Wow,

Craig just notified me of this... this is almost exactly what i animated for the flight path in our new film based on witness statements filmed by CIT. The govt is really throwing those "duhbunkers" under the bus.. .huh? First the NTSB data shows too high.., then the NIST reports says damage wasnt a factor for WTC 7... now this, a flight animation released by the FAA through a court appeal supporting the north side, opposite the light pole physical damage! Too funny... Wish i knew of this prior to our release.... i would have delayed release and included this...

Note the plane transition from south to north path over the Navy Annex, North of the Citgo, completely missing the light poles...




(although my animation and render is much more detailed and polished )


ETA: Keep in mind, the above is according to a YT poster (animation source being the FAA). I have asked them to post the documentation confirming the source is the FAA... in the comments section.

Just got this reply from the YT member who uploaded the above animation in response to my request for documentation...

Rob, looking at that abit more closely, it does appear the plane way to high at the point of the impact to me. Does this look the same way to you?

edit, I think at either 26 and a half second or possibly 10ths of a second, will show the impact is below the plane. It looks that way to me, it was indeed (as CIT have investigated) a flyover judging by this FAA animation.

Wow, indeed.

I don't know whether to be shocked, or not. You would think they would cover their asses wouldn't you?

WTF? Dang.

I was thinking the exact same thing....

I've been looking at those 2 large, raw?? .TXT files. I wouldn't get too excited about those three 13xx.CSV files just yet.

This is all polar location data- we'll need the lat/lon locations of those FAA sites to make sense of it, and I didn't see that anywhere in the .PDF "FOIA" documentation. There are about 4 single-spaced pages of files listed too- take a look at: "sept09122008cover.pdf"

I'd also like to find whatever codes the FAA is using for those headers (it well could be in "Pinnacle's" 4 pages of files, but I haven't seen it). This FAA data only has about 4 or so columns in common with the RADES data format (time, range, azimuth, etc.), and I believe there are many aircraft jumbled together in the .TXT files. It looks to be a mess to sort out- we might need our computer programmer friend(s).

I've got software that will handle these "large" .TXT files, but it might be a LOT of manual cut/paste, moving, etc. to get usable data. Then comes the trigonometry...

I'll post something on the file format/headers very shortly- just need to upload my screencaps.

From the 'first' 21MB file "1 DCA 113 tg911 from CD.txt"

Top


Tail


------------------------------------------
From the 2nd 64MB file "1 DCA 113 CDRTM AAL77 9.11(2) from CD.txt"

Top


Tail

This is a huge development!
Perhaps the Truthers can keep shaming various government agencies into concurring with all of the findings.

I do think it is suspicious in the way this was released on YT, with no official statement.

We are going to need some volunteers to dig into those 4 (or more) air traffic control recordings too. It's not all that technical listening to the .WAV files, but it would be a good idea to take excellent notes with the timestamp.

The files are too big for my file server space, but I've got them downloaded already.

We say proceed with caution.

All data solely controlled and supplied by the suspect should be automatically considered invalid.

We can't all of the sudden accept it just because it may seem to tell us what we want.

Witnesses further back in the flight path tell a different story, particularly Jamal and Steve Chaconas on the river who has teh plane coming from east of the river.

There is actually a huge amount of evidence for the DC flight path and that is NOT what this animation shows.

I uploaded it to youtube myself in case people want to link to it without linking to Farmer's account:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHjN4sfyqIc

Ok.....what this data means is that people who DO accept government data as valid evidence are now forced to move towards believing the north side approach.

If you put the evidence in a "statistical process control" chart it would be off the hook in favor of north side.

But WE do not have to embrace it since the witnesses already prove the north side approach anyway.

So in essence it gives us more fire to throw in their faces while we can remain as non-committal on it as we want.

Yeah! I like the sounds of that!

Well wait,... im a bit confused. The FAA distributed data which confirms north of citgo flight path which CIT confirmed by filming witnesses on location. Is this invalid?

I can understand the whole flight path may not be valid based on ALL witnesses filmed by CIT. But is it possible that a whistleblower in the FAA and NTSB made these paths so more people look at the "North Side"? Even if not 100% accurate?

If im confused... i can imagine what the passer by must feel like.

Is the data invalid or not?

All data provided for by the suspect should be automatically considered invalid but we have a significant amount of evidence proving the DC/east of the river approach which direclty proves this data is invalid.




Sure it's "possible" but unprovable.

And it doesn't change the fact that they would have deliberately altered already fraudulent data in order to do so.



It is invalid.

They WANT it to be confusing.

That is the entire point.

It is our responsibility to NOT embrace this information to fight that confusion.

We have to stay consistent and it's clear we have plenty enough evidence already proving this new data fraudulent.

Baby steps my friend...

The FAA Data supports a north of citgo approach... you are telling people "Nothing to see here folks.. move along.. dont try to call the FAA upon this release.... it doesnt support the entire flight path".
You are confusing the reader.


Craig.. im sorry buddy.. but i disagree with you here... The FAA will be called on this even if you think we should look the other way... (and P4T have FAA Certificate's on the line).

One great thing about our "movement", "organization".. whatever... is that we can disagree. You'll never see that coming from "duhbunkers". They actually encourage deceit and never disagree. lol

Again.....this makes it harder for the duhbunkers no matter what....but it is only an issue for us if we embrace it.

We can ONLY accept independent verifiable evidence as valid.

We must never stray from that.

We are better off pointing out why this animation is fraudulent rather than falling into their trap of embracing it as valid.

The fact that they keep releasing fraudulent data at blatantly strategic moments IS evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job.

We are not saying "nothing to see here look the other way".

If it doesn't support the proper flight path, it is fraudulent.

The fact that they keep releasing fraudulent data at blatantly strategic moments IS evidence proving 9/11 was an inside job.


We are better off pointing out why this animation is fraudulent rather than falling into their trap of embracing it as valid.

But of course attempt to force THEM to answer WHY their data is irreconcilable with all physical damage.

But we already know what their answer will be.

Silence.

Big news if they had suddenly released this. After 7 years.

Banking steeply to the right.

i hear that!

I'm confused with the fact that, how could they release data back in 2006 and then few years later, release a different flight path for the same aircraft?!

Unless I'm understanding this wrong?

Craig,

I once again emphasize the fact that no one... is embracing.. this video... (bolded again)


But the fact remains... it is a video released by the FAA in support of "North Of Citgo" flight path, transitioning at Paik and corroborating Morin. Should we ignore it due to the fact it doesnt also support "East Of Potomac"?


Want my opnion? (even though you got enough of it )


We'll get to the "East Of Potomac" analysis.. .thoroughly...

Again.. the FAA supports your witnesses filmed on location as stated above. Where is your focus?


Again i ask.. should we ignore this video? There is a large space between "embrace" and "ignore". Which do you suggest we do? If we dont "embrace" (which no one ever claimed to have done), should we ignore it?

Hmmm...

So far, I'm seeing what Craig is meaning, here. Once again (apparently, yet to be confirmed) a government agency is releasing data which A) does not support the government story and B) does not corroborate with the other, physical, evidence available. We know that the videos "released" allegedly showing AA77 striking the Pentagon are at best inconclusive and at worst completely fallacious. We know that the data allegedly from the FDR of AA77 is false and we know this because the data itself belies even the possibility that this FDR could have been found in the Pentagon rubble unles it was planted there by persons unknown after the fact. Now here we, apparently, have data which corroborates the north of Citgo flight path but which does NOT meet the criteria supplied by interviewed witnesses. There is no reason to accept this data as being anything more than further obfuscation and "burying the bone deeper" by the government. Their GAME is to keep us confused and arguing amongst ourselves. Lets not play their game.

There is a logical syllogism here:

'A' and 'B' can not BOTH be true.
If 'A' is true 'B' must be false.
If 'B' is true 'A' must be false.
HOWEVER 'A' and 'B' can BOTH be false.

The FDR and alleged FAA data is irreconcilable with the physical damage observed around and within the Pentagon; both can not be true.
If the north flight path is true, then the physical damage is false (created by something other than the north flight path aircraft).
If the physical damage was caused by an aircraft, it was not on the north-flight path indicated by the FDR and the alleged FAA data.
However, BOTH the FDR data and alleged FAA data AND the physical damage may have been falsified.

I believe both 'A' and 'B' are false.

I agree with Craig that in a criminal investigation if you have suspects that are giving you false sets of evidence, that falsified evidence is itself evidence against the suspects.

Ok... let me make one thing very clear for the last time as im tired of repeating myself.

Just because elements of any type of data (NTSB, NIST, FAA, ASCE, the list goes on)... it does not automatically invalidate the entire set of data.. until each set is proven to be fradulent.

I have said this time and time again.. none of us will know exactly what happened on 9/11, mainly because we werent sitting in the jumpseat.

With that said, please try not to minimize conflicts offered by govt agencies. (this isnt directed at you in particular painter) as "whistleblowers" may only have one avenue.

Many people are putting their names, faces and professional reputations on the line. Im getting tired of the blanket statements of "fraud" as fact for entire data sets.

Alright, then as a point of clarification: Could the FDR whose data you have so thoroughly analyzed been found within the Pentagon rubble without having been planted there by persons unknown?

You asking me to speculate?

No, not at all. You have analyzed the data. Given data trends, could the FDR from which the data is alleged to have come been found within the Pentagon rubble?

I'm asking as a point of clarification because if there is a "maybe" here, I sure as hell don't see it.

If I'm just being ignorant, you have my apologies and I'll butt out of this conversation.

As a tactic, this idea of the authorities releasing so many differing reports just might work.
If you deluge the sheeple with too many bits of info, they throw their hands up in the air, and say "who cares?".

I apologize for answering a question with a question...

But...



Can an FDR be edited and planted more than 2 days after an incident in the weeee hours of the morning?

Painter... you have read these articles.. no?

Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's
Location of FDR Part II

This is an interesting thread!

For them (FAA) to offer up another flight path speaks volumes. Invalidating all the data coming from them would not be wise on our part. Suspecting all the data on the other hand, would be prudent.

This is somewhat analogous to attorneys sending the opposing side boxes and boxes of documents to sift through to get at the truth. Some kernels of truth and lots of extraneous stuff.

Of course, that still doesn't explain to my satisfaction the initial faulty flight path release by them.

The lack of a 'mea culpa' on the part of the FAA is unfortunate but completely expected.

Any idea why and who specifically released this?

If you don't embrace it then good. That's all that matters.

Because once again, just like the NTSB data, we are not saying this should be "ignored".

It simply needs to be touted for what it is and what it is not.

It IS more government provided data that is irreconcilable with all other data and physical damage.

This is huge and very important.

But it is NOT legitimate corroboration for the witnesses because this is not where the plane flew.

It came from east of the river as described by Middleton and Chaconas AND it had a more pronounced north of the gas station bank over the parking lot like the ANC guys describe making it end up somehow over the south parking lot.

This new FAA animation is a great hypothetical example of a north side approach in general and no matter how you slice it this works in our favor, but it is not legitimate data that is accurately or honestly depicting where the plane really flew.

We MUST make this clear to people.

Painter understands perfectly.

Just a few more thoughts.

I don't like playing the gov's game but we are stuck with it I think. If there had been a verifiable chain of custody for the retrieved aircraft parts ( w/ part numbers) that could then be matched up w/ maintenance logs, I would be less skeptical about the strike. Less, but not relieved of, because I didn't see it with my own eyes. The NTSB's failures of late have become habitual.

While I like boolean logic ( I'm a programmer), somethings don't lend themselves to such discrete states. Without one definitive dataset of some sort to work with, we are stuck (playing the game) of piecing this thing together from all the seemingly contradictory data. The fact that the data is contradictory, boosts the confidence level that something is seriously amiss all the more.

My two cents worth ( I guess that's about one pre-1985 penny)

I'm "siding" with Craig on this point... how far above 100.0000000000000000000000% can one allowably go?

This whole FAA "release" caught me blindside like a meadowlark IMMEDIATELY in front of the proverbial speeding locomotive. I had other plans today RIGHT when the shan hit the fit...

No matter- I got my "hands" DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRRRTTTTTTYYY! anyway- I've heard that I'm "good" like that.

I hauled "the fish" into the boat very quickly- then I started "cleaning" said fish...

Fish had scales... overlapping, very thick scales...

Fish shows up this morning- while I'm busy flying in front of trains-- hmmm.....

I personally think "we" are OBVIOUSLY caught in a "black op"... everyone take a deep breath and just know that the "spooks" will do their 'thang-- those mostly-"conscience-optional" f*ck-sticks GET PAID for EXACTLY THAT (plus they dig the whole "vibe")...

I view spooks as more of a personal pain in my ass this many years later, but I'm a JADED mofo at this point.

--------------------
This morning, I "cut" into a straw herring, and inside its belly I found a TiNRAT! Cutting inside that TiNRAT and poking around, I was surprised to find a TCEOT inside the TiNRAT's belly!!!

FWIW, TiNRAT is Kevin Ryan's term for [NIST] They'll Never Read All That.

Who wants to be the first to guess what I mean here?

[And for God's sake- let's NOT lose either our focus or OUR COHERENCE- I think this is what Craig was saying, but I've been wrong before... ]

Exactly.

And I would never say that this should be ignored.

The fact that they released this the day after Rob's new presentation showing virtually the exact same hypothetical north side approach is all but proof they are directly reacting to our work.

This may be the wrong thread to post this but I'll throw it out there for the sake of more information. While watching the news on televison concerning the memorial at the Pentagon on 9-11-08 a reporter was commenting on the design of the cantalevered benches representing those who died on that terrible day. She stated that the benches for those who worked at the Pentagon were aligned so that they pointed toward the Pentagon. The benches for the passengers who died in flight 77 were aligned along the " flight path" of the airplane. From what I could see,it was aligned to the " south " approach.

It made me wonder if this was some kind of planned prapoganda/psychological thing.

Just a thought

rc

Of course.

I definitely think so.

Or how about the massive triple spire air force memorial they put up right in front of the Navy Annex at the critical point where the flight path goes fatally off course.

It's almost like they represent 3 random directions for 3 flight paths of confusion.

I think the title of this thread says it best. The FAA animation supports the findings of Pilots and CIT. There is no need to embrace or reject it. It simply is what it is.

Or-- it's some triplet collection of RF antennae...

What, a kinda beam me in Scotty!

"We can neither confirm nor deny..."

EDIT: For those UAV/drone-"doubting Thomases":

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=11884

Be sure to check at least 40 or so of those cross-references for me.

What do you reckon the frequency would be ?

¿ plɹoʍ ɹno oʇ sıɥʇ op ʇı llıʍ puɐ

Well JFK,

Going by the 1/4-wavelength "rule"- either ULF or ELF.

BUT I personally don't THINK SO! If I were to speculate, I'd say "S and above."

http://www.copradar.com/preview/xappA/xappA.html

"Table A-4 -- Military Radar Bands

Radar Band Frequency Notes
HF 3 - 30 MHz High Frequency
VHF 30 - 300 MHz Very High Frequency
UHF 300 - 1000 MHz Ultra High Frequency
L 1 - 2 GHz
S 2 - 4 GHz
C 4 - 8 GHz
X 8 - 12 GHz
Ku 12 - 18 GHz
K 18 - 27 GHz
Ka 27 - 40 GHz
mm 40 - 300 GHz millimeter wavelength"

So I guess 7.8 Hz is out of the question.

Edit to add - Even if it a directional array ?

Schumann's ~7.8 Hz [which is apparently rising BTW] is absolutely not out of the question JFK- re-read that 2nd "ULF or ELF" sentence again (but I was too lazy to do the math on that c = lambda*frequency thing, plus 'c' has some "scientific baggage" from my research).

My speculative "gut" just tells me that ULF/ELF aren't well suited for 400+ knots "targeting" purposes... [Think hummingbirds and/or bats here IMHO]

EDIT: There are many harmonics and resonances above the fundamental harmonic (but I'm in pretty deep here already ). You might also hear the word "mode" thrown about in this context, too.

EDIT2: Now a phased array is an interesting idea, but if you guys thought the math was bad (and possibly broken) on one antenna...

Nikola Tesla "The True Wireless"
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm

BTW f*ck Marconi, Morgan, and Edison!

Yeah, I hear it is up to 11 hz now.

What resonant frequency does the human brain run at ?

Yours? Mine? Lunk's?

GH? Painter? Bill? OF? Albert? Rick?

[I'm just sayin' here ]

Too many monkeys...

"Explanation" at post #2:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10741594

Lawmakers in general.

I hypothesize that Kucinich's, Mikinney's, and a few others work at a different frequency.

Just a thought....Remember, a major component of successful disinformation is to link pieces of it to the truth and pieces to the legend you are creating.....I agree, let's not accept this hastily....

Aaah- gotcha JFK.

Well those are pretty much like the 9th hind tit on a boar pig, just 'a dragging along through the snow...

Wow. That plane couldn't have been banking to the right like that and still crashed into the first floor ... it would barely fit even if it was perpendicular to the ground.

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/1487/aa77na5.jpg

Not to mention that the right wing couldn't have cleared the generator.

Oh, it's been a great week.

The keepers of the OCT have moved the goalposts on WTC 1,2 and 7and now AA77.

I am having a field day on a local forum here. So much ammunition!

I thought that the people on the road near the downed lamp posts were the OCT's star witnesses. They were there when the plane flew overhead and they saw it knock down the posts.

Now the FAA throws them under the proverbial bus! Way to go!!

This may be a red herring, but it is certainly creating doubt amongst the "others".