Why does FAA/Norad animation show NoC flightpath?

[Caustic Logic]

Indeed. Just because someone stuck FAA and NORAD logos on it is meaningless. In fact I think the NORAD logo is a bit of a "smoking gun", if you will, because there's no conceivable reason NORAD would be involved in such a video. And finally, the data to produce such a flight path would come from the NTSB not the FAA, and the NTSB's flightpath is markedly different.

So in a word, I call BS.

Word. I was going to ask about this. It's just too weird, and that was my first hunch.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It's funny because the actual letter makes no mention of a video - the letter from the FAA cites radar data and audio recordings.

there is a video listed in the letter, its also linked to on the site

http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fadar/1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg

same one thats on youtube (now why TV couldnt just link to that first, or at all, is beyond me)

as to why its incorrect, it almost looks as if they just reworked the old NTSB animation from last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI

 

[TheLoneBedouin]

there is a video listed in the letter, its also linked to on the site

http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fadar/1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg

same one thats on youtube (now why TV couldnt just link to that first, or at all, is beyond me)

as to why its incorrect, it almost looks as if they just reworked the old NTSB animation from last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI

Here is a comparison between the NTSB data and the FAA animation:





Any ideas on why the FAA would release an animation that is physically impossible?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Alright, it's all still new I only learn at medium speed, but...

The FAA letter does mention a video - they're alphabetical, Farmer lists the file at his site as 1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg, which is there.
http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/sept09122008cover.pdf
Does that mean this IS that very file?

This is kinda deja vu for me, since the NTSB's release letter in fact did not mention it, I suspected forgery, but then later letters did say 'oh and here's a DVD with the animation...' I'm not convinced yet this is truly FAA/NORAD/whatever, but I'm fine with ambiguity, and sorta presume it's legit. The first case turned out that way, so...

Here is a comparison between the NTSB data and the FAA animation:


[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2618448ccb0f067e39.jpg[/qimg]


Any ideas on why the FAA would release an animation that is physically impossible?

My guesses for why are above. There are other possibilities as well. I haven't checked that roation issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's right. Did you notice the 330 degree diamond loop? It's all wacked yo. Did you notice the remarkable irony of your question however? They released an animation that shows your flight path almost to a "T". First words you utter describe this as "physically impossible."

Where's the dog, it's time... oh, I can't get the dog to laugh?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Here is a comparison between the NTSB data and the FAA animation:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13796http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2618448ccb0f067e39.jpg


Any ideas on why the FAA would release an animation that is physically impossible?

yes, thats the NTSB data, however it is not the NTSB animation

the animation was corrected improperly for true north, and showed a NOC flightpath

 

[gumboot]

there is a video listed in the letter, its also linked to on the site

http://aal77.com/faa/faa09122008/fadar/1 AWA 714 pentagon_more2.mpg

It's listed on the second page of the PDF that is just a list of included files without an FAA header or anything else in sight. It is not mentioned in the actual FAA letter (page one) nor could anything in the letter refer to the video.

Given past "Truther" behaviour, it would not be beneath them to fake the second page.

We don't know anything about the video - what it was made for, what its purpose is, how it was created, when it was created, or anything else.

as to why its incorrect, it almost looks as if they just reworked the old NTSB animation from last year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI

The flight paths are totally different. I'm not talking the final line up and impact (although that alone is wrong, showing a hard starboard turn at the last moment) but the prior part of the flightpath - this new video's flightpath just does not reflect anything every provided by any official data.

 

[bobloblaw]

We don't know anything about the video - what it was made for, what its purpose is, how it was created, when it was created, or anything else.

These are all great points (except we know it was created on or prior to 28/09/2001) and this is where the discussion should be at this point.

It exists, it came directly from the FAA and everyone needs to get over that. Immediately labelling this video as "fake" is the kind of behaviour normally associated with denial shown on the other side of the fence.

As John himself says -

FYI you morons! The video is part of a release which is the subject of a Federal Court Case. That means any fakery on mine or the FAA’s part is perjury and criminally punishable. Now I can’t speak for the FAA, but I certainly am not willing to go to jail just to pull a prank on some looney toons like the CIT children. Further, I just go to extreme lengths and expense to get the information while you guys sit in front of your computers and talk trash. So stop making yourselves look like idiots and simply request a copy of the video for yourselves from the FAA.

http://911files.info/blog/?p=141

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And how exactly do we know this is the video that came from the FAA?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

It's listed on the second page of the PDF that is just a list of included files without an FAA header or anything else in sight. It is not mentioned in the actual FAA letter (page one) nor could anything in the letter refer to the video.

Given past "Truther" behaviour, it would not be beneath them to fake the second page.

ive looked over the website, and the guy doesnt appear to be a truther

the video seems a bit theatrical for a government work, but i dont see any reason to doubt its source other than personal incredulity

 

[bobloblaw]

And how exactly do we know this is the video that came from the FAA?

I suggest you familiarise yourself with John Farmer's work.

www.aal77.com
911files.info

 

[gumboot]

As John himself says -


http://911files.info/blog/?p=141

What he's says does not make logical sense.

 

[gumboot]

ive looked over the website, and the guy doesnt appear to be a truther

Have you actually read his court filing?

the video seems a bit theatrical for a government work, but i dont see any reason to doubt its source other than personal incredulity

I doubt everything when it comes to 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists. Specifically, I doubt it is any sort of "official FAA animation". I have offered two key reasons for this:

1) The animation carries both FAA and NORAD graphics, with no explanation for such a thing, despite the fact that neither organisation would have any part in determining AA77s flight path (that being the NTSB's job).

2) The animation flight path varies drastically from the NTSB's official release, not just in the final approach line up but in the turn prior to the line up.

Neither of these two points constitute "personal incredulity". They are facts easily verifiable by watching said video.

 

[gumboot]

For the record I didn't claim the video was fake (although I suggested that wasn't beyond the realm of reason). I merely don't believe it is any form of "official" FAA flightpath.

 

[bobloblaw]

What he's says does not make logical sense.

How so?

 

[gumboot]

How so?

Firstly, the release in question is a result of a FOIA request, not any sort of court action - the court action is still pending at this time which means it has not been before the court yet.

Secondly, perjury is the act of lying under oath or knowingly presenting false evidence in a court of law. The video in question has not, to the best of my knowledge, been presented in any court of law as an authentic piece of evidence. Faking or modifying a FOIA release may indeed constitute an illegal act (I don't know) but it is not, in any size, shape or form, perjury.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I doubt everything when it comes to 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists. Specifically, I doubt it is any sort of "official FAA animation". I have offered two key reasons for this:

1) The animation carries both FAA and NORAD graphics, with no explanation for such a thing, despite the fact that neither organisation would have any part in determining AA77s flight path (that being the NTSB's job).

2) The animation flight path varies drastically from the NTSB's official release, not just in the final approach line up but in the turn prior to the line up.

Neither of these two points constitute "personal incredulity". They are facts easily verifiable by watching said video.

For the record I didn't claim the video was fake (although I suggested that wasn't beyond the realm of reason). I merely don't believe it is any form of "official" FAA flightpath.

your point 1 above would only make sense if you felt the video was created by a third party and attributed to FAA and/or NORAD (IE fake)

ETA: also, i would consider point 1 to be personal incredulity

and as for point 2, the NTSB animation also shows a north of citgo flight path, despite that not being the NTSB's official position, but i dont see anyone claiming the NTSB video is fake, just poorly (and probably hastily) put together, the same can probably be said for this

 

[gumboot]

your point 1 above would only make sense if you felt the video was created by a third party and attributed to FAA and/or NORAD (IE fake)

Even if it was created by the FAA that doesn't mean it's an official FAA flightpath animation. For all we know it's an FAA animation presenting the CIT's stupid flightpath for some reason. A sort of "look at the stupid crap retards believe" education video.

*shrugs*

Hence why I pointed out we don't know who created, why it was created, or what for.

ETA: also, i would consider point 1 to be personal incredulity

How is acknowledging the official duties of government agencies "incredulity"? If someone presents you an FBI letterhead outlining FBI opinion on the proper cultivation of wheat, would you consider it an argument from personal incredulity to point out that the only "official" position on such a matter should come from the Department of Agriculture?

and as for point 2, the NTSB animation also shows a north of citgo flight path, despite that not being the NTSB's official position, but i dont see anyone claiming the NTSB video is fake, just poorly (and probably hastily) put together, the same can probably be said for this

It is not the map alignment of the flight path that I have issue with. It is the actual flight path itself. The NTSB animation's flightpath is an official representation of AA77s flight as based on the FDR. This FAA animation flightpath does not even remotely reflect that flight path.

 

[gumboot]

I've done a bit more investigating now I have the original video downloaded...

The video bears the logos of NORAD and a company called AGI which, according to their website: "provides commercial off-the-shelf software to national security and space professionals for integrated analysis of land, sea, air, and space assets."

The video is built on air navigation maps, and includes FAA Long Range Radar sites (the big golf ball things). The one in the opening frame is the ARSR-3 at The Plains, VA.

My speculation is that this is a radar-based map for NORAD purposes. This might explain why it was included in a FOIA request relating to radar data. Given the nature of radar, it should therefore not be considered any sort of definitive of official representation of AA77's flightpath, and certainly not as regarded by the FAA.

ETA. It appears to be a radar simulation created using AGI's Satellite Tool Kit (STK) Radar module.

 

[jsiv]

Whoever made the video, it's stupid and looks more like some sort of technology demonstration (or conspiracy porn) than anything else. Fast-paced, fancy camera effects, etc, while not providing any useful information about the flight.

 

[johnny karate]

The real question here isn't why the government would release such damning evidence revealing its own insidious plot, but rather what Truthers are going to do with this smoking gun.

So far we have:
1) Make a Youtube video.
2) Gloat on an Internet message board.

Way to go, freedom fighters.