I was looking into the "AA77" FDR record to find out how the Lat/Lon coordinates were shifted by Mr. Stutt and Legge to get the plane on the runway. So I've chosen the map closest to 2001 and I've plotted the last "AA77" landing, taxiing in, standing at the gate, taxiing out and the last takeoff:


(The numbers are numbers of subframes in the FDR and they can also serve as a timing, because their step is one second. So for example when you've frame number 145840 and frame number 145860 it means they're 20 seconds from each other. Only point when it is interrupted is when the plane stands, then the FDR is not recording - in our case at the subframe count 146180. The needed data were provided to me by Mr. Warren Stutt)

Everybody sees at the situation picture that the coordinates taken from the FDR are off.
How much off they are?
I was looking what a reference I can find for landing and I've found the point where the plane sharply turned from the runway to the taxi circuit.

From the logic of the landing, the overal visible shift and the trajectory pattern is absolutely clear where it was:


Then I've got a strange idea and I've decided to measure the distance and angle to the position where the plane quite clearly parked to and departed from the gate:


From the distance number is clear that we keep up with the perps at least numerologically...

Let's have a break and have a look what number had the gate where the "AA77" was boarded and departed. We easily find it in the Wikipedia:

"The flight boarded through Gate D26, in Midfueld Concourse D at Dulles."

or here:

"In 2001, American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757, left gate D26 at Dulles en route to Los Angeles International Airport, but it was hijacked and deliberately crashed into the Pentagon as part of the September 11 attacks."

Let's yet have look into govt. documents...yep, it is there (page 29):

"Flight 77 pushed back from Dulles Gate D-26 at 8:09 A.M."

Boring. Let's go back to our little petty plots.

Now we need to measure the same distance and the same angle from the point where the plane sharply turned to the taxi circuit:


And where the line ends?
Here:


Lets look what number the gate has:

SOURCE

It's not completely clear what a number the gate has - we have there two gates:
9 and 11.

Hmmm... interesting.

Must be a "magnetic declination" error. /sarcasm

What is I think very important is that according to FDR the plane departed from the gate 9/11 at ~12:12:29UTC (FDR timestamp, which we now know it should be quite exact) -not at 8:09EDT as is stated in the official records about "AA77".

I wonder what happened to the passengers who boarded the plane at D26.
There is IAD radar which should see D26 very well. So I think I should look into it around the 8:09 to range around 0.82 and true azimut 148 and find out where the plane taxies and where it takes off and then track it in the 84Rades where it goes -if it is there, because the grounding order was almost 2 hours later, so the plane most probably could very well be already out of range somewhere far west if it was bound to LAX.
A bit problem is I have the IAD data only beginning 8:10, so it could be a bit drag.
As I briefly look into the IAD data I see there unsquawking plane taxiing on the southwards taxi way (range 0.88 DEG 166) as our FDR plane did, but already at 12:10:02.965UTC (when our FDR plane was still at the gate) and later, but I have no means to find out if it really departed from D26.
Maybe Mr. Farmer has earlier data?
I need just a minute or two of the earlier data, otherwise it would be quite a guess job.
In 84Rades I indeed see a plane taking off from our runway just before our plane at ~12:16-17UTC which is westbound M3 7020, after flying shortly southwards, it returns northwards and appears to fly westwards in the same corridor as our FDR plane just in front of it and then turns a bit southwards before it disappears from the radar. From the speed and altitude it is most probably a commercial jet.

Nice sleuthing Jan!

I don't know if this is any help but there were a collection of FBI interviews done with staff at Dulles Airport and Gate D26 is referenced several times.


2 people who were at the gate (presumably D26) Villaseñor and Wendy Lnu (flight attendant collecting boarding passes for "Flight 77" passengers.

http://i56.tinypic.com/efurb.jpg

One alleged passenger checked in but didn't arrive at gate?

http://htmlimg1.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...aa1c970/000.jpg

D26

- Flight 77 was not rechecked (normal procedure preflight) due to an "accident" with one of the trailers that ususally pushes aircraft out from gate.

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...a92b5d0/000.jpg

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...6a07647/000.jpg

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...c89ca58/000.jpg

http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...91aabaf/000.jpg


"Squawk" ACARS message (weird)

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...76edd21/000.jpg

http://htmlimg2.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...288c8bc/000.jpg

"Flight 77" pilot fired engines up too quickly (before ground crew were at a safe distance) and noted how the pilot didn't acknowledge or "wave" as was the "norm"

http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...e5050ec/000.jpg


Apparently "Flight 77" left from Gate D26 but there was no pre-flight check due to a "coincidental accident" involving the truck that pulls aircraft from the gates, no communication with ground staff, late boarding and a "passenger" who missed the flight.

Hope it's of some use mate.

911 weirdness and "coincidence" (quite aside from the contradiction you highlight with the official account) seems to be everywhere, and this is yet another thing to add to the list. Good stuff tume.

Another weird thing is that the IAD radar record doesn't contain any squawk 6653 throughout the whole record, although the 84Rades looks like there is the 6653 squawk quite consistently, read by multiple NEADS radars very soon after the departure, the PLA radar appears to be able to read the plane already at MC100.
From the brief inspection of the closest radar data there are two unidentified planes at the IAD record taking off ~4 minutes one after other from the same runway. For the first of the two, taking off slightly after 12:16 UTC I can't confirm it pushed from gate 26, because the IAD data start at 12:10 UTC, but for the second it very much appears it departed from the northern area of the Concourse D, likely the gates 9 or 11 and at the time close to the time recorded in the FDR and definitely not at 8:09, but 3 to 4 minutes later.
So it very much looks like it is not the plane which departed at 8:09 and also not the plane which would board at gate D26. Yet it is most probably the plane where the "AA77" FDR record belongs to. There are at least 3 radars (PLA, GIB, IAD) + FDR which seem to corroborate this conclusion.

Now. If there are witness accounts from the people who claim they were around when the "AA77" was boarded at the Gate 26, including a FBI wittness of boarding Salem Alhazmi and Nawaf Alhazmi to the plane at Gate 26D. Then this alleged "hijackers" look like ruled-out from hijacking the plane which subsequently turned back to east and allegedly crashed into the Pentagon -if we should believe the FDR and the radar records are genuine.
We should ask what plane was boarded around 8AM EDT at the gate 9 or 11, if any, what type of the plane it was (the FDR contains records showing the plane was "B757-200 RR"), how many passengers, if any, and crew it carried, where it was bound, what carrier, etc.
I think The FAA and NTSB should be able to unequivocaly answer this questions.
I think I must not emphasize there's till this days no taxi out and wheels/off record for any of this two planes in the BTS database whatsoever.

Jan, do you know if an FDR should show receipt of an ACARS message?

http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...76edd21/000.jpg

Jan - amazing work. It takes a fair investment of time and concentration to follow the argument and the evidence you offer, but it is worth it. At some point, I think it would be a real contribution to do an annotated summary to allow the average person to get the "summation for the jury" version that refers back to your calculations. I had to go through it about three times and I am not certain that I understand it well enough to explain it to someone else or to really grasp all its implications.

Just a suggestion. Again thanks for putting in the work to write it.

Basically the above analysis shows that when the FDR lat/long is corrected for INS drift, it shows that the FDR positional data has the aircraft departing from a gate which conflicts with official reports.


The INS drift is a whole other issue as well. "Debunkers" know that such a large error is present in all flights, but they dont seem to apply the same error correction at the end of data. If they did, the aircraft would show North of Citgo.

More here regarding INS.

Claim 2.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=7163

Assuming all the numbers are accurate and correct, what is the point--that the plane never departed?

I think it's more to do with the FDR not adding up from start to finish.

The point is the opposite:
There it very much looks like there were two planes they departed, all the radars seem to show it quite inadvertently, one from gate D26, the other from the gates 9 or 11.
The plane which departed the gate 9 or 11 at ~12:12:29 UTC very much like seems to have beared our FDR unlike the other plane considered by the OCT.
For those don't believing this is true I encourage them to take the data I've linked in the original post, to plot them and make own conclusions
I very much doubt they'll be other than I did, because a data pattern is something, which hardly can be tweaked.
When I look on the numbers which resulted, I in fact think somebody is seriously kidding us

I think we have some circumstantial evidence that 2 Flight 175 departed BOS, and now we have similar evidence that 2 Flight 77 departed IAD, or so it seems. Perhaps a pattern?

I have difficulty understanding many of tume's recent posts. I like to look at all the aerial position maps and charts, but I don't know what it all "means" or how "important" is it really?
I agree with what maturin42 said:

Then Rob gives us some helpful info:

And the subsequent discussion by amazed! OSS and tume have me "convinced" that tume is really "On to Something"? Somehow the "discrepancies" in where the FDR data ENDED seemed "inclusive" to me.

But the analysis that tume now brings to light about the "time and distance offset" discrepancies at the BEGINNING of the FDR data, to determine the "FDR Plane's" departure gate.... is AWESOME!

And now he's looking for "duplicate" flights from the "multiple departure gates" of AA 77. He's like a BLOODHOUND tracking the trail of an escaped convict....
now he has PICKED UP THE SCENT, and he is HOT ON THE TRAIL...
I can almost hear him HOWLING from here!

Keep up the GOOD WORK tume, and you'll chase the Bad Guys up a tree in NO TIME!

WAIT A MINUTE! Let me see if I have this "straight".

The FDR that was "alledgedly" recovered from the "alledged" aircraft that "alledgedly" crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11, contained "recorded" data indicating that it DID NOT DEPART from GATE D26!



Real People Boarded American flight 77 from either Gate D26 or Gate D32 on 9/11. They NEVER were seen again after that. The government claims to have "identified" their "remains" from "DNA" samples taken from the Pentagon site.

This of course would be IMPOSSIBLE, because Tume's analysis of the "official" government data shows that the FDR recovered from the Pentagon DID NOT DEPART from either Gate D26 or Gate D32.

I realize there is no verifiable connection between the FDR data and a "specific" aircraft as there "should be". But, there is definately a BIG DISCREPANCY in the Government Provided "FACTS"
that AA 77 struck the Pentagon,
that it departed from GATE D26,
that the FDR data recovered from the Pentagon "proves" that it struck the Pentagon,
and the people inside the airplane DIED in the CRASH AT THE PENTAGON!

BUT:
The FDR data supplied by the Government;
indicates a "departure" from either Gate D9 or Gate D11, and NOT GATE D26
and also an "overflight" of the Pentagon at an altitude too high to fly into it.

So what REALLY HAPPENED to the passengers who DID DEPART Gate D26 on AA77? Where did THEY GO, and WHO KILLED THEM?

And DON'T expect ME TO BELIEVE that TWO airplanes struck the PentaCON on 9/11....
AA77 knocked down the light poles on the SOC route....
and the flight that departed from Gate D9 or D11 took the NOC route...
THAT's the STUFF that comes outta the SOUTH end of a Northbound BULL...
And I ain't gonna BUY IT!

Islandpilot has quite a stew going there - bubbling away. Now stir in one giant portion of CIT and a North of the Citgo flight path, add a few drops of Roosevelt Roberts seeing the jet flying away, and Lloyde "coming across the highway together" with someone, then simmer over the fact that a plane that does not crash into the Pentagon cannot possibly leave a battered FDR in the wreckage - well, that is something to sink your teeth into. All we need to do is turn up the heat.

Stay on the trail, Tume!

Indeed.
I was asking Mr. Warren Stutt for the altitude data for the last subframes as he derived them after necessary corrections from the FDR record. Here are the data.
Last altitudes:
subframe 151365 - 391,1167943
subframe 151366 - 318,3093381
subframe 151367 - 241,399513
subframe 151368 - 180,8976387

values are clearly in feets above MSL.
The subframe 151365 is in FDR timestamped 13:37:49 UTC - so the last subframe 151368 was recorded at 13:37:52 - 7 seconds after the official time of crash. The timestamping of the FDR is corroborated by multiple radar datasets.

But lets abandon the timing and let's have a look at the "True Altitude" values.
Last value in the Mr. Warren Stutt's file created for me is 180,8976387 ft MSL. According to this elevation map the elevation at the center of Pentagon site is 56 feet MSL, The Pentagon is 77 ft tall so the elevation of its roof is ~133 feet MSL and posssibly even lower. So according to Mr. Stutt's data, if he is not kidding, the plane was at the "True Altitude" 47ft higher than is the altitude of the Pentagon's roof and at the time 7 seconds later than is the official time of crash noted several times in the 911 Commission report.
How he could then come with Mr. Legge to the conclusion "New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon" based especially on this his "True Altitude" values argumentation remains a real mystery to me. The Lat/Lon positions decoded by Mr. Stutt and the by him derived "True Altitude" values quite clearly rule-out the possibility the plane bearing on its board the alleged "AA77" FDR struck down the 5 lightpoles and crashed into the Pentagon at the level of ~groundfloor by quite a really wide margin of more than 100 feet vertically and 150 feet horizontally.

Hang on a second. This makes little sense to me. On the one hand, you state that the drift is constant and thus correctable at both ends (ie. its a spatial translation). On the other, you state that this would put it north of CITGO. OK. But the north flightpath cannot then converge with the south flightpath to the alleged point of impact if you are claiming the reason for the N/S discrepancy is this spatial translation (no rotational component). Thus, surely, the CIT interviewees who plot such an effectively converging course would contradict with such an explanation for the N/S discrepancy.

What am I missing ?

You are literally missing the point, I would say you are missing it some 20 miles. This topic is mainly about "AA77" last landing and takeoff at IAD and especially about identifying the gate where the plane was boarded.

The N/S drift in the data at IAD has little to nothing to do with the drift near Pentagon and if we would really apply this drift at IAD to correct the coordinates near Pentagon, then the plane would be very far - like ~800meters north of Citgo somewhere above Arlington cemetery.

Did Stutt ever concede that he was wrong for discarding the PA readings after rob had pointed out his "misconceptions"?



To which Rob replied...



Even if he sticks with the RADALT readings, his data doesn't add up.

This is roughly the point where the alleged 57ft RADALT reading is taken, 1 second before lightpole 3, where Legge/Stutt claim the 4ft RADALT reading was taken:



The elevation for the "57ft RADALT" reading is 20m/60ft



57 + 60 =117ft

The elevation of Route 27/lightpole 1 is 15m/45ft

The observed damage to lightpole 1 is roughly 35ft.

*The alleged AGL above Route 27, according to Legge's calculations should be 19ft (laid out at bottom of this post)

The distance from the alleged 57ft RADALT reading to lightpole 1 is roughly 400ft.



Legge/Stutt claim that the aircraft was travelling at 560mph (?) at this point. Say 800fps for argument sake.

That's 0.5 seconds.

So, the aircraft had to execute a descent from 117ft agl (57 + 60) to 64ft (45 + 19) = 53ft in 0.5 seconds

= 106fps descent

BUT, Legge/Stutt also claim that the pullup was executed 0.7 seconds before reaching lightpole 1.



A simultaneous 6000fpm descent and a "pullup" that never exceeded "2gs" and ended up in a "1.2º pitch" shallow descent through the lightpoles??

NOTE: There was also an alleged 124fps descent 2 seconds before this (308ft ASL to 184ft ASL in one second)

Datapoints 151365 to 151366




*In the Legge/Stutt paper, Legge claimed that the "4ft reading" was at lightpole 3. And that such a low reading was due to various factors. The perceived physical damage to the pole shows a "break" at around 20ft.
The same method Legge used to establish the physical damage and the RADALT reading should then be applied to lightpoles 1 and 2 (-16ft)

35ft - 16ft = 19ft

I'm well aware of what is being discussed in this topic. However it was RB who wrote a response (it was his text I quoted) that said that this drift when applied at the Pentagon would put the plane "north of Citgo". In writing that, I suggest that this would imply to the average casual reader that this drift is somehow supportive to the NoC flightpath. I was calling him on it, as it obviously is no such thing. Hence my query. I think it is you who missed MY point

In any case, you have provided the affirmative correction yourself. So thankyou.

I think the True Altitudes he've send to me look too high.
My problem which arised is when I briefly try his "True Altitudes" to fit them on the theoretical Track Angle/GS trajectory from the "impact point" (I've carefully ploted meanwhile), and I find that if he were right with the "True Altitude" values, then the plane would clear the VDOT >~85ft above it and even if I then subtract from his true altitude values this >85ft to let the plane clear just somewhere couple of ft (I don't know exactly I still didn't try to calculate it) above the top of VDOT, then I get the plane in height of the Pentagon roof in the last subframe, so considerably higher than the lightpoles, and if I add 15 ft to clear the VDOT better ( I don't suppose the perps would too risk to crash into it), then the plane, if I calculate it well would in the last subframe clear just
~3ft (doesn't remind me this number something?) above the Pentagon's roof.

We should count with the values which are decoded from the FDR (by Mr. Warren Stutt himself) - The speed values for last subframes added to the record by Mr. Stutt:
151365 472 kts TAS 469 kts GS
151366 476 kts TAS 473 kts GS
151367 484 kts TAS 478 kts GS
151368 488 kts TAS 483 kts GS

The Lat/Lon positions in the last subframes:

151365 38,86705 -77,06892
151366 38,86808 -77,06652
151367 38,86911 -77,06394
151368 38,87032 -77,06154


This I think is very valid argument putting the Mr. Legge/Stutt argumentation on its head.

Yeah as I see it what they achieve with their "earlier pull-up" it to considerably aggravate the descent rate needed and then the vertical accelerations again would not fit the values recorded in the FDR if the plane would really execute the kicking down of the lightpoles stunt.


The 4ft Radio Height reading is in the last subframe 153368 where is I'm afraid no way how to position it so exactly to fit it on the pole 3, the reading is for the whole subframe and we don't know when exactly within the 1 second span (the plane was flying ~250m/s) it was in fact measured and recorded. So the positioning the RH at the 3rd lightpole is in fact a pure speculation.
There is from logic also very much the possibility that the plane was then already above the roof of the Pentagon - as quite clearly show the Mr. Stutt's "True Altitude" values to be more than possible. (And as show some indicies from the radar data I'm now on to discuss only privately -at least before I'll get the exact DCA radar focal point height to corroborate some intricate findings with the PLA radar record where somebody apparently forget to erase some key blips... ) But anyway I would not much rely on RH Mr. Legge and Stutt are so praising -when the instrument was operating so well outside its certified operating envelope -at least I would not prefer it before the PA reading properly corrected to the local pressure and temperature, because as Rob showed the exactitude is pretty damn accurate.

Can you show this visually Jan (by way of an image)?

I remember Rob saying something along those lines..






Yep.



Literally 124fps descent > 52fps descent > 106fps descent (lightpole 1) > 10fps...all within 2.7 seconds




Oh yeah mate. I'm just using their "logic".



The Legge/Stutt paper is in shreds already. If a layman like me can see through it, I can imagine what Rob and the gang make of it.

Dennis Cimino killed the "reliance" on the RADALT and the "reason" given to dismiss the PA has been refuted. I just went through the RADALT readings to see if they actually added up to anything like Legge claimed. They apparently don't (not in the real world)

Looking forward to your new project Jan!

The Legge/Stutt paper is garbage...

And here are just some of the reasons why...


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794074

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10793490

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10794159

Richard Gage has sourced the Legge/Stutt paper(s) supporting his "present position" on the Pentagon, indirectly sourcing Mark Roberts and Ryan Mackey (the people who call Richard the "Box Boy" in reference to his WTC collapse analysis using cardboard boxes)

I have contacted Richard via email regarding my concerns. He feels we should just agree to disagree.

I agreed.

I've sent this email to ae911 some days ago:

Dear Laila,

Recently I've learned Mr. Richard Gage hastily have withdrawed the support for CIT. I think it is a disgrace. Especially for me as one of the supporters of ae911T.

I'm one of the rare people who really dig in the AA77/Pentagon data for years and I must clearly state the conclusions of Mr. Legge and Mr. Stutt which led to this "friendly fire" in the 911 truth movement are almost a total bunk based on misinterpreted altitude Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data with very high confirmation bias. Moreover from the study of the FDR data as well as from the available radar records is now quite clear there is NO official evidence left - except the very fishy lightpoles - to support the "AA77" alleged "impact airpath". Recently found heading divergence in the FDR data (well documented here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...howtopic=21101), lat/lon positioning and timing (originally clearly riged by NTSB - see here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...howtopic=21076), together with the wind meteo data, DCA (Reagan), ADW (Andrews) radars, closely corroborating each other in both timing and positioning, and the grossly timeshifted 84Rades PLA radar data closely corroborating the later at least in positioning (+the CIT wittnesses) all rule-out the so called "South of Citgo" airpath through the lightpoles alley. So the stance of the CIT is supported - maybe not by R. Gage and ae911, but otherwise by all hard, officially released data concerning "AA77" available, closely corroborating one by each other - although the "flyover" is still just a logical speculation based on rare wittness accounts. Nevertheless the conclusion to the meaning AA77 FDR supports "Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon" is not supported by ANY data, is clearly erroneous, based on gross misinterpretation and data manipulation and so should be immediately withdrawn and at least not parroted further. I would think that it would be good -to save the long built reputation of ae911T - which generally shouldn't take stances in disputes outside expertise and credentials of its core members - not to endorse or seem to endorse such ridiculous claims supported by virtually nothing.

With Best Regards

I, etc.

I've got a reply after several days:

Hi Jan,

Sorry for the very late reply, my internet was down for a few days.

I have passed your note below on to Richard Gage since I cannot answer for him. I'm sorry, but I am not up on all that has gone on in the 9/11 movement as my work with A&E is time consuming and I have a job and family to care for on the side!

As for what did and didn't happen at the Pentagon, I cannot give an opinion because I have not looked more deeply into the situation except to say that the photos I've seen clearly show me something other than a passenger jet hit it.

Again, thank you for your comments below.

Regards,
Laila Selk, verifications.

This shows not even a secretary at ae911 - I'm applauding her to have a courage and write her opinion - believes the brand new stance of her boss

Do you know how much hassle, bitterness and dischord could have been avoided if certain individuals had taken the same stance?

Nice one Jan.

Sorry if I missed something.

But there is nothing affirmative I'm afraid using just the coordinates drift at IAD to affirm the NoC. Rob's note I think was more an allusion to the "tortures" which some people do with the data, for example I was asking Mr. Warren Stutt what they did with the coordinates to get the plane on the runway and at the right crash path to Pentagon and his answer was: "we shifted all the coordinates by the same amount in the same direction." But If they would really do something like that they would get the plane hundreds of meters North of Citgo.
So I think they "shifted all the coordinates by the same amount in the same direction" at the IAD and then they "shifted all the coordinates by the same amount in the same direction" near Pentagon, just with the exception that mutually it was by different ammount and in the opposite direction.

I think the N/S drift of the coordinates at IAD is unapplicable for the coordinates near Pentagon. The FDR data show the amount of the drift is changing in the time and the journey from IAD to Pentagon is too long for we could easily apply the drift at IAD to the coordinates correction near Pentagon. The more decisive I think there are the radar records which show the plane quite consistently too north for so called South of Citgo airpath through the lightpole alley. Also the approach angle pattern shown by radars is slightly different than an approach angle needed for the South of Citgo airpath - the average difference for the last 53 seconds of flight is like ~0.4°(DCA radar)-2.5°(ADW radar), which doesn't look much, but in fact it is indeed about the angle which could make the NoC-SoC airpath difference.
So yes, there are quite strong indicies for NoC, but not just in the FDR alone and it has little to nothing to do with the observed N/S drift at IAD.

Yeah, I think that people who didn't studied the issue thoroughly shouldn't easily take stances just how their gurus decide for pursuing their agendas.

Exactly, and further demonstrates the misleading and perhaps rather deceptive tactics taken by Legge and Stutt. I was going to uncover that if they fixed their other misleading and deceptive tactics that have already been pointed out with respect to their altitude "divergence", sourcing the wrong FAR, and incorrect "impact time" reference, but it appears they prefer to spread confirmed disinformation.

Can INS realign itself in flight?

Not according to the man who has actual flight time in N644AA.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=15047

(further corroboration that an INS doesnt realign in flight is the fact the landing is offset at IAD)

UT and I also adjusted the beginning and end of data lat/long when we first got the decode in 2007, but i think most of those images got lost in the move to the new forum.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...ic=4575&hl=
(see attached for one of the images corroborating tume's findings that the aircraft did not depart gate D26)

When adjusted by distance and angle, the path is NoC.


Nobody ever claimed the adjustment matches witness statements NoC. But the fact remains when the adjustment is made, the plot -is- NoC.

Trimble appears to be another one of Randi's kids.

Attached image according to UT.

Green P9-P0 is night before engine off
Red M1 is at the Terminal
Yellow M2 is backed out and start of Taxi
Red M3 is Radio Alt 3 Feet, 1st indication of lift off

Lat/long plot does NOT corroborate a D26 gate departure. OCT debunked once again with their own data.

New article up based on this thread...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/aa77-gate-position.html

It's front page as well.

I also took a stroll over to the cesspit to see if Farmer in his true obsessive fashion has already attempted to deceive his minions regarding this analysis by tume. Sure enough, Farmer is in full bloom spouting lies and trying to spin it any way he can.

There is also one of Randi's kids upset that his co-workers are sourcing our "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" presentation. Farmer in his true obsessive form tries to debunk the analysis with the only thing he has to offer... "Gage thinks P4T work is crap!" because as we all know, Farmer hasnt a clue when it comes to anything regarding aviation. The kid asks Farmer for a link source, Farmer does a song and dance failing to provide one. The reason being that not only is Farmer obsessed with us, but he is also a compulsive liar.

Gage actually bought our "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" DVD because he wanted to support our work. I told Gage i would have sent it to him for free, but Gage insisted on paying for it.

Farmer, dont you ever get tired of being caught in your obsessive compulsive lies? And he wonders why I wont let him post his libelous claims here. Go crawl back into your hole Farmer.

Excellent work guys!!

Thanks OSS...

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to why the Landing data does not match with takeoff data, when trying to match it to a gate at Concourse D.

The reason for this is the aircraft was apparently moved (towed) overnight to the staging area as depicted in the original plots done by Undertow i attached above. (i refuse to trust anything that comes out of the Stutt/Legge camp as clearly they are not sincere as has been demonstrated ad nauseam).

When the aircraft is moved without the aircraft being fully powered up (engines running, all systems on line.. .etc) and the INS being realigned, the INS will drift. So that is why there is a conflict between Landing and Takeoff data.

INS navigation is a bit before my time, but when i was coming through the ranks fueling and towing planes on the ramp (in my teens), i remember many times we were told to put a Gulfstream or Challenger in a spot where it can sit for hours. The reason for this is that the pilots were aligning the INS. This HAS to be done prior to flight or else your INS will be all screwed up during flight, as you can see from this data we are analyzing. It's almost as if the pilots who were flying this aircraft didnt care about the INS positional data. Did they have alternative means for navigation? It appears so.

Now, with that said, some have claimed the Lat/long shows being aligned in flight based on the data. Well, i'm sure it did. Probably on a bench. But it wasnt done in an actual aircraft. This is impossible as already pointed out by Capt Ralph Kolstad who has flown N644AA (the aircraft described as AA77).

For now... Forget about the landing data trying to match it to a gate (we know it's offset as well, it shouldnt be, but it is...). All we are concerned with is the morning data after engine start.

If we adjust the morning lat/long plots after engine start to D26, this is what we get.



This above aircraft clearly did NOT depart gate D26 from IAD. Thats the bottom line.

Even if i try to distort the picture to fit it to D26 and close to something resembling a takeoff... (which i'm sure 'duhbunkers' will try, as they are notorious for trying to fit square peg into a round hole).....

This is what we get...



That picture also sums up just about every argument a 'duhbunker' has ever tried to make. Completely twisted and distorted.

Amen.

I wanted to get a bit more insight from Ralph since the last time we spoke about INS/IRS was awhile ago. Just got off the phone with him.

Basically, when they realigned the Inertial Reference System aka IRS (It was an IRS in N644AA, not INS), the procedure was to make sure the aircraft was fully stopped and the parking brake set. Ralph emphasized the parking brake had to be set. The aircraft had to be left alone for at least 5 mins. No bumps, no moving, preferably no one moving on board. If this was not done, if the IRS was not aligned and was offset, it is impossible for the aircraft to realign itself in flight and to know where it is.



IRS is aligned by Lat/Long position. The actual lat/long is input into the IRS by the pilot and from there laser ringed gyros measure movement from that point. Jeppesen Charts give lat/long coordinates for most Gates at major airports just for this purpose, so pilots can align their IRS during a turn check or first flight of the day.


IRS cannot determine precise location of the aircraft if the IRS was not aligned prior to flight.


Now since we know this, the lat/long plots can be adjusted for the offset after the fact as the IRS measures from whatever point (Lat/Long) it thinks it is at. Which is what we did above. The Lat/Long shows that this aircraft did not come from Gate D26.

Since the aircraft needs an actual lat/long plot input into the IRS and left uninterrupted for at least 5 mins, there is no possible way this aircraft could have realigned itself in flight. Since some have claimed the aircraft lat/long realigned itself shortly after take-off, it highly suggests data manipulation.

Here are a few more references to support what Ralph has said....

E. When ALIGN is selected, power is applied to the IRU's and the IRU's normally progress through an alignment period of approximately 10 minutes before the navigational mode is armed. When the switches are maintained in ALIGN, however, the IRU's remain in the align mode. Normal alignment requires the entry of present position into the IRU's.

Source - http://digilander.libero.it/andreatheone/irs.htm

"There is a big difference between updating a position.. ok..., which is not a problem at all, and Re-Aligning an IRS in flight which is not possible :=."

"If the Present Position is incorrect when the INS is initialized, it will NOT "re-align" itself! It should be shut down and re-initialized with the correct Present Position."

"No IRS realign in flight, ... alignement realign requires the platform to be stable. no acceleration, no movement, sometimes the movement created by loading container is enough to screw up the align process, on a modern Airliner."

"When you start in the morning, you tell it where it is. Either by telling it the gate position or by giving it the GPS position."

Source - http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-344362.html

Basically what I get from the above is that it depends on IRS system if you will get an update in flight (some systems do not have the ability to update at all). The only way you will get an accurate update in flight is if you aligned the position properly at the gate first flight of day. This makes sense as drift is also calculated. If drift is calculated from a position that was initially incorrect, there is no way it can correct for that drift plus the initial incorrect offset, accurately in flight.

Ralph explained in my call with him that the IRS systems he used with American Airlines were "cheap crappy systems".

Bottom line, if the aircraft was not aligned at the gate, all data updated in flight cannot be used for accurate position. It must be adjusted for the offset observed from first flight and any drift that might be associated enroute.

When adjust at the gate, it is shown the aircraft did not depart from Gate D26.

When adjusted at end of data, it is shown the aircraft is North Of Citgo (some drift may have occurred during flight and this is why the position is far north of the Citgo when adjusted for initial offset).

If someone wants to go through the tedious task of checking Farmer's work, and if past experience with him is any indication, i would almost bet the guy manipulated the data on the enroute portion of flight.

I was notified of the latest from Farmer in a poor attempt to squash this analysis (since its clear he cannot explain away the IRS data).



Out of all his deceptions, this perhaps has to be his most blatant. He seems to be getting desperate.

The above is claimed to be an exchange between "Ground Control" and "American 77" requesting push off the gate and taxi to runway 30.

There are many problems with the above.

First....

The gate is referred to as "Dixie 26". Aviation Phonetic Alphabet for "D" is "Delta". Cops use "Dixie" (Farmer claims to be a former 'Detective').

Although some old timer pilots do use "Dixie", but it is mostly done in a Delta base (such as ATL or CVG). I used to fly for the largest carrier out of IAD. I never heard "Dixie" from anyone.

Next, when pushing from a gate, pilots are required to contact Ramp Control first. Ramp control for south of Concourse Delta is 130.55 (IIRC).

After you get clearance from Ramp for the push, you push... start engines... do your after start checks... then get clearance from Ramp Control to taxi to a spot available to contact Ground Control before entering the Taxiways.

This spot is Spot 82 if one were to taxi from Gate Delta 26 to Runway 30. It is on the west side of the ramp before you enter the taxiways.

So, if someone were to make an actual tape recording of the incident and for it to sound authentic, it would sound something like this...

(Before Start Check, before start check complete)

"Morning Ramp, American 77 ready for push, Delta Twenty Six, expecting runway thirty, "

"American 77 push approve"

"push approved, American 77"

(push commences... push stops when in position... tug disconnect... all clear... engine start.. .after start checks)

"Ramp, American 77 ready for taxi".

"American 77, Ramp, Taxi to spot 82 and contact ground".

"Spot 82, American 77"

(aircraft taxi's to spot 82)

"Morning ground, American 77, spot 82 with information Echo, taxi"

"American 77, Dulles Ground. .good morning, taxi to runway 30 via Foxtrot, Yankee".

"Fox, Yankee to 30, American 77"

(taxi's to runway 30, hold's at hold short lines, contacts tower.. and this is what would be heard from there)



(by the way, the voice in the above video is all mine... and people think you cant morph a voice? I did the above video with no training whatsoever and 45 dollar editing software.. i'm sure it shows.. but you get my point.. i hope)

After all that is said, Farmer still has that pesky problem of lat/long in his own data which doesnt support his claims.



Farmer, try again.

Since i'm taking a shower before i hit the sack tonight, i decided to take a stroll over to the cesspit. Wow, i never seen so much crap flung in such a short duration. They have outdone themselves.

Anyway, as expected, Farmer posted his above audio recording, the minions lapped it up, never realizing that the data conflicts with a D26 pushback. If the audio recording Farmer has posted is authentic (although it's doubtful as there is no indication of contact with Ramp Control during morning rush), it proves the data did not come from "AA77".

Our old Aussie friend "wstutt" has decided to poke his head in without reading all the information..... with this graphic attempting to support a south gate pushback.



Well first, i dont see any gate in the above diagram. I see dirt roads and cars. Clearly the IRS was not aligned, the aircraft should have been grounded. See the numerous posts and sources going back to pprune i have posted.

Secondly, aircraft do not start their engines at the gate prior to pushback. Perhaps they do things backwards "down under"? Dunno.

It seems Warren forgets the FDR doesnt start to record until the engines are started?

The above plot when adjusted for offset makes more sense with this description.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10795540

Its good to see the blind still leading the blind over at the cesspit.

Warren, have you and Legge corrected your confirmed disinformation from your last paper yet?

When you do, feel free to contact me, and i'll walk you through more of your errors.

Shower time for me.

Yeah, there's maybe also the problem I (uwittingly) mystified Mr. Farmer our FDR plane pushed from the gate at 8:12.
In fact it was most probably at 8:10:46...so at 8:12 it would be a bit late to ask the tower...


EDIT: I've also plotted and subsequently overlayed this:

Not to support Mr. Stutt, but to show how almost exactly the pathway pattern fits the pattern of the relatively narrow taxiways, contrary to some of the latest Mr. Farmer's "ideas" about the INS inflight allignments. And there's I think clearly the push from the southern side of the Concourse D is possible and could be quite logical, but definitely not confirming the gate D26. (and yes, to avoid silly notes, I did exactly adjusted the overlay picture scale to have exactly same dimensions as the original pathway pattern)
The red circle at the bottom is a place of possible adjustment of the INS (as my friend pilot suggested to me as a possibility) where the plane is standing, heading -67.8 westwestnorthwards (which happens to be almost exactly our runway angle) all the time 12:17:39-12:18:53, yet the coordinates "mysteriously" shift >38m southwards during this timespan and if I would exclude this shift, the pathway pattern then would fit the taxiways almost absolutely exactly for the plane departing the Gate D20 ...but I'm not insisting on the idea, because it would also need an assumption the coordinates were shifted after the fact, which I would not much wonder, judging after comparing Under Tow's coordinates with the ones from Mr. Stutt and then yet with the ones made in NTSB ...they're always somehow different, usually hundreds of meters...yet the pattern remains

Yes, i'm not surprised "Stutt's" coordinates push from the south side after adjusted for the offset. Read more of Legge/Stutt errors here.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10795490

But even then, you still have the aircraft in the grass on Taxi and thrashing the south wall of Concourse Delta.

Also, (and repeated for perhaps the 5th time), aircraft do not start their engines until after pushback.

How can Warren Stutt claim to have a position at the gate, and lat/long plots during pushback, if the FDR doesnt start to record until engines are started?

Answer, he doesnt.


For the third time, see here.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...;#entry10795540

It seems only those with a verified aviation background understand this.

And for perhaps the 4th time, the aircraft should have never left the ground with an IRS more than 1/2 mile in error.

But I'm having not the verified aviation background and it seems to me I understand that.
As I wrote, I don't insist on the idea of the INS adjustment and I'm not insisting even on the south side pushback. What I insist on (- and that's why I mainly posted the picture to show how closely the pattern fits the needed taxiways pattern confirming relative exactitude of the positioning - contrary to the Farmer's brand new "idea" about the sheer "inexactitude" of the IRS when the plane is on ground) is that the answer to the question:
D26? is: No way.
(I measured the maximum E/W displacement of my pathway plot - derived from the UnderTow's coordinates - from the taxiways margins and I found <<30m, the E/W distance between the place of pushback and the Gate D26 is 110+ meters)

Actually, the displacement is more than 3000 feet, which is why the aircraft should have never left the ground. (that is if the data actually came from an aircraft).

And again, it is impossible to have a position recorded for the "place of pushback" when the engines arent started till after pushback.

To refine, I was of course meaning the relative displacement error when the pathway is superimposed on the logical position -if we want even think the plane ever departed IAD.
The whole thing was meant to counter this Mr. Farmer's (anti)idea:
"A closer look at the terminal location does indicate a change from the end of flight 11 to the south side of the terminal, but again the data reflects a significant degree of uncertainty while taxiing to runway 30. So to reach ANY positional conclusions base on this data would be foolish."
...
"In conclusion, a reasoned study of the Warren RO does not indicate which gate the plane departed from. It is much too dynamic a system and designed for in-flight use, not taxiing on a runway. If anything, it serves to once again validate that the plane which took off from Dulles was indeed AAL77 and that it did terminate its flight at the Pentagon. "
Link

Yeah this is weird, I have no idea why the "tail" is in the data. But somehow Mr. Farmer forgot it:

taken from the link above, credits: John Farmer (how he did fit it on the runway below the bottom of the picture which is missing is a mystery for me - maybe Mr. Stutt helped him to adjust the coordinates again...)

Here's interesting wittness account about the engines start:
http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/9n4uho52z...e5050ec/000.jpg

Yes, i know what you meant, but your positioning is far from logical my friend.




Which corroborates what i've been saying.

Normally pilots wait for the all clear to start. This pilot started his engines after pushback, but before the tug was disconnected and clear.

In other words, the engines were NOT started before the push at the gate. The first position recorded was after pushback.

Also keep in mind, according to Farmer and his "audio", (along with your other sources such as Wiki)..."Flight 77" departed Gate D26.

The data in this thread did NOT depart Gate D26. So the above witness statements are basically moot.

Yeah I wanted to write a notice below the link that they're most probably talking about another plane, but then I told myself the brighter of us will understand.

True... but there are laymen that read here, and of course we have the obsessive compulsive from the cesspit relying on people who cannot determine the difference between an Airbus and 757.

You think Farmer's "consultants" will show him the Jeppesen IAD Gate chart with the numerous notations requiring contact with Ramp Control prior to push and the requirement for clearance to a Spot number prior to entering taxiways and prior to contacting Ground Control? Nah, i suppose they been beat up by the data enough, why would they throw more fuel on the blazing fire already burning down their house.....

Too funny.

Gee i wonder who that could be?

So was the aircraft towed moved to a different gate or is this a different aircraft altogether? What possible motive could the perps
have for wanting to move the aircraft to a different gate? Can we tell which explanation is true and which one is false?

How do we know it was moved or whether it was a different aircraft that took off? I am a bit confused here?

We'll?

So after giving the cesspit a full script of what its suppose to sound like when pushing from a gate, low and behold, i'm sent this...



Only problem is that when "AA77" contacted ground in the first audio, "AA77" claims he is at D26, not Spot 82.



So either the above pilot did not taxi to Spot 82 and contact ground and therefore disobeying an instruction, or someone doesnt know how to follow a proper script.


When contacting ground, pilots reference a Ramp Spot number, not a gate. There are 18 different Spots on the Midfield Terminal Ramp numbering 70-83 and 100-105. How the heck is Ground control supposed to know which Spot "AA77" is exiting from the Ramp if he was only told a Gate?

Answer - He doesnt.

Try again guys.



And again, we already have several sources claiming "AA77" departed Gate D26. Tume posted them on the first page of this thread. But thanks for the corroboration. If the above audio is authentic (and for some reason the pilot screwed up), it further proves the data did not come from "AA77", unless of course they want to think the aircraft taxied on and took off from.. .grass.

FDR Lat/Long adjust for a D26 Push

First there wasnt any evidence linking the data to American 77, N644AA.

There is now overwhelming evidence that the data in which the NTSB provided, did not come from any aircraft described as "American 77".

1. Aircraft do not start their engines at the gate, corroborated by the Rampers statements. (If the engines were started at the gate, the rampers wouldnt have pushed at all. They would be standing far away).
2. The more than 3000' offset in the raw data. Not possible if the data were from "AA77" as American Airlines requires a full alignment prior to each flight.
3. After the data is adjusted to properly fit the taxiways and runway, it did not come from D26.

Thanks to Randi's Kids for the corroboration, but we already know the govt claims "AA77" pushed from D26.

Now you just have to get us lat/long data showing that, preferably data which has already been aligned as required by American Airlines.

The data which has been provided thus far, does not support a push from D26, it doesnt support American Airlines SOP, nor does it support an impact with the Pentagon. Please show us what happened to AA77 and its passengers! It's been almost 10 years!

Paul,

Sometimes when an aircraft stays overnight at an airport, it is moved to what is called a "Staging Area" if the gate they arrived at, needs to be used for more aircraft coming in, or will be used by a different aircraft in the morning, or needs maintenance.

The Green plots on the diagram reflect this. Its not proof this is what happened, but highly suggestive that is what happened.

The next morning, the aircraft is then towed to its departing gate. Based on the data, it is impossible for the aircraft to have departed Gate D26. Therefore, according to the sources tume has provided claiming "AA77" departed Gate D26, and the audio provided by the Cesspool swimmers, the data did not come from "AA77", because clearly the data cannot be aligned to D26.

So, if AA77 did push from D26, where is that data?

I'm asked many times a day, "If AA77 didnt hit the Pentagon, then where did it go?"

Here is my typical reply.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...t&p=9458664

I'll now add to that by saying, Get the data from the plane which pushed off Gate D26, and lets find out!

And again Paul, please reduce the quotes when quoting another post for a reply. I have had to reduce the quotes in your posts on almost every post you make. I just reduced the quote in your reply, again, by removing the img tags.