email below). As you say, Rob responded to his questions in good faith. Ironically probably the only real pilot they ever consulted for their paper - I think the circular logic in that escapes them!

QUOTE
From: Warren Stutt <wstutt@xtra.co.nz.NOSPAM>
> Date: May 27, 2007 1:12 AM
> Subject: Question for The J.R.E.F. Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
FAQ
> To: challenge@randi.org.NOSPAM
> Hi,
>
> Here is a question that you may like to include in the updated J.R.E.F.
> Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge "FAQ":
...
> "scientific advancement" and therefore ineligible for The J.R.E.F. Million
> Dollar Paranormal Challenge?
>
> Regards,
> Warren Stutt.
from http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/free_en...81?o=1&d=-1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Jan 30 2011, 09:44 AM
Post #80





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (wstutt @ Jan 27 2011, 12:21 PM) *
Exactly which data are you referring to. Do you mean the positions?

I disagree. If the time recorded in the FDR file was wrong by a few seconds would that mean there is something seriously wrong with the FDR file or that the clock that the time was recorded from was wrong?

Warren.


I'm referring to the quote in my original response. I'll requote it again here.

QUOTE
OSS,

That earlier plotted path was from the positions as recorded in the FDR file. As the paper explains, we adjusted the positions to match the time and position of impact. Many positions recorded in the FDR file are offset from their true positions. The positions recorded for the takeoff from Dulles are not even on a runway. As explained in the paper, we also adjusted the positions for the landings so that they would show the aircraft turning off on to a taxiway rather than on to grass.

Warren.


You admit that you had to adjust the positions of the plotted path to match the time and position of impact.

You admit that the positions recorded for the takeoff from Dulles are not even on the runway.

You admit that you had to adjust the positions for the landing so they would show the aircraft turning off the onto the runway.

And we're not even off the ground yet!

Like they say, garbage in = garbage out.

So if the data was so screwed up to begin with, why even bother to continue using data you already know is bad?

Here's a layman's example of what I mean:

Many years ago I went to the dentist to have my wisdom teeth pulled. On my follow up visit, the dentist came in the room and started asking me about my crowns and dentures. Since I didn't have any crowns or dentures, I asked him what the heck was he talking about. Then he looked at my chart again and said, "You're not 84 years old either, are you?" It turned out he had another patient who had the same name as me.

Now at that point he had two choices:

1: He could correct the chart and change the birth date to match mine and then continue the exam, marveling at what a good job he did on those crowns because they looked just like my real teeth. So good, that even he couldn't tell the difference or

2: He could give the chart back to his office assistant and ask her to find the correct chart.

When you found out the data you received was so screwed up that the plane wasn't even on the runway, shouldn't you have just gone back to the source of the data (ie the government) and tell them that there was a serious problem with the data and it couldn't possibly come from the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon or anything else that day? Instead you've wasted years of your time and a lot of other people's time trying to prove the official myth using data you know is bad to begin with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 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: 27th January 2022 - 05:07 AM