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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
84rades Vs. Ntsb Animation, gross mutual inconsistence? (graphic)

tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 30 2011, 08:51 PM
Post #1





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



click to enlarge:

(png - 17MB, 84Rades PLA radar data for "AA77" corrected 23ft northwards to fit exactly the Google Earth here, why corrected? )

bottom line: Who invents the data for the perps? Are they able to use basic math?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Jan 30 2011, 09:46 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



nice tume!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 31 2011, 09:06 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

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



Nice digging Tume!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 31 2011, 11:26 AM
Post #4



Group Icon

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





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

The question then becomes, why were the clocks at NEADS almost a half a minute behind all others?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Jan 31 2011, 12:16 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 31 2011, 04:26 PM) *


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

The question then becomes, why were the clocks at NEADS almost a half a minute behind all others?


Am I reading this wrong or according to RADES "Flight 77" was around the Pentagon basin at 09:38 (13:37:35 - datapoint 1)??



None of this crap adds up no matter what angle you look at it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 31 2011, 03:50 PM
Post #6





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



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Jan 31 2011, 03:26 AM) *


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

The question then becomes, why were the clocks at NEADS almost a half a minute behind all others?

Yeah, I know this and if it is true it can explain something.

The problem to the discussion here was that 84Rades differs 20+ seconds from the NTSB animation at the roughly 13:37:00 but not a whole minute later it differs just ~10 seconds at the given position ~900ft from the last NTSB position. (Although it is alone controversial, so I've put the question mark in the title.)

The above time dicrepancy of course could be explained that the last blip at 13:37:35.890 isn't a real blip from the plane, because if one sees the height profile from the PLA radar all the way to the 5gon then it looks that the direct radar visibility to the point at the given Lat/Lon 3849'40.95"N 77 9'12.11"W from PLA would be there if the object would be - as I estimate - like roughly 400ft AGL and higher. Bearing this in mind, it is quite very likely a Search blip shouldn't come from a plane at several maybe dozens of feet AGL at the given position, because it is way below obstacles in the vay to the PLA.

But still, on the other hand, when I've then put a glance at the speeds and even if I consider the NEADS alleged lag the two things still just don't add up and I can even see there a GS derived from the radar (when the plane enters the circle at roughly FL80) being several dozens of knots HIGHER than the CAS indicated at the NTSB video (like NTSB indicates 278-301 kts and 84Rades consistently reads average 357 kts GS for the 3 subsequent sweeping periods or still average 335 kts if I add it to 5 subsequent sweeping periods and when I search for such a speed anywhere around in the NTSB video - there just isn't anything like over the 301 kts CAS around this period - 25,3 seconds backwards or forwards).

Yes, the last blips in front of 5gon are quite questionable, I recognize it as highly controversial, maybe fitting better to the debate section. But the speed inconsistence alone somehow doesn't seem to me being possibly a result of a timing lag. nonono.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundPounder
post Jan 31 2011, 05:06 PM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 1,748
Joined: 13-December 06
From: maryland
Member No.: 315



there's always been (at least since i was kid many years ago), the saying that it was 'close enough for government work'. the corollary went something like: 'spec it w/ a micrometer, measure it with a ruler and cut it w/ a chainsaw.'

25 seconds here, couple hundred feet there, close enough for government work sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Jan 31 2011, 06:45 PM
Post #8





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



QUOTE (GroundPounder @ Jan 31 2011, 10:06 AM) *
there's always been (at least since i was kid many years ago), the saying that it was 'close enough for government work'. the corollary went something like: 'spec it w/ a micrometer, measure it with a ruler and cut it w/ a chainsaw.'

25 seconds here, couple hundred feet there, close enough for government work sad.gif

rolleyes.gif
Unfortunately. It is quite difficult to come to some conclusions when even the US military isn't able to set up their clock (or at least they pretend so...).
I was just looking at the Air Canada 143 - a brand new B767 which runned out of fuel and crashlanded, because they confused pounds with kilograms when loading it with the fuel and the fuel indicators didn't worked, because they didn't change a faulty board, yet still they checked manually, but still in the pounds... Fortunately enough, nobody was killed, because the pilot used to fly gliders, the front gear didn't locked and the former runway was divided in the middle by a guard-rail for car races, which together effectively braked the plane before it would run over some children playing and would overrun the runway. laughing1.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 31 2011, 09:05 PM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Radar was spoofed, all the events were staged, many just on paper.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Feb 1 2011, 02:50 AM
Post #10





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



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Jan 31 2011, 10:21 AM) *
click to enlarge:
(large image removed)

(png - 17MB, 84Rades PLA radar data for "AA77" corrected 23ft northwards to fit exactly the Google Earth here, why corrected? )

bottom line: Who invents the data for the perps? Are they able to use basic math?


Ummm why according to the rades data does the plane veer left more towards the NOC path
off the official SOC path and then hit the pentagon where Craig and Aldo insist it did the flyover?

Something is not right here it is very fishy indeed.

rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 1 2011, 10:41 PM
Post #11





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



QUOTE (Paul @ Jan 31 2011, 06:50 PM) *
Ummm why according to the rades data does the plane veer left more towards the NOC path
off the official SOC path and then hit the pentagon where Craig and Aldo insist it did the flyover?

Something is not right here it is very fishy indeed.

rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif

We really don't know.
Here is the height chart of PLA - last "AA77" blip:
Left is PLA radar, right the last blip in the 84Rades "AA77' track.
It shows that no object at the position 3849'40.95"N 77 9'12.11"W being at the height below ~100m=328ft AGL couldn't be seen by PLA radar as a primary radar type blip.
The obstacle is here:

detail:

(the red lines mean 5 meter height step, the top line is 100m AGL elevation of the last blip at position 3849'40.95"N 77 9'12.11"W and means there is direct visibility for PLA. 5m below there isn't any.) This means an object must be at least ~96m AGL in front of the Pentagon to be seen by the PLA radar. So the last two "AA77" blips in the 84Rades data most probably aren't the plane, at least not at given position and needed low altitude.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 1 2011, 11:33 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

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



Nice work Tume.

The strangest aspect for me is that the area below the Annex is well below the ASL of the "missing blip" area.

Can I read about the limitations of the radar anywhere?

Cheers
OSS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 2 2011, 06:32 AM
Post #13





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



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 1 2011, 03:33 PM) *
Nice work Tume.

The strangest aspect for me is that the area below the Annex is well below the ASL of the "missing blip" area.

Can I read about the limitations of the radar anywhere?

Cheers
OSS

I think there are some informations about radars sparsely scattered arround internet. I'm using the bit I've learnt in the school (electronics college).
But basically the limitation relevant here for the ARSR radars is the direct visibility from the radar to the point where the object in the air is or is supposed to be - to be exact.
Usually - with the 3D radars - the visibility statistics diagram looks like this:

but PLA is ARSR-3 which hasn't the 3D cappability for Search type messages, so only if the transponder is on, the radar records the MC altitude. For PLA you dont see any Search type blips (light green) in the diagram:


Basically the limitation is if there is a hill inbetween, the ground based radars can't see behind. That's why I think the two last 84Rades blips for "AA77" shouldn't be from the "AA77" plane, because 1. it doesn't correspond with the time compared to NTSB animation (bearing in mind the alleged NEADS time lag 25.3 sec) and 2. the plane would need to be at least the ~96 meters AGL, otherwise I'm afraid the PLA couldn't see it anyway.
But for now I'm still digging in it, trying to figure what is probable. There are very weird things in the 84Rades data in respect to "AA77" - for example the sudden reappearance of the plane at 3825'17.01"N 8046'56.57"W

(the image is elplot statistics for PLA showing how far the radar sees - or in this case - another weird thing - is in visibility cut at 200 nmi - even yet the plane "reappears" not sooner than at range 147,5 nmi)
I was looking also at the height profile and it doesn't seem there is an obstacle in the way which would be why the plane eventually would not be seen by PLA earlier - if at the altitudes shown in the NTSB animation (>20000ft). There just isn't any 20000+ft mountain. There still are many puzzles in this which is why I'm not very convinced about the 84Rades integrity...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Feb 2 2011, 08:28 AM
Post #14





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



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 2 2011, 12:11 PM) *
We really don't know.
Here is the height chart of PLA - last "AA77" blip:
Left is PLA radar, right the last blip in the 84Rades "AA77' track.
It shows that no object at the position 3849'40.95"N 77 9'12.11"W being at the height below ~100m=328ft AGL couldn't be seen by PLA radar as a primary radar type blip.
The obstacle is here:

detail:

(the red lines mean 5 meter height step, the top line is 100m AGL elevation of the last blip at position 3849'40.95"N 77 9'12.11"W and means there is direct visibility for PLA. 5m below there isn't any.) This means an object must be at least ~96m AGL in front of the Pentagon to be seen by the PLA radar. So the last two "AA77" blips in the 84Rades data most probably aren't the plane, but the smoke plume or whatever.


The 84th rades data doesn't even corroborate the official flight path, the rades data doesn't even corroborate the flight data recorder form AA 77, the data of either two don't even match the official flight path of AA 77 all we have is numerous contradictions and inconsistencies and yet they insist on calling us nuts for not believing as they do, and yet they label us conspiracy theorists for asking simple questions and trying to demand answers for thing there should already be crystal clear answers, yet they the ones who attack us are nuts for believing in a theory for which there are many holes and is full of evidence to the contrary, yet they are even more nuts for continually insisting that there is nothing wrong with the data and making excuses for official story they are the ones who cannot be honest they are the ones who choose to lie when they accuse us of lying this is bs on an epic scale the cowards can run and hide from us all they like because they are fully aware of what they are doing and they know they are wrong and they cannot face the truth and be honest about it, yet they choose to run and hide and make excuses instead well be damned with them the bloody lot of them and OCT as well, because we are not going to loose in the end they are when the truth comes out.

This post has been edited by Paul: Feb 2 2011, 10:06 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Feb 3 2011, 09:39 PM
Post #15





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



Hi Tumes!

Excellent work!

Recall Rob's quote from the NTSB Radar Study - Initial comparison of RADES to FAA Radar Data showed a 25.3 second lag in the RADES, so 25.3 seconds was added to reconcile it with the FAA Data(1). Well, the FAA Data came from the ground stations of the four nearby airports, ADW, BWI, IAD and DCA. DCA in particular was not obscured by terrain, being on the low side of the high ground and just a mile or so away to boot.

On several threads about two years ago, it was established that the fair average of positions on all of those four airport returns (which was the base line for reconciling RADES) was consistent with the NOC Path and not that far off from the next to last RADES position, which is also NOC, but further North than the fair average of the four FAA data sets.

Then the last RADES return is over the South Lot, which is consistent with what Roosevelt Roberts says, but which also requires an excessively sharp turn from the next to lost RADES position.

The bottom line seems to be that all of the Radar Data,, RADES and FAA, is so hopelessly inconsistent that the only thing one can conclude is that in at least the last minute the part pertaining to AA 76 has been adulterated.

______________________________
(1) If you choose to believe any of the Government Radar Data, whether RADES or FAA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 3 2011, 10:13 PM
Post #16





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



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Feb 3 2011, 01:39 PM) *
Hi Tumes!

Excellent work!

Recall Rob's quote from the NTSB Radar Study - Initial comparison of RADES to FAA Radar Data showed a 25.3 second lag in the RADES, so 25.3 seconds was added to reconcile it with the FAA Data(1). Well, the FAA Data came from the ground stations of the four nearby airports, ADW, BWI, IAD and DCA. DCA in particular was not obscured by terrain, being on the low side of the high ground and just a mile or so away to boot.

On several threads about two years ago, it was established that the fair average of positions on all of those four airport returns (which was the base line for reconciling RADES) was consistent with the NOC Path and not that far off from the next to last RADES position, which is also NOC, but further North than the fair average of the four FAA data sets.

Then the last RADES return is over the South Lot, which is consistent with what Roosevelt Roberts says, but which also requires an excessively sharp turn from the next to lost RADES position.

The bottom line seems to be that all of the Radar Data,, RADES and FAA, is so hopelessly inconsistent that the only thing one can conclude is that in at least the last minute the part pertaining to AA 76 has been adulterated.

______________________________
(1) If you choose to believe any of the Government Radar Data, whether RADES or FAA.


Even I don't much chose to believe any of them I would like to make a comprehensive complete plot of the available radar data - something like an all in one check of (in)consistence, also with the FDR. Has somebody an idea where I can now get the FAA data and the FDR data?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 4 2011, 11:55 AM
Post #17



Group Icon

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



Hi Tume,
I found "Woody Box", a poster here (?), has a very comprehensive blog on the ATC transcripts, etc

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/03/du...on-loop-of.html

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2009/03/fl...triangular.html

I'm not sure if the ATCs were ever used to "deduce" an exact "time of impact".

The official (and not so official) evidence has always tried to intermingle the NOC and EOP (East of Potomac) path with the OCT:

October 26, 2004 National Geographic aired a documentary called "Seconds from Disaster: Pentagon 9/11"

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...nationalgeo.gif

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...ocanimation.gif

NORAD:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lyt...adnorthpath.jpg

NTSB:



FAA:



RADES:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e207/Mer...30FakeRADES.jpg

The RADES for the C130 has been totally debunked IMO (were the C130 timestamps "running 25.3 seconds behind"?).
Note: There are some very useful ATC quotes in that thread and a breakdown of the pilot's described trajectory.

They all come under suspicion because they contain the official plotted "loop".

CIT's early investigation lead to these witness interviews:

http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/vi...whiteplane.html

and the path they describe further corraborated here:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=558

http://i511.photobucket.com/albums/s360/Li...usPaikMorin.jpg

Note: Pay particular attention to Jamal El-Kournayti's account (which is later on multi-corraborrated) - it blows the official path apart just before reaching the Annex area and strangely enough is around the same linear area where the "missing blip" is in the RADES data - speculation I know, but maybe this "missing blip" was to hide where the attack jet's actual arrival came from (to be taken with a pinch of salt)

http://i545.photobucket.com/albums/hh381/p...ps/planealt.jpg

http://i545.photobucket.com/albums/hh381/p.../lineardist.jpg

http://i28.tinypic.com/143ma9x.jpg

Sorry for the overload Tume. I know you're more interested in the physical data, but that's my 2 cents smile.gif

I personally hope to see all of the data you need on a single presentation. Very interesting angle.
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: 15th November 2019 - 01:31 PM