Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Far Side Of The Pentagon, Is this worth a look over top?

post Feb 22 2009, 06:45 PM
Post #1

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

Hello all! And a big howdy to dMole! I am wondering whether the following has any merit and would appreciate some collective input.

Remember the LOOK Video? http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15017
The radar return dots continuing past the Pentagon and over the Potomac drew some notice and comment. I've been burning a hole in my monitor looking at the DCA Radar Video that it came from as well as DCA Radar Data Files released by the FAA in September 2008. It seems that they contain further information suggesting that this might not be just an artifact but rather an actual something continuing on its way (hint , , hint).

For a couple of months I've been working with a .csv data file for the DCA Radar.1 I understand it to be a processed file meaning that the FAA released a raw data file which the recipient had to run through a filtering program to create a more workable file format (similar to the FDR data). Most importantly, the latitude, longitude, azimuth and distance data in the raw file is somehow encoded in a way that makes it meaningless and useless. The processing converts the code into a common and useful format for geographic positions.

The processed file was posted on the recipient's website in .txt format and I downloaded it. The first stop was the obviously interesting last minute or so of timestamped positional data, all of which was conveniently labeled "AAL77" in the comma space for the beacon code. Searching with "Find" made it easy to extract that data from the massive file into a new very short and to the point .txt file, and rearrange it in a way that is hopefully easier to read and use. Here is that file: http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id3928537524.html

Note the stamped times of each of the returns and that that the last one is at 13:37:46 for the purpose of comparing it to this next file.

Curious about the underlying raw file, yesterday I returned to download it. 2
Again it was easy to put the last minute or so of data into a new and handier .txt file, further assisted the fact that the relevant returns were labeled "LOOK". Here is that file:
http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id3928536743.html Here's what I saw.

1. In general, the final AA77 data in the raw file differs materially from the processed file.

2. The final raw file return is at about 13:38:12 or about 26 seconds after the last one recorded in the processed file.

3. The last sweep in the processed file is 492 timed at 13:37:46 but the raw file has returns for six more sweeps up to number 498 at about 13:38:12.

4. The time stamps for the returns in the raw file up to number 492 are spaced in between the returns in the processed file with the raw file return for 492 timed at 13:37:43, 492 in the processed file at 13:37:46, and 493 in the raw file at 13:37:48.

5. The bulk of the data for sweeps 493 to 498 in the raw file suggest an object in continuing motion. The speed stays the same at 376 and the heading changes from 70 to 72. Just about all of the positional data changes progressively and apparently to the northeast; the only exceptions being Xv and Yv which stay the same. I am trying to figure out how to decode the positional data into conventional formats and can't plot this data until I do.

6. It seems possible that the processing of data in both files was prematurely terminated.

Please give this stuff a look and critique.

1. The whole thing can be downloaded here: http://www.aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fadar...adar%20data.exe

2. Same as note 1: http://www.aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fadar...a%20Dca9-11.txt
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Feb 22 2009, 07:46 PM
Post #2

Group Icon

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

Honestly with all the "video fakery" business, I don't give many videos even a 1st glance (especially knowing what I, tume, and others do about a certain "data source"). That said, if that is the 24 or 60 MB .TXT data file that was posted in 2 parts- good luck working with that without more information (as it has no lat/lon or radar site data, altitude is coded somehow, data structure is unknown, etc.). You and I have already looked at the 4 .CSV "FAA datasets," although I frankly don't trust the source, based upon my observations of his repeated behaviors since 2007. The RADES (and his version of NTSB) data were released as .ISO files from the CD. The "source" hasn't done that since (and since deleting 2 of his forums/websites).

See my post #8 and most of this thread from when this "data" was "released" last fall:


That said, we've already got 3 threads on this LOOK business- could we merge 1 or 3 maybe?

Another Look At Look

Faa 2008 Replay, LOOK

Aircraft, DCA, FAA, IAD, RADES, and WTF?!?!, Discrepancies found in radar sets and arrival logs

That said, I'm finding much more interesting stuff (for me) in the RADES data set/software (as that is something I can actually search, work with, extract .CSV data from, graph in Excel, calculate distances for, etc.) Video (and to a lesser degree photo) "evidence" is interesting but subjective at best. I'm also looking for various "interesting" civilian and military transponder codes: HINT.
I also found these threads while searching for the above:

New Faa "flight 77" Flight Path Animation Shows North Of Citgo Approach, a government reaction to the work of CIT & P4T?

Faa Data Release Explored And Explained

Since these are all "FAA data" threads, I'm wondering how many more we really need here? wink.gif

OK, I just looked at the "processed file," and Stime looks to be Zulu/GMT (or EDT+4 hours), there are 4096 ACP in 360 degrees (IIRC) but I'd use the degrees since it is already converted for you, and it looks like lat/lon is also in degrees. We can guess what the other columns are, but do we have any verifiable documentation to support it?

As I can get altitude data for many/most things (except portions of 3 of 4 "famous" flights) in the RADES data and work with the software directly say to obtain lat/lon directly, extract my own .CSV files, find distances etc., I'd rather focus on that than the "FAA data" (especially with what we found on the AA77 threads).

said, I think I can already tell you what Craig (and possibly tume) will tell us. wink.gif

I've already found some interesting aircraft and times that I've been going to bump on a couple old RADES threads here today (I think AA77 has 2, military aircraft have another, the transponder code for the alleged C-130 appears to be squawking 2427 out of ADW, and I need to locate a generic "RADES TBI" thread too). A lat/lon combo with Zulu time (and preferably a transponder code) would be the best reference for me to go from one data set to the other. I've already gone through the data set for "AA77" up to "impact," but I haven't had time to even open up my .CSV files and sort them.

I took a bunch of RADES screenshots this morning that I'd like to upload sometime (possibly with the related .CSV files if anyone sees anything interesting). Oh yeah, I have to "tweak" the RS3 software each time to get a screenshot all morning long...

I'd rather do the same for UA93 when/if I get time to sift out the "interesting" parts (and I don't know too many others versed in the RS3 software).

Putting together some of those Google Earth .KMZ files really saves a lot of time too.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Feb 22 2009, 08:56 PM
Post #3

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

HI dMole!

Your right, the intermediary with those files is a problem. It gives the government a level of deniability. Something doesn't add up when you have one file supposedly derived from another and they each have distinctly different endings. Anything you do with them risks being debunked for being based on spoiled data from the interloper.

Probably the best thing to do is everybody make their own FOIA request so provenance can be documented.

The military squawk codes should be interesting. To go back to the FAA data one more time, the big picture seen in the DCA Radar Video, regardless of its authenticity, sure looks like a lot of games are going on and a lot is possible given the electronic capability. I have a feeling that this was driven from the military side, not the civil side.

I'm going to try to figure out how to extract the positional data from the raw file, because I'll learn something regardless of the outcome. If your aware of the context there still might be some use in it.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
post Feb 22 2009, 10:05 PM
Post #4

Group Icon

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

On the "far side of the Pentagon," yes it was a VERY busy place after about 13:00 Zulu (09:00 EDT). I didn't look much earlier, as I've been looking for "certain" aircraft (with very few known transponder codes). If anyone wants to take notes on some of that ATC audio and post the timestamps and "squawks," I'd certainly be all for that (I can get the lat/lon into .CSV files fairly easily from those now) after much RS3 hacking. I actually started late last night looking at the "radar gap" in the middle of AA77 (and had intention of doing the same for UA93), but I kept finding interesting things right up til 13:37:47.810, and that hard "right" to starboard is shown in the RS3 software/data (so it looks like USAF 84 RADES extracted & processed that part of the .CSV data accurately at least). As I recall, tume and JFK worked from the RS3 software directly, while I combed through the USAF-produced .XLS file as a "control" group.

Now as to the actual data files and the chain of possession there, I've got some filenames and possible directory structure to look at (and the filename appears to be the only time reference). All the data is jumbled into this "big" file and 3 or 4 smaller ones, so it is a LOT to sort through (about 8 hours worth of all aircraft flying over NEADS).

Here's an older thread that might be interesting this many years later in the "far side" context:

The Plane Crashed On The Other Side Of Pentagon?, 911 Callers saw it fly over

You are keeping multiple, original backup copies of all the "original data" aren't you TN? I downloaded a bunch of/all? data months ago and haven't seen much new or even looked over there recently. I wouldn't expect that website to stay there FWIW (I've seen that before), so you might want to make an "original" CD or DVD of "their" versions before you spend a lot of time filtering and making sense out of the data. I don't think the videos and .MP3s should change much in your possession, but unfortunately the date/time usually shows the download time (for me). That's why .ZIP and .ISO files make so much more sense, but oh well... whistle.gif rolleyes.gif

I'll probably be bumping those RADES threads fairly soon to get people thinking. The inital RADES work began on that really long UA175 thread, and I don't really care to post that history a 2nd time. wink.gif
I do like the footnoted style you've adopted on those summary posts. I've never been the one to spell-check and flash-format my posts (although this new forum does have a pretty nifty editor)- quick, dirty, & technical has been my motto for too many years I'm afraid (an old work-related "injury" wink.gif ). This is an internet forum after all, not a collegiate textbook. I have been known to sometimes keep text-only files, pull those into Word/etc. for "prettification" when forced, but MEH- not today! I've also had to work on most computer systems currently known, so I like the "portability" of plain text and HTML. I'll quickly refer to purpose, scope, Heisenberg, and the almighty approximation. BTW- if you use nearly any electronic calculator and most computer software, you've likely already used approximation methods, but I digress. This bears repeating again for some of our lurking "guests," I think. "Those who shall not be named" can wait (a long time) for my formally error-analyzed draft 2.0. wink.gif Some "specialists" really ought to learn what a 1st order "data cut" is too, and I'm not going to waste my time counting decimal points today. Unless otherwise specified with very specific language, please consider all facts and figures in all of my posts as "first order approximations," consult all disclaimers in my signature file, and as always DO YOUR OWN MATH. smile.gif

Besides, even NOAA.gov has been known to:

"First Guess at Appropriate Time (FGAT) / First Order Time-extrapolation to Observation (FOTO)"


On that positional data translation, I've got some lat/lon GPS maps of the Pentagon vicinity that I can dig up that might help- I'll probably PM a link on those.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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: 6th December 2021 - 09:54 PM