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 )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
"aa77" Final Approach Ground Speed Determination From The 84rades Radar Data, 84Rades and FDR data mutually INCONSISTENT?

dMz
post Jan 25 2009, 02:07 AM
Post #21



Group Icon

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



OK, on that RADES resultant displacement vector (RADES only had 4 decimal places of degree BTW):

Time(EDT) Lat(degN) Lon (degW)
9:36:48 38.8359 -77.1360
9:37:36 38.8714 -77.0635

My velocity approximation formulae give me dt= 47.4950 sec, dS ~= 4.004260924 nm (or 24330.35 feet), and avg_vel ~= 303.51 kts (or 349.3 mph) for the RADES section (throwing out that erratic 09:37:48 RADES return [that is also after the "official" NTSB "impact" time, IIRC] ).

The online calculator gives me:

http://williams.best.vwh.net/gccalc.htm

brg 57.922031214276295 deg, 4.0094149440190465 nm (or 24361.668229407067 feet).

This would put my RADES distance approximation spreadsheet at -1.2854793258e-3, or -0.129% error (referenced to the online calculator) for the "AA77" path in this post.

The slight difference in resultant heading is likely due to the CAD being done in a 2D vector "flatland" as opposed to a 3-Dimensional WGS84 datum model. Google Earth uses the WGS84 datum (but is nowhere near as precise as CAD for distances and angles.

Again, that CAD resultant RADES vector was at:

purple RADES = 57.82 deg, 24570.2169 feet

This puts the most recent CAD analysis at 8.5605250276e-3, or +0.856 % error (relative to the online lat/lon distance calculator).

Now guess which was quicker and more enjoyable. wink.gif
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some RADES notes-to-self:

Primary vs. Secondary Radar, post #7
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10534172

RADES Readme.doc excerpt at post #301:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10347489

-----
Farmer-deleted forum at post #317 and RADES discrepancies continue to #325 + #335-339:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10375468

http://bluecollarrepublican.com/rades/viewtopic.php?p=63#63

http://bluecollarrepublican.com/rades/view...4ae299296bf516a
-----
Original "raw" ZIPped .XLS spreadsheet from RADES data CD .ISO file (for all 4 flights)

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id2392699235.html
Reason for edit: added index links
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 25 2009, 03:19 AM
Post #22



Group Icon

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



[Reply to TN's Google Earth work- some posts have been moved to the "Google Earth Howto" thread linked far above]

Yup, that got it. It looks like your 4-digit "exact" location is about 3.20 feet (W)SW of where I put my CAD vector reference point (which is likely smaller than the CAD import scaling error, depending on what scale we are interested in). I measured those same ~48 and ~43 feet numbers too (very quickly, and didn't write them down).

Here is the result:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/19545

It looks like you had a few extra empty folders if you look at the elements list at the lower left of that screen capture- that was likely the problem. Only the folders with the +/- thing contain data points, I believe.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 25 2009, 06:25 AM
Post #23



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 24 2009, 09:54 PM) *
I'll use the WGS84 datum and US feet calculator parameters for all.

N (hold longitude constant at 78.072190 deg W)

Lat+1 = Lat. 38.865400
Lat_0 = Lat. 38.865300
Lat-1 = Lat. 38.865200

Lat+1 > lat_0: 180 degrees, 36.42155940950806 feet

Lat_0 > Lat-1: 180 deg, 36.42155877792267 feet
----------------------
Now looking at longitude (hold lat constant at Lat_0 = Lat. 38.865300 deg N)

Lon+1 = 78.072290
Lon_0 = 78.072190
Lon-1 = 78.072090

Lon+1 > Lon_0: 89.99996862645274 deg, 28.474426344909133 feet

Lon_0 > Lon-1: 89.9999745889962 deg, 23.0642853461734 feet
---------------

If we take the "worst case" of the above and convert it to an "error radius" for a "circle of uncertainty," then the actual ellipsoid suggested by the above should fall entirely within this "circle of uncertainty." I don't currently have access to the FAA radar specifications, so we are stuck analyzing the error in that 4th decimal place at this time, and cross-correlating with other methods/datasets.

Using Pythagoras' Theorem (which is actually a special case of the Law of Cosines, but I digress):

dr = sqrt (dx^2 + dy^2)

dr = sqrt ( (28.474426344909133 feet)2 + (36.42155940950806 feet)2 )

or dr ~= 46.2311901804 feet ("radius of uncertainty"). IIRC, this is awfully close to what TN measured.

I think we can leave further "error analysis" to the OGCT True Believer Faithful at this point [but please bring verifiable sources with you next time and don't waste all of our time, young Randiites wink.gif ]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 25 2009, 12:34 PM
Post #24





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



Corrected Link for Post No. 19 above:

http://www.orbitfiles.com/download/id3839734731.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 25 2009, 01:00 PM
Post #25





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



Hi dMole!

1. I posted a corrected link for my No. 19 in No. 27 above. This sets you up to move Nos. 21, 23 and 24 and duplicates of your Nos. 20 and 25 (if that can be done) to the GE tutorial thread in Research. That should preserve the flow and context of both threads.

I could not edit my No. 19 anymore to just correct the link therein. If you can do that, it would be even better.

I think I have made every possible GE error so that thread should now be a very comprehensive tutorial.


2.
QUOTE
I don't currently have access to the FAA radar specifications, so we are stuck analyzing the error in that 4th decimal place at this time,


Are you referring to the margin of error or degree of accuracy specified for the radar apparatus? That would be a different thing than the margin of error or degree of accuracy with respect to the fourth decimal place; or the same with respect to human error in my plotting. It might be that the eight or nine decimal place machine results aren't specified as accurate any further than the fourth decimal place and we have done the best that can be done with the airport radar data.


3.
QUOTE
IIRC, this is awfully close to what TN measured.


An' I diddit ole' fashioned style wit' a Ruler insteddadat fancy math stuff!


4.
QUOTE
I think we can leave further "error analysis" to the OGCT True Believer Faithful at this point [but please bring verifiable sources with you next time and don't waste all of our time, young Randiites


Maybe we should draft a proposed claim about this stuff for others to critique. See my idea in (I think) No. 19 above.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jan 25 2009, 01:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 31 2009, 02:31 AM
Post #26



Group Icon

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



While these are likely the DME/VOR beacon locations, not for the actual radar antenna(e) location(s), if we use the following site:

http://www.airnav.com/airports/

we find for ADW:

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KADW

"Andrews Air Force Base
Camp Springs, Maryland, USA

FAA INFORMATION EFFECTIVE 15 JANUARY 2009

Location
FAA Identifier: ADW
Lat/Long: 38-48-39.0000N / 076-52-01.2000W
38-48.650000N / 076-52.020000W
38.8108333 / -76.8670000
(estimated)
Elevation: 280 ft. / 85.3 m (surveyed)
Variation: 10W (1995)
From city: 3 miles E of CAMP SPRINGS, MD
Time zone: UTC -5 (UTC -4 during Daylight Savings Time)
Zip code: 20762"
-------------------
for BWI:

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBWI

"Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport
Baltimore, Maryland, USA

FAA Identifier: BWI
Lat/Long: 39-10-31.3000N / 076-40-06.0000W
39-10.521667N / 076-40.100000W
39.1753611 / -76.6683333
(estimated)
SURVEYED
Elevation: 146 ft. / 44.5 m (surveyed)
Variation: 11W (2000)
From city: 9 miles S of BALTIMORE, MD
Time zone: UTC -5 (UTC -4 during Daylight Savings Time)
Zip code: 21240"
---------------------------------
for DCA:

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDCA

"Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
Washington, District of Columbia, USA"

FAA Identifier: DCA
Lat/Long: 38-51-07.5000N / 077-02-15.8000W
38-51.125000N / 077-02.263333W
38.8520833 / -77.0377222
(estimated)
Elevation: 15 ft. / 4.6 m (surveyed)
Variation: 09W (1985)
From city: 3 miles S of WASHINGTON, DC
Time zone: UTC -5 (UTC -4 during Daylight Savings Time)
Zip code: 22202"
----------------------------------
and for IAD:

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KIAD

FAA Identifier: IAD
Lat/Long: 38-56-50.8000N / 077-27-35.8000W
38-56.846667N / 077-27.596667W
38.9474444 / -77.4599444
(estimated)
Elevation: 312 ft. / 95 m (estimated)
Variation: 10W (2000)
From city: 20 miles W of WASHINGTON, DC
Time zone: UTC -5 (UTC -4 during Daylight Savings Time)
Zip code: 20166
------------------------------------
EDIT: P.3 of 21 in this .PDF that TN found is likely the most valuable part of that document:

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

It says that the FAA data time is hh:mm:ss, ASR radar range is in nm, azimuth in ACP's (4096 ACP = 360 deg), flight level in 100's of feet-msl, "and beacon codes." Did anyone see a table of what these beacon codes were for the 2 large, raw .TXT data files? Perhaps the .XLS files were provided "as is" by the NTSB, but one would need to speculate and "trust" as much, as there was no traceability/chain of custody for this data given that I'm aware of (it came "off the internet").

Perhaps Obama's professed governmental "transparency" will prompt the NTSB, FAA, FBI, Congress, and the USAF to "come clean" soon and release all the data publicly...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dadeets
post Oct 25 2010, 07:23 PM
Post #27





Group: Core Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 6-July 08
From: Encinitas, California
Member No.: 3,674



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jan 2 2009, 09:26 PM) *
Both sets therefore could be considered as the official data about 9/11 events and therefore should be considered as a proof which could also serve for law enforcement purposes - as the 84Rades data in fact did, because they were provided for FBI investigation already 2 days after the tragic events of 9/11.


The transmittal letter from 84 RADES to FBI is here:

http://nuke.crono911.org/LinkClick.aspx?fi...=99&mid=505

Is "Table 3 Track Data in Excel Spreadsheet" from the 9/13/01 letter from 84 RADES to FBI available online?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Oct 26 2010, 04:11 PM
Post #28


Woody Box


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



QUOTE (dadeets @ Oct 25 2010, 11:23 PM) *
The transmittal letter from 84 RADES to FBI is here:

http://nuke.crono911.org/LinkClick.aspx?fi...=99&mid=505

Is "Table 3 Track Data in Excel Spreadsheet" from the 9/13/01 letter from 84 RADES to FBI available online?


Interesting link...the first time I hear that the transponder of Flight 77 was switched, too (like United 175):

QUOTE
The mode 3A transponder code changed at 08:40 ET from 6553 to 3743.


Have I missed something?

Also, Flight 11 didn't deviate from its course at 8:37. That was 8:27. Might be a simple typo, though.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dadeets
post Oct 26 2010, 05:06 PM
Post #29





Group: Core Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 6-July 08
From: Encinitas, California
Member No.: 3,674



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jan 2 2009, 10:26 PM) *
[size=5]The GIB pattern clearly copies the pattern of the PLA radar blips, although the average distance difference between the PLA and GIB blips projected for a same sweep time is ~0.3 nmi - which would almost exactly fit into the combined accuracy range as specified by 84Rades in the 84Rades cover letter.


The link to the 84Rades cover letter no longer works. A message, when translated, says roughly "This page is no longer available."

I presume the 84Rades cover letter referred to is the one to the FBI. If so, it is available here:

http://nuke.crono911.org/LinkClick.aspx?fi...=99&mid=505
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 26 2010, 05:35 PM
Post #30



Group Icon

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



Guys,

I just remembered,

I think tume is out of town where he does not have internet access, although he should be back hopefully soon.

dMole has been busy with his job.

I've sent them both a message alerting them to new posts in this thread.

As for the Transponder change on AA77,

According to the NTSB animation, AA77 was given a new squawk after being handed off to Indy Center at 08:40:16. You can see it here....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6529691284366443405#
(scroll the player forward to 24:30 - 24:40)

Not sure if the code change was for anything nefarious, but it does happen all the time on long flights.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Oct 27 2010, 04:54 PM
Post #31


Woody Box


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



Thanks for the link, Rob.

I have to check to the NTSB thing with the old Flight Explorer animation, because this has a small oddity.


QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Oct 26 2010, 10:35 PM) *
Guys,

I just remembered,

I think tume is out of town where he does not have internet access, although he should be back hopefully soon.

dMole has been busy with his job.

I've sent them both a message alerting them to new posts in this thread.

As for the Transponder change on AA77,

According to the NTSB animation, AA77 was given a new squawk after being handed off to Indy Center at 08:40:16. You can see it here....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6529691284366443405#
(scroll the player forward to 24:30 - 24:40)

Not sure if the code change was for anything nefarious, but it does happen all the time on long flights.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Dec 26 2010, 07:14 PM
Post #32





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dadeets @ Oct 26 2010, 09:06 AM) *
The link to the 84Rades cover letter no longer works. A message, when translated, says roughly "This page is no longer available."

I presume the 84Rades cover letter referred to is the one to the FBI. If so, it is available here:

http://nuke.crono911.org/LinkClick.aspx?fi...=99&mid=505


Yeah, this is the file I meant. Last year somebody completely wiped my storage at the internet, so many of the links to pictures and documents which I've stored there for easy access doesn't work anymore.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Jan 10 2011, 12:48 AM
Post #33





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Dec 27 2010, 08:44 AM) *
Yeah, this is the file I meant. Last year somebody completely wiped my storage at the internet, so many of the links to pictures and documents which I've stored there for easy access doesn't work anymore.


So let me guess you had storage space hosting somewhere on the internet with all the links to all the 911 pictures and research you had
been doing and someone came along and wiped it all for some unknown reason is that correct? May i suggest you try backing up your important data on a USB stick or external HD disk even better if you store it on a HD and even if it gets wiped accidentally or unintentionally and you still
have access to the HD you can recover you files and data from the deleted sectors with some simple and easy to use software in most cases.
Another question did you enquire as to why your data was deleted? And did they have a right to delete you files? Maybe your account with the
company you where hosting the files deleted your data because you account expired that is one reason they would do it i am unsure about the others.

This post has been edited by Paul: Jan 10 2011, 12:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 10 2011, 12:05 PM
Post #34





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (Paul @ Jan 9 2011, 04:48 PM) *
So let me guess you had storage space hosting somewhere on the internet with all the links to all the 911 pictures and research you had
been doing and someone came along and wiped it all for some unknown reason is that correct? May i suggest you try backing up your important data on a USB stick or external HD disk even better if you store it on a HD and even if it gets wiped accidentally or unintentionally and you still
have access to the HD you can recover you files and data from the deleted sectors with some simple and easy to use software in most cases.
Another question did you enquire as to why your data was deleted? And did they have a right to delete you files? Maybe your account with the
company you where hosting the files deleted your data because you account expired that is one reason they would do it i am unsure about the others.

I was asking the admin what happened that the files were deleted and he told me the log looks like somebody logged into my account and deleted the files, which looks like somebody hacked in -by intercepting the password? (the access there is unfortunately not encrypted).
Then I've changed the password and I've tryied to fully restore them, but I didn't remember all the paths of hundreds of files, so I unfortunately didn't restored it completely.
EDIT: I would just add that I already long consider this analysis obsolete because I think it should be completely redone with better measuring the distances, not in the Google crap as I did it first. Then it would have maybe some value. Unfortunately last two years in my life were more about maintaining my existence so I still didn't have enough time and moral to do it. wall.gif

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jan 10 2011, 01:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 14th November 2019 - 09:11 AM