Is South Flight Path A Myth?, Can't Find Any Gov't. Claim For It Options

[tnemelckram]

Don't get me wrong. I am not trying to exonorate the government from having made a claim that appears to be demonstratively false based on various investigations by the people and organizations assocaited on this Board. I'm thinking that if the government has never claimed the South Flight Path, then the NoC Path has no competition and it's the only game in town.

My curiosity started with this post:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10763923

where I asked:

What I'd like to find is a government plot of the waypoints that make its South Flight Path. I guess what I would first like to find is whether or not such a thing exists. Can you tell me where to find one?

Given the at least ten data sources for plotting that I listed above, and the tortured history of the data releases, and all of the interpretations of same, I'm now not sure of what data the government actually used to lay out the South Flight Path. Can you tell me? Right now it looks like its the RADES data alone, maybe that in conjunction with some other FDR data (INS, DME)

. . . . . . . . .

Of course, if there is no South Flight Path backed with specific waypoints drawn from some source, that would raise other issues and even more serious issues.

So I started looking for it.

1. I could not find any claim for it in the 911 Report. Here's a link to that piece of work so this can be checked:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm

They did not investigate the specifics of what happened at and near the Pentagon at all. They did not claim a South Flight Path. They took it for granted that the plane struck the Pentagon and when that is assumed to be true the corrolary would be that the path didn't matter. Just a superficial review of the table of contents shows that they were concerned with prior intelligence failures, weaknesses in security, failures to detect and respond, and future measures.

The Report strikes on some historic American Themes. First, a desire to blame someone al la
Admiral Kimmel and General Short at Pearl Harbor (what a spooky precedent). Second, to make plenty of references to how terrible it was (making further inquiry appear unpopular or blasphemous?). Third, finding heroes amongst the plain folks involved or affected (thereby making everybody think they had a stake in it).

What they didn't do is claim that the plane took any specific path at all near the Pentagon. They basically say that AA77 took off from IAD, flew out over West Virginia, was hijacked there, turned around, flew back to Washington, and crashed into the Pentagon. Generally, they never claimed to have conducted any forensic air disaster investigation (I suppose because they didn't) let alone a proper one. Of course, any proper investigation would look into all available information about the final minutes as well as collecting all recoverable parts and identifying the aircraft.

2. They never took testimony from the alleged numerous eyewitnesses at the Pentagon. Here's a link to the Hearing Transcripts so I can be checked:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/index.htm

3. The Commission deferred to the expertise of the relevant government agencies such as NTSB and FAA. They relied on the prior and existing investigations that those agencies conducted in 2002. That in effect left to those agencies decisions as to what information was necessary for a proper investigation, gather that information and then draw conclusions from whatever information they sorted out as being necessary to draw conclusions.

4. The FAA delegated the forensic matters (including collecting all available evidence of the "final" flight path) to the NTSB, which appears to be the normal jurisdictional procedure. After collecting the radar data, the NTSB in turn delegated the job of analyzing that data and determining the flight path to the Office of Research and Engineering. Dniel Bower Ph.D of that Office subscribed to this report:

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

That report is woefully deficient in many ways. The bulk of its 21 pages is devoted to an inventory of all of the data received from the NTSB (I guess to cover asses) and maps showing the entire flight path of AA77 in large scale. The inventory shows that they had radar data from the four airports, RADES, ZDC, and ARTCC. This report reveals the decision to rely on almost solely RADES and says that the only other thing that might need to be be considered would be FDR data "if available and "if necessary. The report superficially states the dubious reasons for that decision. Then there is practically no analysis. The conclusions basically say look at the courses drawn on the attached maps for our conclusions.

But what is significant is that this report makes no claim about any South Flight Path.

5. Jim Ritter of the NTSB used this report as the basis for his infamous Flight Path Study:

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA77.pdf

He makes no claim for the South Flight Path. All he did was provide this crayola etching that provides no information such as recorded waypoints to show how it was created:

(IMG:http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/aa77_final_maneuver.png)

Rob has noted that this tends to show the NoC flight path, and as an equally biased critic I agree. However, any neutral person would have to agree that because no data source is given, no supporting data is provided, no scale is provided, and the area shown is large, it shows no specific "final minute" flight path.

6. Then Team 8 of the 911 Commission, which was tasked with reviewing the flight control operations and other "forensic" matters such as the FDR, met with Messrs. Ritter, Bower and several other NTSB officials. The real John Farmer was in charge of this team. Here is their Memorandum For The Record of that meeting:

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00757.pdf

This Memorandum does not mention any discussion of the "final" flight path. The Commission proceeded to issue its Report as set forth above.

7. Other Memoranda For The Record here may reflect Commission interviews with eyewitnesses to the flight path. But once again the Commission did nothing with that information in its Report.

8. One can only conclude that the South Flight Path did not come from the Commission, the FAA or the NTSB.

So where did it come from?

What is it based on?

Was it created by some GL type trying to backfill for the government? Or perhaps a disinfo operative?

Have we been flailing away at a strawman?

Keep in mind that we only have to address what the government actually says. We don't have to address the rantings of GL's, whispers of disinfo artists, or impressions planted in the public mind via Cheap Jedi Mind Tricks such as "hot jet fuel fires" or "how dare you dishonor the victims by questioning the government".

It appears that NoC is the only flight path that has been derived from the entire record and can be supported by specific citations to that record. "Entire record" means both the government data and the evidence developed independently by Pilots and CIT. Given the massive amount of information in the record, I might have missed something or otherwise be wrong. If so, please let me know. That's the purpose of this thread.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Feb 1 2009, 08:21 AM

[rob balsamo]

Good work tn... and i agree. However...

The "South Flight Path" is derived by the physical damage and heading data provided by the NTSB working backwards from the "impact". This is why when we reference the "South Path", we add the caveat, "as required by the physical damage path" (light poles, "impact point" - exit hole in C Ring.. etc).

You are correct when you say the govt has never confirmed or "labelled" any path east of the NTSB sketch above. And thanks to the hard work both you and dMole have done, it appears most govt provided data is more consistent with the NoC path, opposite the "south path required for the physical damage".

[dMz]

Yes, (in my defense/personal "case," at least), I have been giving the OGCT the "benefit of the doubt" for argument's sake and independently investigating (straining to maintain scientific objectivity) since about late 2005 (then I eventually arrived here in Oct 2007 IIRC)...

I did hypothetically "reverse shoot" the "official' NTSB-provided OGCT approach line from the "best" "impact" location coordinates that I could determine (I even started about 4+ threads here related to just that business). Since our OGCT faithful "followers" didn't respond with numerical coordinates, I proceeded forward (much as TN has done recently, and I have independently "parallel-confirmed" the results of his inquiry, +/- 50 statute US feet, mostly). Convergence/intersection mean certain things in the [statistical and] "mathematical world..."



.......................


Now here it is Jan 2009, Super Bowl Sunday. [BTW- them OGCT "dogs" just don't hunt IMHO!]

I just got lost searching for 2 separate, supporting, stagnant threads, but please do know that the Search> More Search Options button exists at upper right on every single page of this forum.

Anyway, could we throw the [OGCT] alleged "confirmation bias" and "incredulity" accusations out the FUC*ING window now (for me personally at least, as I was so angered that I ended up working by/for the DoD as a result of 9/11 "terraist attaks" and have since given "Uncle GUS" the "benefit of the doubt" in most of my investigation)?

[Been on "both sides of the fence" firsthand and one seems much more objective to me, albeit while being highly ridiculed and harassed by the other. I also have since become fairly "expert" in translating propaganda to English... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) ]

[tnemelckram]

Hi Rob!

Thanks for your response.

the govt has never confirmed or "labelled" any path east of the NTSB sketch above.

This is valuable because it rules out further worry about finding any data supporting a specific path. The only problem is that tis a little disappointing because I don't get to stick any more pins.

This is why when we reference the "South Path", we add the caveat, "as required by the physical damage path" (light poles, "impact point" - exit hole in C Ring.. etc).

So backwards from the hole in the Pentagon to the poles to some last RADES data point.
I'm a curious cat so the next question became "where does the government claim the poles?".

None of the FAA, NTSB or Commission documents mention the poles. So I decided that the next likely place to look would be the NIST-ASME Building Performance Report:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

That Building Performance Report says this about the poles:

3.7 SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT
The Boeing 757 approached the west wall of the Pentagon from
the southwest at approximately 780 ft/s.As it approached the Pentagon
site it was so low to the ground that it reportedly clipped an
antenna on a vehicle on an adjacent road and severed light posts.

I don't read this as claiming the poles either. They say it "reportedly . . . severed light posts". And earlier in the report they mention the names of the eyewitnesses making the report. But the use of the word "reportedly" in their analysis falls short of a claim of fact. Nor do they mention making any effort to confirm the poles. The poles did not belong to Uncle Sam. They were the property of the Commonwealth of Virginia. They could have asked VDOT about it if they were interested in the poles.

I think there's a damn good reason for them to stay away from the poles. We do know that they have adopted the RADES data. That means the whole hog, including the location of its last return. Here's dMole's plot of that last return:

(IMG:http://flickcabin.com/pthumbs/large/19358/TN_trendAnnex_Image.jpg)

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/19358

That last return has the plane passing the poles. It would have to move sideways to hit them. Or it would have to produce an effect on them without touching them. Einstein was very troubled when the quantum mechanics guys said that one particle could produce an instantaneous effect on another particle no matter how far away. It violated the tenet of Relativity that nothing, including the information that produces effects, could travel faster than light. But I digress . . . . . No I don't! To claim the last RADES point and the poles too, they would have to postulate something similar. Damn quantum jumping! Spooky action at a distance! But God does not play at dice.

One thing is certain . . . . they claim the hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hog.

The government authorized the 911 Commission to be its sole investigator and spokesman on this matter. It didn't mention the poles. SOmeone else interjected it - perhaps some government person or agency in an official pronouncement that was outside its baliwick, or someone acting on their own. Whoever did it would have to have a reason that motivated them to weave the poles into someone else's cloth. If the source can be found in the zillions of words written about 911, that would be a good place to start looking for the dirt.

Reason for edit: More broken links

[tnemelckram]

Before the Big Game starts, I thought it would be a good idea to confirm that another basis for the Government to claim the South Path has been ruled out. I think dMole alluded to this in his above Post. I reviewed some of the older threads and based on that, here is my understanding of the matter.

When the FDR data was first decoded in 2007, one of the positional readouts (I think INS) produced data for way points in a straight line along the South Path. However, wstutt confirmed that this was a calibration error and that about 21 minutes of longitude should be added to those way points in this Post:

I believe I can see roughly where the NTSB made their error. If you have a look at your short Data Frame Layout, you will see on lines 63, 66 and 67 that the LS part of the longitude has a range of +/-0.3515625 degrees. I believe that the NTSB did not process the sign correctly.

Note that all the longitudes are negative and that 0.3515625 degrees = 21.09375 minutes which I believe is approximately equal to the error you observed.

The NTSB could well have made the same error with the latitudes but I believe that since they are all positive unlike the longitudes, it did not make any difference to the data we see in the CSV files.

I would have expected them to be more careful!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10732452

This was the bugaboo:

-- LAT/LONG --
DEG +/-0.3515625 0.000172
59 0 0 12 1 D15 IRU L-A-3 DIGITAL PRES POSN LAT-LSData
59 0 0 12 1 D13 FMC L/R-D-4 DIGITAL PRES POSN LAT-LSData
61 0 0 12 1 D13 FMC L/R-D-4 DIGITAL PRES POSN LONG-LSData
61 0 0 12 1 D15 IRU L-A-3 DIGITAL PRES POSN LONG-LSData

DEG +/-180 0.3515625
60 0 0 12 3 D13 FMC L/R-D-4 DIGITAL PRES POSN LAT-MSData
60 0 0 12 3 D15 IRU L-A-3 DIGITAL PRES POSN LAT-MSData
62 0 0 12 3 D13 FMC L/R-D-4 DIGITAL PRES POSN LONG-MSData
62 0 0 12 3 D15 IRU L-A-3 DIGITAL PRES POSN LONG-MSData

http://www.aa77fdr.com/readout2/573b.Short.txt

It also appears to me that the "Chantilly Course" way points were determined by correcting this and adding 21 minutes of longitude to the same way points that initially produced the straight line South Path. This is illustrated in a link in the right margin of the AA77 Main Page.

Returning to the matter at hand, the government never used these way points to support Mr. Ritter's drawing in the NTSB Flight Path Study. It does appear that he drew the line based on them but shied away from revealing them as his source. Perhaps the error was recognized along with the benefits that would come from not calling attention to it.

Just want to make sure that the South Path Box is as small as possible, just like I hope happens to Warner's pocket and time to throw..

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Feb 1 2009, 07:18 PM

[dMz]

On your new question(s) TN, this image tells a whole lot about the Inertial Nav. System (INS) for AA77:

Ins Vs. Dme Positional Data, cross posted from ATS
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15047

I hope you appreciate that image- it took me 2 days to finally find it. I remember hearing some GL static about "extreme maneuvers" throwing off the INS, but Rob probably is more familiar with those discussions than I am, and the 3 accelerometers actually had pretty mundane numbers in the "official" "AA77_tabular.csv" NTSB file.

Here are some other older threads on the INS location/NTSB business:

The NTSB Flight Path, The Descent Angle, & The VDOT Radio Tower, How'd "Hani" miss it & level off 6 ft over the lawn
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=11117

Questions for Undertow and FDR.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7110

On "readout2," that is not "official" NTSB data (although it was generated from the NTSB-provided "raw" file). It is a long story there (with a link referenced on Undertow's thread, I believe). Rob explained this one to me long ago in a phone call, but my understanding is that "readout2" data would be inadmissable as evidence. Still many GL's cling to it tenaciously as a foundation of their excuses (although this has been explained to them before).

EDIT: You might check the Pentagon DoD briefing from Sept. 15, 2001:

http://cryptome.sabotage.org/dod091501.htm

[dMz]

Well, as "official" as I've been able to geo-locate "the impact" is covered at my post #13 on Enver's "Flight Path and Destruction Path:"

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10764159

As far as the "official impact time," I think we have pretty well locked that down as 09:37:45 EDT at post #10 on the "Pentagon Rotated" thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10763892

At 09:37:44 EDT, the final True Heading was recorded as 59.8 degrees in the NTSB-provided "AA77_tabular.csv" file (which won't import completely into many of the older spreadsheets). Latitude, longitude, and True Heading are 3 of the columns that I have seen truncated off the 256 column limit in older versions of Excel). [This would be clockwise relative to geographic North if I understand the NTSB column headings correctly.]

See also the entire related thread (but specifically post #3) at:

Final Aa77 Ssfdr Parameters Per Ntsb, Analysis, Overview, and Review
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10762908

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/18835

[dMz]

I found some more related, older threads regarding the NTSB-released SSFDR data:

DCA, DME, And Maps
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4620

INS Lat/lon Heading Study, time for graphs
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=8123

Questions About FDR Accuracy
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=12098

'Black Box' Specs, What are the Technical Stats for a Flight Data Recorder
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=14599

[I was going to post some more related threads on Enver's "damage path" thread soon but I found it just now:
Alternate Analysis for light poles, Working backwards from impact point
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=84]
----------------
Back to the original "official" NTSB file, "AA77_tabular.csv" available at post #1 here:

Download AA77 NTSB Data, DCA01MA064 Source
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....t&p=1831472

After downloading that file, I obtained this [but the date/time shows my Sept. download]:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/21221

Unzipping that, I get this:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/21222

Contrast at what I obtained from the CD .ISO file that I downloaded from Farmer's website:

http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/21223
------------------
I'm not certain if these 2 .CSV datafiles are identical or not (the dates are years apart), but I recall Rob, wstutt, and I discussing that and binary "raw decoding" about a year ago. See these threads (or a similar one):

Aal77 Fdr Partial Decoder Program, Program available with source code
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=12616

So When Do We Find Out, Where it was prior to 9/11
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4687

Ual93 Fdr Decoder Program, Program available with source code
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10830

bit level FDR understandings, I babble
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=88

"21 arcminute" discrepancy at post #13 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=8123

United 93 Csv File Download
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=6205

EDIT: a little "techie" on this one:

Aa77 Reported Coords?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=10698

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Official documentation for southern approach:

1. Animation shown during the 9/11 Commission hearings.

2. 2006 released NTSB data.

3. Integrated Consultants animation that is linked on the State Dept website and therefore govt endorsed.

4. Images from ASCE report.

[tnemelckram]

Hi Craig!

Thanks for the response. I know you know this stuff well. Here's my thoughts:

1. Animation shown during the 9/11 Commission hearings. - The Commission seems to shy away from it in their report, never referencing it even by way of a footnote. Instead they rely on the NTSB Flight Path Study that doesn't mention any path at all. This thread discusses the Hearing Video vs. the FDR NTSB Video: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=3722



2. 2006 released NTSB data. - As far as I can tell the INS data in this release decoded in Readout 2 showed this but once again the NTSB never used it to claim the Path.

3. Integrated Consultants animation that is linked on the State Dept website and therefore govt endorsed.- Never seen it and will have to look for it and check it out.

4. Images from ASCE report.- AS I recall these images show the damage but do not claim that the plane took any path. The text onlys say that three witnesses reported it hitting the poles. They use the word "reportedly" without adopting the pole hit as fact.

[rob balsamo]

2. 2006 released NTSB data. - As far as I can tell the INS data in this release decoded in Readout 2 showed this but once again the NTSB never used it to claim the Path.

NTSB Heading data working backwards from "impact hole"


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
(see right margin and click "Final Approach Path". Its been linked since 2006)

You are confusing "INS" with heading (AHRS) data.

"Readout2" decode doesnt mean sh*t since its not a decode from the NTSB and is why you will never see an article on pilotsfor911truth.org referencing "Readout2".

[tnemelckram]

Hi Rob!

I was familiar with the diagram Post you linked to and the other threads related to the subject and the material in the margin of the AA77 page. It does look like I am confusing INS data with heading data but from those threads I gather that perhaps both were altered in the .csv file. I am also probably guilty of confusing Readout 2 and the altered .csv file.

But I don't think it matters in relation to my point that the .csv file was not accompanied by an NTSB or other government declaration that its data, working back from the damage or otherwise,confirmed the South Path. Given that it is clear the .csv file was altered, why would they risk being caught making a claim based on the altered data. The slick way to do it is to release altered data without comment and reserve for yourself the fallback position that it was all a mistake if you are ever called on the carpet. You damage that fallback position if you go further and make a claim because making the claim implies that you looked at it closely and your close look should have caught the "mistake". Better to leave it to independent analysts of the released data to bring it up and defeat it. That puts the South Path on the table and sets up an argument which means that now at least some people have a pro-government straw to grasp.

[dMz]

3. Integrated Consultants animation that is linked on the State Dept website and therefore govt endorsed.- Never seen it and will have to look for it and check it out.

Hi TN.

SPreston and I pretty well shredded that Integrated Consultants video (and the "Photoshop 4.0"-branded "5 frames video") on this thread:

Why Did The Alleged Heavy Smoke Trail From Flt 77, Immediately Disappear From Both Videos and Stills?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15585

I didn't find the State Dept. link searching just now, but there were several broken links on this page:

http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/200...K0.2676355.html

Perhaps archive.org will have a cached copy.

[tnemelckram]

Hi dMOle!

SPreston and I pretty well shredded that Integrated Consultants video (and the "Photoshop 4.0"-branded "5 frames video") on this thread:

Yes! A most excellent demolition!

1. You aptly noted that the video came with a built-in disclaimer that it was a "generated" "animation"
"to help offer explanations". It does not say that it is a claim of an flight path and the disclaimer by definition means that it does not make such a claim. So I think it's out.

2. I like your phrase "shill for the 9-11 perpetrators".

a. If I were a 911 government-associated perpetrator, I would not act directly but instead would act through shills.

b. I also would not call attention to myself by making claims. Better to slip it into the public conscience indirectly by this or other methods such as self-revealing .csv files that preserve deniability and a line of retreat (after all some unknown group of generals are prime suspects).

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Feb 11 2009, 05:23 PM

[tnemelckram]

Hang them twice! First with their story, and then with ours!

[dMz]

3. Integrated Consultants animation that is linked on the State Dept website and therefore govt endorsed.

My travels finally found that "official" link to the Integrated Consultants animation. Apparently "proof by YouTube" is good enough for the U.S. State Dept. and America.gov:

http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-p...entagon/11.html

"An artist’s drawing depicts the aircraft approaching the Pentagon, moments before the plane’s right wing struck the portable generator. Its left engine then struck the low concrete wall surrounding the outside ventilation structure, at almost the same instant as the plane’s nose hit the building.

For a dynamic simulation of the Pentagon crash, including damage to the generator, vent structure, and nearby light poles, see 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77, at youtube.com. (© The Pentagon Building Performance Report) "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

[paranoia]

wow dmole! i cant believe my eyes. the same site mentions loose change and links to rense.com!

(IMG:http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/57dbdc966c.jpg)


that really is an official state dept. site:
http://www.america.gov/pages/footer/local/about-us.html

State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) engages international audiences on issues of foreign policy, society and values to help create an environment receptive to U.S. national interests.

IIP communicates with foreign opinion makers and other publics through a wide range of print and electronic outreach materials published in English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Persian, Russian, and Spanish. IIP also provides information outreach support to U.S. embassies and consulates in more than 140 countries worldwide.


but out of curiosity - i did a whois search,
and for the first time ever,
there is no registrant info at all:

http://whois.domaintools.com/america.gov

(IMG:http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/737c2594a0.jpg)




stranger still,
it says the ip is out of Kuwait!

(IMG:http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/6c096b2b53.jpg)


(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[tnemelckram]

Re: State Department Website

Again the State Department makes no express claim that the plane hit the poles. In the first paragraph they specifically claim the plane hit the generator and vent but the poles aren't even mentioned. In the second paragraph they just say that the simulation includes damage to the light poles, not the crash itself." This is similar to the parsing of words in the damage report with respect to the poles, and similar to the type of disconnected language used in connection with Iraq to seem to make an assertion connecting two things while leaving an escape route via a claim that you were not literally lying because your exact words don't actually connect them.

Then the Youtube thing insulates them from having to call the video their own.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

Hi Craig!

Thanks for the response. I know you know this stuff well. Here's my thoughts:

1. Animation shown during the 9/11 Commission hearings. - The Commission seems to shy away from it in their report, never referencing it even by way of a footnote. Instead they rely on the NTSB Flight Path Study that doesn't mention any path at all. This thread discusses the Hearing Video vs. the FDR NTSB Video: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=3722

They officially depicted the south path during the hearing.

That makes it official whether or not the animation was referenced in the report.

2. 2006 released NTSB data. - As far as I can tell the INS data in this release decoded in Readout 2 showed this but once again the NTSB never used it to claim the Path.

The released raw data file depicts a southern approach.

This makes it official regardless of their overall refusal to address the data at all let alone the numerous anomalies and fatal issues contained in it such as altitude.

3. Integrated Consultants animation that is linked on the State Dept website and therefore govt endorsed.- Never seen it and will have to look for it and check it out.

It depicts a southern approach and is officially endorsed on a government website making it official.

4. Images from ASCE report.- AS I recall these images show the damage but do not claim that the plane took any path. The text onlys say that three witnesses reported it hitting the poles. They use the word "reportedly" without adopting the pole hit as fact.

They created images showing a southern approach.

(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/ASCEsatellitegraphicwithplaneapproa.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/ASCEflightpathwithobjectslabeled.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/ASCEFigure3.jpg)
(IMG:http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a327/lytetrip/Pentagon/ASCEFigure3-1.jpg)


Since this was an officially commissioned report created by a government entity this most certainly does make it "official".


The point is that they certainly have officially committed to a southern approach.

Granted it does seem as though they tried to remain as ambiguous as possible and have made a deliberate effort to cloud the issue with the NTSB and FAA animations both showing a northern approach but we clearly have enough on them to hold them to their word.

[Craig Ranke CIT]

I agree there has been a conscious effort to not acknowledge the light poles.

In fact I couldn't even get information from the VDOT regarding the light poles!

I think they purged all work orders or documentation of the light pole replacement because after numerous FOIA's they simply said that they don't have any documentation.