Pilots For 911 Truth RO2 Flight Path Verified

911files said:
Your are correct, but I take offense at people who critique and argue when they have not taken the time to even review the algorithm's first, and then show they have not when they invoke methods that were not used. I get enough of that from P4T and CIT.
Click to expand...

All right. Fair enough. Hokulele doesn't need me to swing a bat for her; she's far more than capable of taking care of herself. All I was pointing out was that she's far from a person that would post half-a$$ed rebuttals, and is generally quite substantive in these discussions. And that she also does in fact have experience in mapping and surveying, so she might be a source of information that you could tap if you so chose.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
All right. Fair enough. Hokulele doesn't need me to swing a bat for her; she's far more than capable of taking care of herself. All I was pointing out was that she's far from a person that would post half-a$$ed rebuttals, and is generally quite substantive in these discussions. And that she also does in fact have experience in mapping and surveying, so she might be a source of information that you could tap if you so chose.
Click to expand...


Eh, it really is no big deal. I did to ask about the coordinate system and conversions and rather than simply answer, 911files directed me to the data. Since I am not being paid to review it, I gave it a glance, saw the basic trig calcs, and thought I would mention some of the issues with geodetics.

It is his data, and he does have every right to filter how he wants it discussed. And now I am bit older (no smartass comments!) and wiser regarding his preferences.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
All right. Fair enough. Hokulele doesn't need me to swing a bat for her; she's far more than capable of taking care of herself. All I was pointing out was that she's far from a person that would post half-a$$ed rebuttals, and is generally quite substantive in these discussions. And that she also does in fact have experience in mapping and surveying, so she might be a source of information that you could tap if you so chose.
Click to expand...

Lets chalk this one up to my not knowing who is legit and who is not here. Over the past 2 1/2 years I have consulted and compared notes with hundreds of individuals, all of who claimed expertise. I started out with the "expertise" of P4T, so hopefully you can understand why I am skeptical of such expertise in forums. I started out with one FDR expert, only to learn that "expert" really had no clue what they were talking about in some areas. One pilot "expert" makes claims, while another asserts something else. I know some of the posters here and I have a feel for, and respect for, their expertise. Unfortunately I don't know you or Hokulele, so the only gauge I have is what I have seen in this thread and I only have several remarks to go by.

1) The datum is irrelevant when all measurements are taken within the same coordinate system. To convert from polar (azimuth, range) to spherical (lat/long) only four quantities are needed. Azimuth (degrees) and range (nautical miles) are standards independent of the datum. Latitude and Longitude are datum dependent, but if they are obtained and utilized within the same datum, then it is a non-factor (in this case, GE).

2) There are no Cartesian to spherical conversions in my algorithms. There two independent conversions used. The first, polar to Cartesian (simple trig) for plotting in Excel and isolating the returns consistent with the plane. The second, polar to spherical with GE coordinates for the antenna's used for reference and then plotted in the same GE reference system.

I should also note that I am disappointed that she (or anyone else for that matter) has not asked what the az_corr value is all about. Seems like that would be a biggee for anyone who has looked at the ASR conversions :D
 
Last edited:
911files said:
Lets chalk this one up to my not knowing who is legit and who is not here.
Click to expand...

That is fair. Likewise, we here are pretty skeptical and apprehensive about new comers as well. We have had many a person come here, claiming to know this or that, and turn out to be total frauds, simply trying to "convert" us to the "truth" about 9/11.

From what I have seen and read, most of the regulars here will not claim expertise they do not have, and if they do claim expertise, they tend to show it in their posts.

There are a lot of us here who only have entry level college science, but there are some who have well beyond that.

TAM:)
 
911files said:
1) The datum is irrelevant when all measurements are taken within the same coordinate system. To convert from polar (azimuth, range) to spherical (lat/long) only four quantities are needed. Azimuth (degrees) and range (nautical miles) are standards independent of the datum. Latitude and Longitude are datum dependent, but if they are obtained and utilized within the same datum, then it is a non-factor (in this case, GE).
Click to expand...


It was the fact that you were dealing with large distances that made me bring up the conversion issue in the first place. From the site you are referencing:

Geodetic Datum Overview said:
Ellipsoidal earth models are required for accurate range and bearing calculations over long distances. Loran-C, and GPS navigation receivers use ellipsoidal earth models to compute position and waypoint information. Ellipsoidal models define an ellipsoid with an equatorial radius and a polar radius. The best of these models can represent the shape of the earth over the smoothed, averaged sea-surface to within about one-hundred meters.
Click to expand...



911files said:
I should also note that I am disappointed that she (or anyone else for that matter) has not asked what the az_corr value is all about. Seems like that would be a biggee for anyone who has looked at the ASR conversions :D
Click to expand...


What the heck, I'll bite. On your "References" tab, what is the azm_corr value used for?
 
Actually, the distances I calculated the lat/long for are quite short. Now that we know each other better I will concede you have a point for the extremes of the path. I'm not sure off hand what datum the INS used for the RO2 values or what 84 RADES used (could be found in their documentation somewhere if it were significant). However, at the ranges from the ASRS site (100+ nautical miles for QBE and greater for PLA), the significant factor becomes the error of those systems. You are correct, at those distances; a general approximation is good enough because what is of primary importance for this debate is that there is a pretty solid radar verification that the plane was on a continuous path after it left Dulles with no unaccounted for gaps in radar coverage.

As it approaches the Pentagon area is when accuracy becomes a concern. DCA is the ASR of greatest concern and the ranges are >10 nautical miles for the final segment (the loop). This is the area where the lat/long is calculated by me and at this range, datum differences are not a concern. I would think that the value for the Earth's radius locally (I used the average) would impact the results more. However, even that might be hidden in the az_corr (azimuth correction). For DCA and ADW, 9.5 degrees and for IAD, 10 degrees.

During initial plotting, I noted that the azimuth values were not aligned to true north. Fortunately, the helicopter which passed by the Doubletree north camera 10 minutes before the event gave an excellent reference point to align the radar path for DCA. I found that 9.5 degrees (DCA and ADW feed into the same system) was a good correction for DCA. IAD required a 10 degree correction and BWI 10.5 degrees. My guess is that this is a hard-coded offset in each system. Over the years, magnetic declination has drifted from 9.5 to ~10.5. Since this correction is purely guess-work based on matching known features (such as runways and approaches), there is sure to be some error involved.

All of this said, my interest is the mean of the various measurement systems, understanding that there is a lot of deviation in each system. I will of course be discussing this further in the final write-up.
 
It is probably hard coded to match some grid azimuth. If you would like a fun toy, the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) has a declination calculator on-line with the ability to set dates in the past.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomagmodels/struts/calcDeclination

If you go through the main NGS site, it has a link for all the known survey monuments (including references on the airports) in a variety of datums and coordinate systems. You may need to use the older archived datasheets, as several have been reset since 2001.

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/datasheet.prl
 
Yes, I used the noaa site. Unfortunately, without knowing the date the value was set, it is a matter of trial and enror until (for example DCA) finding a value where planes are taking off and landing on the runway and not at some angle to it :D
 
bje said:
I have a few observations using the DCA positions above.

1. The first four data points are separated by 5 seconds each. The last, at
13:37:56 occurs 9 seconds over the previous one. Are we missing a data point at 13:57:52?

2. Using the data points provided, the speed changes between each point to the next point varies approximately as follows in MPH:

437.32
487.50
499.91
362.42

We see that AA77 is accelerating but at the last measurement, at the face of Pentagon, shows it traversed the distance from the previous data point at 137 MPH slower. And that's assuming a straight path between the two data points.

So something does not add up.
Click to expand...
That seems consistent to me with the idea that the last return was from the particulates from the explosion.
The airplane is going the same speed, but isn't tracked by the radar. It hits and explodes, and the results take some additional fraction of a second to rise to an altitude where the radar can get a return.
 
911files said:
The P4T RO2 is the flight data recorder decoded, not a theory. The short of it, the distance from navigation aids (VOR's) has been confirmed as recorded in the RO2 (fdr). The positional data has been confirmed using multiple radar sites along the flight path to verify that data as well. There are no holes in the data, so contrary to some theories, the plane did not land in KY/Ohio/WV and get replaced by a drone of some kind. The radar and RO2 data ends at the Sheraton Hotel area (to the south). Projected forward, it corresponds to the downed light poles and impact area (south of the Citgo). There is no evidence of a "fly-over" or other such hypothetical outcome. The data ends at the Pentagon area.
Click to expand...

Excuse me if this has already been covered but I think the strawman of the CIT argument is that the "OS" flight path is represented by a straight line between the las 2 data points. I've been comparing the "reported" flight paths and Paik and Brooks line up almost perfectly with Turcios only off by 2 degrees from that. I find it completely possible that the plane passed over the Citgo (not north or south of) and was still able to line up on the path of damage while transitioning from that long right bank to that "left" that Lagasse described. IIRC several people said the plane "wobbled". The path I describe fits perfectly for an inexperienced pilot. I don't know the exact capabilities of a 757 but that maneuver seems completely reasonable to me and fits what so many reported. Can a 757 change it's heading by about 12 to 15 degrees in 1/3 mile (1700 ft)? Of course thats assuming that Paik and Brooks are on the money.
 
911 files-
im curious about how this radar data is collected. first the radar sends out signals and they bounce off the plane and the returns are picked up by the radar. correct so far??

from there, im wondering what kind of computer and what software the data passes through. then from the particular radar station, how is the data transferred (cable, satellite, optical/digital??) and where does it go? is there a central data center where multiple parties acoss the country can "see" the data? and if so, what kind of software is running.

basically from each point in data processing and transmission id like to know what type of computer but more importantly what software is running on those comps at those multiple radar stations.

have u looked into this? if u havent, is there anyway to find out?
 
Grimstad said:
Can a 757 change it's heading by about 12 to 15 degrees in 1/3 mile (1700 ft)? Of course thats assuming that Paik and Brooks are on the money.
Click to expand...

The short answer to you question is NO, certainly not via something described as a "wobble". Plus, you're apparently forgetting about the light poles.

There is a long thread here with more information about this possibility that any sane person would want to know. I believe I started the thread and it's one of many regarding the CIT garbage. I doubt there is anyone who wants to go through that crap again....

The thread was from over a year ago, so if you continue searching for it, you should eventually be able to find it.....
 
Reheat said:
The short answer to you question is NO, certainly not via something described as a "wobble". Plus, you're apparently forgetting about the light poles.

There is a long thread here with more information about this possibility that any sane person would want to know. I believe I started the thread and it's one of many regarding the CIT garbage. I doubt there is anyone who wants to go through that crap again....

The thread was from over a year ago, so if you continue searching for it, you should eventually be able to find it.....
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't take any interest in this subject till about 1 month ago. I'm still trying to catch up. I'm not forgetting about the poles at all. It's 1700 feet from the annex to pole 1. The path of dammage is the ONLY good evidence of the flight path. FDR and ground radar has obvious holes and we've all seen how "good" eyewitness testimony is. I'm merely trying to reconcile eyewitness accounts with the physical damage. The light poles and impact hole don't lie and can't be manipulated. And even that doesn't say if the plane was flying straight. For all I know pole 1 was hit by the tail as it yawed left.
 
Actually, the ground radar is surprisingly good: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131008

There's only a single blip missing as AA 77 finally gets lost in ground clutter below 200 feet altitude.

Couple that with the FDR and the damage path -- even if we ignore the only mildly conflicting eyewitness statements both on the ground and from the C-130 (who also shows up in the radar data a minute later) -- and this story is tight as a drum.

Welcome to the Forum.
 
Senenmut said:
911 files-
im curious about how this radar data is collected. first the radar sends out signals and they bounce off the plane and the returns are picked up by the radar. correct so far??

from there, im wondering what kind of computer and what software the data passes through. then from the particular radar station, how is the data transferred (cable, satellite, optical/digital??) and where does it go? is there a central data center where multiple parties acoss the country can "see" the data? and if so, what kind of software is running.

basically from each point in data processing and transmission id like to know what type of computer but more importantly what software is running on those comps at those multiple radar stations.

have u looked into this? if u havent, is there anyway to find out?
Click to expand...

Only to a limited degree. I am sure some of the FAA guys posting here can help you with that. Here is what 84 RADES told me in regards to their collection process.

We have radar data recorders are
each ADS. The SEADS closed several years ago and NEADS picked up most
of the sites and is now called EADS (eastern).

Raw radar plot data (serial data from the radar site), track data
(generated by a C2 or ATC system using radar data), and flight plan data
are 3 different things. Normally it takes a C2 system 3-5 radar plots
to generate a track for a target. Once a track is started, the track is
updated on every new radar plot update. However each central tracking
system is different. Although I'm not that familiar with the FAA
central computer systems, your observation on the track data slightly
lagging the radar data for the ASR-9 seems reasonable. I'm not sure how
the FAA uses the flight plan data with the radar and track data. The AF
uses fight plan data in C2 systems to ID friendly/unknown targets.

When the raw radar data is received at the ADSs, it simultaneously feeds
several systems including our recorder and the C2 systems. There was no
processing of the data at the SEADS prior to the data being recorded
that would cause a delay. There are comm and local radar processing
delays that could easily account for a 2 second delay in the data from
the radar antenna to the front end of the C2 and ATC computer systems.
Click to expand...

Hopefully that will help answer your question to some degree. The FAA does have some materials posted at their website, but it has been at least a year since I looked at that material.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom