IPBFacebook




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

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

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Questions From Reopen911 France On Dca-tyson Video

DbleTrble
post Jan 4 2009, 03:49 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 4-January 09
Member No.: 4,055



Dear pilotfor911truth members,

We belong to the French organization reopen911 France (www.reopen911.fr) in which we try to find the truth surrounding the events of the 9/11. We have seen and analyzed the recently released video of the DCA – Tyson radar (can be downloaded here http://www.aal77.com/movies/DCA_TYSON.avi). This work has raised many questions that still remain unanswered. We have thus thought that as aviation professionals and pilots, you could have helped us find some answers.
As a consequence, we have written few questions regarding the video that you probably have already analyzed. You would be so kind as to help us find some answers, and we hope that this first link between our organizations will lead to other collaborations in the future.

Reopen911 France team.

1) Do you think it is possible to clearly identify a Boeing 757, being 4 miles away at 4000 feet high by clear weather? When the ATC calls GOFER06 at 13.36.42.3 to ask him if he sees the traffic, he replies « it looks like a 757, sir ». A that time he is approximately 4 miles from LOOK that is going North-East whereas GOFER06 is going West.

2) How do you understand the fact that GOFER06 calls the ATC at 13:38:19.3 to tell that LOOK “is down is its 12 o’clock position, just north west of the airfield”. But at the same time at 13:38:19.3, LOOK has just disappeared from the screen and was approximately 9 miles away from GOFER06? What’s more, the conversation between GOFER06 and the ATC last 18 sec, enough time to see the smoke coming from the Pentagon if LOOK had crashed and immediately warn the ATC about this fact. What do think of that?

3) Looking at LOOK trajectory on the screen, one can see a red point followed by the S letter, and the LOOK tag, moving together to represent the aircraft trajectory. What does the red point stands for, is it the aircraft? In that case, how come the red point get stuck in the Pentagon area at 13.38:00.8, while the S letter is still moving forward until LOOK disappear from the screen at 13.38:19.3 ?

4) Where does the LOOK tag come from ? If the so-called hi-jackers have switched on the transponder few miles before the crash (what for ?), shouldn’t we read the real flight 77 tag on the screen as well as speed and altitude ? One can only see the LOOK tag and the speed, but no altitude.

5) How do you understand the fact that in the last 10 miles before the crash, LOOK never reached the max speed claimed by the NTSB, its max speed in the moments before it disappear from the screen is 370 Knots, by far under the 460 official knots ?

6) Do you know what the several « 1200 » tags stand for? Are they used to identify small aircraft (such as Cesna or Piper) ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jan 4 2009, 11:16 AM
Post #2


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Welcome to the forum DbleTrble! Although I'm an administrator of this forum, I am not an aviation professional. There are others here who may be interested in the questions you are asking and have answers. My guess is that the more knowledgeable may have a lot on their plates already, that the questions you are asking would mean reviewing information they are not familiar with, and that all this may take some time. Moreover, I know a couple people are away due to the holidays and other commitments.

In the mean time, my question to you is, have you reviewed the information that has been accumulated by Pilots for Truth and Citizen Investigation Team? If so, how does this correspond with the questions you are asking? If not, you may want to take some time to familiarize yourself with their research as this may play a role in whatever replies are forthcoming regarding your questions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 4 2009, 01:40 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

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



Welcome to the forum DbleTrble!

Although i havent researched the radar data thoroughly yet.... and there are others here who have... i'll do my best to answer based on what i already know...




1) Its possible.


2) Not sure about this one, would have to look into it further. Others may know more such as dMole and tume.


3) Its been awhile since i looked at the radar, but i think the red point is the alleged aircraft target. If i recall correctly, the red point also continues on after the pentagon for a few sweeps.


4) According to the govt story, AA77 never switched on its transponder after having turned it off at the OH/KY border, and was completelly lost from radar (not even a primary target) for quite some time (8 mins IIRC), again, according to the govt story... The primary target which was picked up penetrating and violating Washington Class Bravo Airspace from the west was never positively identified as being AA77.

Im speculating here regarding "LOOK" (as im not ATC), but i think it means for ATC to "LOOK" at the target without a transponder and violating Washington Class Bravo Airspace without a clearance. A "heads-up" if you will.... which if it is a "heads-up", why wasnt it intercepted?

5) This is very interesting. I'll have to look into this further as its just another conflict between data sets to add to the pile of conflicts already found.

6) 1200 is the squawk code for VFR aircraft. So, yes.. .basically small planes, planes not talking to ATC.. etc.

Hope this helps... hopefully dMole and tume can add more as they found alot of anomalies in the radar data, and they have the expertise/background for such in depth analysis. Much of their radar analysis can be found in this section as well as the Pentagon section.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DbleTrble
post Jan 6 2009, 05:45 AM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 4-January 09
Member No.: 4,055



Many thanks for your answers. I am looking forward to hearing from others who may have also been surprised by the DCA Tyson video.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 6 2009, 10:41 AM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Welcome DbleTrble. I am essentially ignorant of all the radar information, though I am a pilot.

My position is that since it has been admitted that the system was "spoofed" that day by the people who pulled this off, by and large the radar information is almost irrelevant, though it is certainly useful to raise more questions.

1) Possible but not likely to tell aircraft type at 4 miles.

2) I think the commander of the Gopher flight, O'Brien, said what he was told to say. He was part of the play.

3 & 4 I cannot answer

And as Rob mentioned, yes 1200 is a VFR aircraft not talking to ATC in all probability.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 10:45 AM
Post #6



Group Icon

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



DbleTrble,

Let me personally apologize for dMole and his reply. Looks like he had a late night last night... if ya know what i mean... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DbleTrble
post Jan 6 2009, 11:27 AM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 4-January 09
Member No.: 4,055



Thank you Rob, I was not sure what I had to understand from dMole's reply. biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Some of our questions may sound trite to you guys at pilotsfor911truth, but once again we are not aviation professionals explaining why we decided to post this topic. And let me apologize for some translation issue that may lead to misundertsandings.

And dMole if you find any interest in answering our questions, your point of view would be much appreciated by the reopen911 team France (you know that small country in Europe, don't you ? wink.gif ).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 6 2009, 03:05 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (DbleTrble @ Jan 6 2009, 09:27 AM) *
Thank you Rob, I was not sure what I had to understand from dMole's reply. biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Some of our questions may sound trite to you guys at pilotsfor911truth, but once again we are not aviation professionals explaining why we decided to post this topic. And let me apologize for some translation issue that may lead to misundertsandings.

And dMole if you find any interest in answering our questions, your point of view would be much appreciated by the reopen911 team France (you know that small country in Europe, don't you ? wink.gif ).

Hi and sorry DbleTrble,

My frustrated/"jaded" may have actually turned me into a piece of jade recently.wink.gif I once worked for/was trained by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). Misdirection and deception are the RULE, not the exception in "black" military operations. I continually wonder how so many cannot grasp this simple fact (and its relevance to the 9/11 events).

After the USAF 84 RADES data fiasco, I tend to lump the [currently unworkable] FAA data in the "crocka da shitta" category (but I just scratched the surface there).

Post #8:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10751912

You may also want to look at this thread:

Faa 2008 Replay, LOOK
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15017

On that European country thing- I still prefer Switzerland myself... wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 6 2009, 05:01 PM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,124
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (DbleTrble @ Jan 2 2009, 07:49 AM) *
Reopen911 France team.

1) Do you think it is possible to clearly identify a Boeing 757, being 4 miles away at 4000 feet high by clear weather? When the ATC calls GOFER06 at 13.36.42.3 to ask him if he sees the traffic, he replies « it looks like a 757, sir ». A that time he is approximately 4 miles from LOOK that is going North-East whereas GOFER06 is going West.

2) How do you understand the fact that GOFER06 calls the ATC at 13:38:19.3 to tell that LOOK "is down is its 12 o'clock position, just north west of the airfield". But at the same time at 13:38:19.3, LOOK has just disappeared from the screen and was approximately 9 miles away from GOFER06? What's more, the conversation between GOFER06 and the ATC last 18 sec, enough time to see the smoke coming from the Pentagon if LOOK had crashed and immediately warn the ATC about this fact. What do think of that?

3) Looking at LOOK trajectory on the screen, one can see a red point followed by the S letter, and the LOOK tag, moving together to represent the aircraft trajectory. What does the red point stands for, is it the aircraft? In that case, how come the red point get stuck in the Pentagon area at 13.38:00.8, while the S letter is still moving forward until LOOK disappear from the screen at 13.38:19.3 ?

4) Where does the LOOK tag come from ? If the so-called hi-jackers have switched on the transponder few miles before the crash (what for ?), shouldn't we read the real flight 77 tag on the screen as well as speed and altitude ? One can only see the LOOK tag and the speed, but no altitude.

5) How do you understand the fact that in the last 10 miles before the crash, LOOK never reached the max speed claimed by the NTSB, its max speed in the moments before it disappear from the screen is 370 Knots, by far under the 460 official knots ?

6) Do you know what the several « 1200 » tags stand for? Are they used to identify small aircraft (such as Cesna or Piper) ?


Mes meilleres salutations à Reopen911 France.

For me its a first time I've seen the video composite of the DCA radar and the ATCcom. It sounds interesting. Before I've seen just the Tracon video here: http://aal77.com/faa/dca_tracon.htm and in fact I'd still not have a time to any deep analysis of it. But I'll briefly address your questions where I have something to say.

1. I don't really know. I think it is on the edge distance where a B757 could be recognized or distingushed by a naked eye. But it depends on the relative position of the aircrafts which in this case was almost ideal for recognition, because the trajectories are almost perpendicular. To me it looks that the distance is slightly less than 4 miles I would say even <3 miles. I would say the recognition at distance 3 miles would be possible. But I think this is purely a question for experienced pilots.

2. I think the answer to this question really depends on the answering of the preliminary question - if the radar and soundtrack are properly synchronized (I don't say they aren't, but we must be sure, and at the time I'm unable to exactly determine this - for example this FAA data apparently differ in timestamping ~40 seconds from 84Rades.) Anyway I think, that the distance of 9 miles is too much, on the radar it looks to me closer - like ~7miles when the 18 sec. ATCcom ends.
12 o'clock position means "just in front view straight ahead" - a good question - this detail would strongly suggest the soundtrack and the video are desynchronized and the sound is late by ~30-35 seconds - because the LOOK is relatively at 11 o'clock to C-130 at 30-35 seconds before the ATC asks C-130 explicitely mentioning 11 o'clock (LOOK a bit left in C-130 lookout perspective) - and then the C-130 answers 12 o'clock - which means just in front of him).
I would not jump to the conclusions because the pilot of C-130 didn't report the crash immediately - I would think he would report something like that to ATC only in a case he would be 100% sure - which could take him another time to asses the fact and come closer to the Pentagon - as he has full hands of the fatty lazy C-130 on manual chasing another plane. rolleyes.gif - (and if we consider the video and audio are most probably desynchronized, than it would explain the delay in reporting well)
Also the fact the ATC reacted quite calmly to the crash report - which was questioned on the french forum - tells me nothing - I would be paradoxicly more suspicious if he would react in an emotional way - ATC's are cold blooded jerks. biggrin.gif

3. Yes the red, resp. blue point (in the diferent versions) then tagged with S is the actual position of the plane. The point at the Pentagon site is the actual radar return - from the smoke from the explosion? dunno.gif The fact, that the tag is moving further could be attributed to two possibilities - the tracking software if configured so could follow the projected trajectory for tagged target for usually 5 sweep periods even there are no radar returns - but this possibility is quite unlikely - because there it looks like there actually ARE radar returns in the radar data. - I was now briefly looking to .csv file (http://aal77.com/faa/faadata/dcatracon.csv) and have tryied to put all messages around 13:36:56.3 (when LOOK looks to be disappearing) into map and I've found all the possible 4 blips around this time in file are located eastwards from Pentagon, aprox. above SW Fwy bridge resp. the river - which is weird - around this time and space there was no other target around than LOOK, so I would atribute them to it without much questioning.
The fact the plane was not tagged I would think was because it was not identified and only later then tagged manually by the ATC. But it would need to look into data deeper to confirm this assumption - but to me it looks that in the data there are several radar returns as if the plane would continue its flight eastwards another ~20 secs. after it passed the Pentagon and as if it would fly another ~2 miles. Only then the tag resp. the radar returns disappear. (What the FAA wants to tell us?... blink.gif )

4. The target was most probably tagged manually. -If one looks to the radar - one finds the "AA77" all the time from the beginning of the DCA_Tracon video (link above) - its just a small red point moving eastwards, then making the 330° turn where just in the middle of it beggins to be identified with the radar tag, the same can one find at the DCA_Tyson video (http://www.aal77.com/movies/DCA_TYSON.avi), just the target are blue returns. The absence of the altitude actually would suggest the transponder was off. But I don't know if the altitude data screened in DCA_Tyson video are actually the transponder altitude. To me it looks questionable - because if I briefly compare the altitude data for the C-130 plane in the DCA_Tyson video with the C-130 transponder altitude data from the 84Rades data, they DON'T MATCH anywhere on the C-130 rouute to the 5gon after it started to chase the "AA77", the difference is at least 1000ft. At the time I'm unable to explain this, because I don't know the DCA radar parameters. One would think the altitude in DCA_Tyson video is the radar height - but then why it wouldn't be returned also for the LOOK target?
The speed in the DCA_video is most probably derived from the radar returns position distance. The ATC is not interested in the airspeed - which I even don't know nothing if it actually comes with the transponder data - what is important for him is the groundspeed measured usually by the radar.

5. The question of speed of the "AA77" final approach I was recently addressing here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15913

6. The question was - I think - fully answered by Rob

I hope this brief answers help.

Personaly I'm not very convinced that any released 9/11 data are untampered. I was digging into 84Rades for a while and I've strong feeling, supported by real findings in it, that they are manipulated. At the time I can't say anything about the real credibility assesment of the FAA data, but after the experience with the 84Rades data I'm quite sceptical. I don't know anything about the chain of the custody of the FAA data, so I would be very reluctant to waste the time with it (especially if it is propagated by the people as John Farmer I have a very negative personal experience with).

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Jan 6 2009, 07:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 6 2009, 06:11 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

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



Thank you tume and thank you dMole for your replies....

Keep in mind, the owner of aa77.com was initially denied receipt of the FAA and RADES data.. but went through what the owner claims is a "back door" FOIA to initially obtain the RADES data.

Several months after the FAA denied his request, and after he found "manipulation" with the "RADES", he now suddenly has the FAA radar Data.

I also think i recall reading something that the owner of "aal77.com" had to create his own code to interpret the FAA radar data.... and then convert it to the videos you see above. Considering the owner of aal77.com has been exposed for numerous inaccuracies in his work.. i'd take anything obtained from there with a grain of salt.

Also keep in mind.. the owner of "aa77.com" now makes excuses for the govt story, attacks P4T regularly/daily, yet refuses to debate P4T. (just a caveat)


With that said, the above does not "prove" nefarious behavior... however... to me personally, it raises a red flag.

I personally will be sitting down with the owner of aal77.com either on a recorded call or in person... also recorded... we'll eventually clear all this up... even if he refuses such a recording.. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 6 2009, 07:06 PM
Post #11





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



HI Tumes:

QUOTE
because there it looks like there actually ARE radar returns in the radar data. - I was now briefly looking to .csv file (http://aal77.com/faa/faadata/dcatracon.csv) and have tryied to put all messages around 13:36:56.3 (when LOOK looks to be disappearing) into map and found all the possible 4 blips around this time in file are located eastwards from Pentagon, aprox. above SW Fwy bridge resp. the river - which is weird - around this time there was no other plane around than LOOK.
The fact the plane was not tagged I would think was because it was not identified and only later then tagged manually by the ATC. But it would need to look into data deeper to confirm this assumption - but to me it looks that in the data there are several radar returns as if the plane would continue its flight eastwards another ~20 secs. after it passed the Pentagon and as if it would fly another ~2 miles. Only then the tag resp. the radar returns disappear.


I think that I have found the same thing and maybe even more. I have no expertise in the area. I only have a sharp eye, the ability to tell the same from different and see patterns, and persistence. I have a PM out to dMole right now asking for the benefit of his expertise. I don't want to fly off the handle on a public message board and think that what we might say about this requires contemplation, review and unity.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 6 2009, 07:21 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,124
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jan 4 2009, 11:06 PM) *
HI Tumes:
I think that I have found the same thing and maybe even more. I have no expertise in the area. I only have a sharp eye, the ability to tell the same from different and see patterns, and persistence. I have a PM out to dMole right now asking for the benefit of his expertise. I don't want to fly off the handle on a public message board and think that what we might say about this requires contemplation, review and unity.

Yeah, the blips "eastwards behind the 5gon" are in my opinion definitely in the data. What does it mean would be clear if we know something about the data chain of custody and credibility. But I would pose a question: The FAA - when releasing the data - must surely knew about this issue. What was then the reason to publish the data if it quite clearly confirms (if we take it for real) the 5gon flyover??

What more you've found?

NOTE> I've just put in my original post an update, where I briefly discuss the very probable desynchronization of the video and audio in the DCA_Tyson video. To me it looks there is a shift ~30-35 seconds between the audio and video.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jan 6 2009, 07:33 PM
Post #13





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



QUOTE
What more you've found?


I'm going to send you a PM - the same PM I sent to dMole. I want people who know more than me about radar and air traffic control to consider this instead of making a "loose cannon" message board post. I could tell that dMole had some relevant knowledge and now it appears that you do to - the more eyes the better.

When you look at my PM, please remember that I have some other back up and illustrative data (.txt, .pdf. and .kmz files) that I could not figure out how to deliver via PM and would appreciate some advice on how to get it to you and dMole via PM.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 6 2009, 08:21 PM
Post #14



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 6 2009, 04:11 PM) *
...
Also keep in mind.. the owner of "aa77.com" now makes excuses for the govt story, attacks P4T regularly/daily, yet refuses to debate P4T. (just a caveat)

With that said, the above does not "prove" nefarious behavior... however... to me personally, it raises a red flag.

I personally will be sitting down with the owner of aal77.com either on a recorded call or in person... also recorded... we'll eventually clear all this up... even if he refuses such a recording.. wink.gif

Red, yellow, orange, salmon, or WTF-Chuck colored flag exactly and precisely? whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 7 2009, 11:43 AM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,124
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (dMole @ Jan 4 2009, 11:21 PM) *
Red, yellow, orange, salmon, or WTF-Chuck colored flag exactly and precisely? whistle.gif

...I would think the flag would depict a scum and bones laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 7 2009, 01:05 PM
Post #16



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Jan 6 2009, 05:33 PM) *
I'm going to send you a PM - the same PM I sent to dMole. I want people who know more than me about radar and air traffic control to consider this instead of making a "loose cannon" message board post. I could tell that dMole had some relevant knowledge and now it appears that you do to - the more eyes the better.

Hi TN.

Tume's PM this morning summed up my take on the FAA "data" beautifully. I don't think it is an accident that these 2 "data files" are too big and improper format for spreadsheet import. (USAF 84 RADES conveniently gave us an Excel spreadsheet that I graphed for all 4 flights when the red flags started flying back in late 2007- that was a big mistake that Uncle GUS isn't going to make twice).

I'd take an entire salt mine with most of the Farmer and "pinnacle" "data" based upon my and Tume's past experience. That FAA "data" has a "UAL93" landing at Reagan DCA, after all... whistle.gif

I don't know how the "civilian" [FAA] ATC operations stuff works- I'm more familiar with the military applications of radar (and how to "break" it).

I did find that the software that produced the 2 large "FAA Data" files traced back to the US Navy of all places- the details are on that thread that I linked above, and we got a US Navy "guest" on that thread right about then too. ph34r.gif

EDIT: And why did they need to "sit on" this "data" for 7 years before the "FOIA release?"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DbleTrble
post Jan 8 2009, 09:07 AM
Post #17





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 4-January 09
Member No.: 4,055



QUOTE (dMole @ Oct 2 2008, 08:44 AM) *
EDIT: Here's a sorted, highlighted screen capture of the spreadsheet around the ''AA77" and "UA93" events- the Boeing B757-200's are green, Boeings are yellow and orange, and don't forget that "non-descript" "AAL568 at 10:13 EDT- I sure wish I knew what the FAA thought that one was...




We have just compared the flight arrival times of the spreadsheet sorted by dMole and what occured on the DCA Tyson video. Here is the result :


Flight Vid Spreadsheet Difference
- AAL684 13:25 9:31 - 6 min
- COA803 13:27 ???? ?????
- PDT3332 13:29 9:30 - 1 min
- USA6511 13:31 9:32 - 1 min
- UAL338 13:32 9:35 - 3 min
- AWE98 13:34 9:31 + 3 min
- PDT3402 13:36 9:39 - 3 min
- SYX2020 13:37 9:40 - 3 min
- ASH5767 13:39 9:42 - 3 min

Useless to say the data between the video and the spreadsheet don't match ! What's more on the video one can clearly see AAL684 landing BEFORE PDT3332 which is not the case in the spreadsheet blink.gif


Last thing, on the video there is an aircraft tagged "5175" that is flying over the Pentagone going south east in Reagan's direction at low speed (110-120 knots). Do you remember any witness reporting an aircraft (other than the C130) flying over the crash scene 3 or 4 minutes after the crash ?

This post has been edited by DbleTrble: Jan 8 2009, 09:12 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jan 8 2009, 01:04 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

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



The DCA "Stark" spreadsheet is linked at my post #70 on that FAA thread (with some of the background on the questionable "source" of that information):

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10753938

There are different spreadsheet tabs for arrivals and departures IIRC.

Airport codes here and DCA location at post #76:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=13342

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10754193

Aircraft identification codes at post #81:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10754486

Now the really questionable (IMHO) "combined spreadsheet" for 4 Washington DC airports can be found linked at post #82 (caveat emptor, and I make no guarantees on any of this data as far as validity especially the lat/lon part as it was not in the original data- I'm just the messenger):

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10754606

As the website where that FAA "FOIA data" is hosted has been known to "disappear" entire sections and forums in the past, you may want to grab what you can there very soon. The audio and video files are quite large.
--------------
FWIW, there was a John Farmer, Jr. serving as Senior Counsel on the 9/11 Commission. The "John Farmer" hosting that website is believed to be an SPC Engineer, not an attorney (or very briefly Governor of New Jersey).

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?e...y=john_farmer_1

Hmmm... Christine Todd Whitman again:

John Farmer Jr. Wiki..
CODE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Farmer_Jr.
[the link has punctuation and won't work]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Jan 9 2009, 12:09 AM
Post #19


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,035
Joined: 16-October 06
From: arlington va
Member No.: 96



QUOTE (DbleTrble)
Last thing, on the video there is an aircraft tagged "5175" that is flying over the Pentagone going south east in Reagan's direction at low speed (110-120 knots). Do you remember any witness reporting an aircraft (other than the C130) flying over the crash scene 3 or 4 minutes after the crash?


dbltrble, i was personally present when at least 6 witnesses from the ANC (arl. nat. cemtery) were interviewed, and they did NOT see another plane in the few minutes in question. no one at the scene (that i heard interviewed) remembers seeing any "2nd" plane - and i very specifically asked each of them if they saw ANY other planes around after the impact and before the arrival of the c130, and none of them did.

im not saying there was or wasnt one, but so far no one has come out as having witnessed that.


re: http://www.aal77.com/movies/DCA_TYSON.avi (*note the link in the OP of this thread is broken)

can you please describe more details about the track of 5175? it arrives early in the video near dead center of the grid, and then towards the middle of the video (for a long while) again moving southeast, and then at the very end of the clip. so i counted 3 occasions of 5175, meaning there were 3 interruptions during which 5175 was absent, or i didnt find it (its tricky watching all those dots).

so if you would please, describe what things you observed about 5175 and/or some interpretations of those observations, i would be much obliged.

thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DbleTrble
post Jan 9 2009, 03:30 AM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 10
Joined: 4-January 09
Member No.: 4,055



Paranoia, here's what I have seen on the DCA Tyson vid. As you mentionned it is tricky to follow all these tiny points so I may have lost something but here are the few minutes flight of 5175 we can see :

At 13:25 Beginning of the vid, it's flying east of Reagan. No altitude display (too low ?) and low speed (80 knots)

At 13:27:42.2 5175 dissapear from the screen (landed ?).

At 13:32:37.7, 5175 appears suddenly around Reagan's Area. Note that a tag "1471" seems to take off from Andrew's area at 13:32:19.2 and then dissapear around Reagan. Then 5175 appears around the same area.

At 13:34 it seems to fly over P56 or very close (I may be wrong) and go on North West. I guess only military aircraft could fly over that restricted area.

At 13:38.19:3 LOOK dissappear from the screen. "5175" still go on North West at low speed.

At 13:39.47.1 it makes a U-Turn and moves towards the Pentagon's direction (south east)

At 13:40.42.45 "5175" dissappear from the screen and comes back at only 13:42.10:2. It seems to cross GOFER06 trajectory (that is going to Shanksville - I intended to put a smiley here but this is the right trajectory to go there !) and they are very close from each other.

A 13:43.14:8 It is flying over the Pentagon until 13:44.0:1 (more than 45 seconds).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th September 2017 - 03:11 AM