You understand the difference between design and visualization, yes?
I can draw 30 foot tall purple dinosaurs in either 3D Max, 3D Viz, or Maya. Does this mean that these are accurate representations of reality? I can "design" a highway with a 30% grade in any of the three as well. Does this mean it should be built that way? I can change the dimensions of the plane and the topography over which it is flying to put a shadow just about anywhere between Boston and Albequerque. Does this mean AA77 never hit the Pentagon?
Once Maya puts in error-checking, QA/QC, and parametric controls, I may call it a design program, but I would still require the original files and parameters used by the cartoonist in question before I would consider any output to have any relevance to reality. Ephemerides and flight data are only a few of the parameters needed to replicate what could have been seen on that day.
However, I will retract and reword one thing I said originally.
This is unreal.
YOU are the one who is brushing this image aside BEFORE checking its validity and accurateness for yourself.
YOU are the so-called ´teacher of AutoCAD´. You SHOULD be able to debunk it.
Have you actually followed the links I have posted as to Maya´s capabilities and its ´design vizualisation´?
Not Farmer's path, it is the consolidated data path. You have already been informed multiple times that the actual path is slightly north of the data path. The reason is because the INS is still correcting for the 330-degree turn drift (most likely). You have already been informed that the last 3 DCA returns definitely indicates that the model path is too far south. However, you have also been informed that the error band for the actual path is rather limited. You keep posting stuff without using the qualifier error band which simply demonstrates you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Madelyn did see a plane, so ergo you are wrong and the already estimated error band and slight southerly shift is verified. Please come back when you have the original unedited interview tapes and Maya scene.
¨..nearly skimming the rooftop of the Smart Traffic Center.¨
This testimony contradicts Warren´s decode. His data describes a roll to the RIGHT of between 4º and 6º starting well before the plane reached her alleged POV and continuing until 0.7 seconds before the end of his proposed path (which misses the lightpoles, I might add)
She also claims to have seen the cockpit..as it went overhead?
- Her testimony is woolly at best.
- Her POV was totally obscured by trees.
- She contradicts Warren´s data (which is wrong? Madelyn or Warren?)
- She contradicts Ed Paik and Terry Morin
- She contradicts every recorded witness or ´datapoint´ in the Annex area
This is unreal.
YOU are the one who is brushing this image aside BEFORE checking its validity and accurateness for yourself.
YOU are the so-called ´teacher of AutoCAD´. You SHOULD be able to debunk it.
Have you actually followed the links I have posted as to Maya´s capabilities and its ´design vizualisation´?
Given that the entire airplane and all the bodies were found inside the Pentagon and we have the radar tracks and FDR data that shows how it got there, you are a clear case of GIGO.
As for me, I am done with this thread. The mudlap foolish just keeps on going and it is getting rather boring addressing the same old wrong and cartoons. How do you argue with cartoons? The cartoons win.
You accused CIT of fraud regarding Ed Paik´s interview.
You failed. You actually bolstered and confirmed what Ed Paik told them.
The plane went NOC.
I´ve seen YOUR ´ cartoons´ mate
I´m still waiting on your and Hokulele´s debunk of those images. Instead you cover your ears and cry ´I´m not playing any more´.
I'm with CE on this: We should respect mudlarkWP's choice of screen name.
After wading through the excrement and waste at CIT, mudlarkWP hawks what he has found. Unlike the 18th century mudlarks, this mudlarkWP is trying to sell us the filth itself.
If you did math you would see Madelyn's story matches the correct flight path; and if you would go outside more you will see you can see planes over trees, etc
So the plane ´skimmed´ the roof of her building?
She could see the cockpit from there?
Did the plane execute a left bank as she says?
The path she describes takes the plane into Arlington Cemetery at 40ft agl on a descent if her testimony is to be taken literally.
I would like to know how it ´fits´with the official path(s) Beachy.
No rants please. Just a map or explanation will do.
Cheers.
I asked for unedited video. The first one is edited. Unless the people that they were interviewing actually can disappear and appear in different places?
Exactly what more do you actually expect to see that isn´t contained within those videos I linked you to??
Tell me exactly what you think is editted or censored?
If any of the NOC witnesses believe they witnessed an impact, it is on record.
Tell Erik to go interview them. He did such a good job confirming Ed Paik´s testimony. Even more.
I suppose I could start asking Larson for his uneditted footage too?
This is boring. Mudlark, you're in full dodge and repeat mode now. The flightpath Paik drew was obviously not what he witnessed (he saw a wing of a plane, or a shadow of a wing for 1-2 seconds from inside his shop). What are these 'witnessed flightpaths' supposed to be?
Boring Cornsnail?
I´m the one who´s bored HAVING TO repeat posts.
There is no debate here. Just opinion after opinion. Lie after insult. No links to back up claims.
I´m being accused of ´spamming´ for posting links to every point I make!
That´s twice now you´ve accused me of ´dodging´. Mind backing that claim up?
Paik said he saw the right wing of THE plane in question. He totally contradicts SOC with this statement alone. Along with his assertion that it was low..´above my roof´. The same story he told to CIT as he did to Erik Larson. It´s as simple as that.
I posted images provided to me created on a very widely used highly accurate and maneable program that has a lighting function which replicates shadowing given the parameters of the azimuth and elevation of the sun.
They proved (and have yet to be debunked) that the shadow could not physically have fallen on Ed Paik´s shop from SOC, using the positional and altitude data taken from Warren Stutt´s program.
It´s not ME who is providing the testimony but Ed Paik himself. What should be done..a third interview? We are going to hear the same thing.
Exactly what more do you actually expect to see that isn´t contained within those videos I linked you to??
Tell me exactly what you think is editted or censored?
If any of the NOC witnesses believe they witnessed an impact, it is on record.
Tell Erik to go interview them. He did such a good job confirming Ed Paik´s testimony. Even more.
I suppose I could start asking Larson for his uneditted footage too?
Exactly what more do you actually expect to see that isn´t contained within those videos I linked you to??
Tell me exactly what you think is editted or censored?
If any of the NOC witnesses believe they witnessed an impact, it is on record.
Tell Erik to go interview them. He did such a good job confirming Ed Paik´s testimony. Even more.
I suppose I could start asking Larson for his uneditted footage too?
How can anyone tell you what they think is edited or censored when THEY DON'T HAVE THE UNEDITED VIDEO?
This is so stupid, it's off the scale!
But not without precedence, seeing as how it's CIT.
Boring Cornsnail?
I´m the one who´s bored HAVING TO repeat posts.
There is no debate here. Just opinion after opinion. Lie after insult. No links to back up claims.
I´m being accused of ´spamming´ for posting links to every point I make!
That´s twice now you´ve accused me of ´dodging´. Mind backing that claim up?
Paik said he saw the right wing of THE plane in question. He totally contradicts SOC with this statement alone. Along with his assertion that it was low..´above my roof´. The same story he told to CIT as he did to Erik Larson. It´s as simple as that.
I posted images provided to me created on a very widely used highly accurate and maneable program that has a lighting function which replicates shadowing given the parameters of the azimuth and elevation of the sun.
They proved (and have yet to be debunked) that the shadow could not physically have fallen on Ed Paik´s shop from SOC, using the positional and altitude data taken from Warren Stutt´s program.
It´s not ME who is providing the testimony but Ed Paik himself. What should be done..a third interview? We are going to hear the same thing.
Given that the entire airplane and all the bodies were found inside the Pentagon and we have the radar tracks and FDR data that shows how it got there, you are a clear case of GIGO.
You accused CIT of fraud regarding Ed Paik´s interview.
You failed. You actually bolstered and confirmed what Ed Paik told them.
The plane went NOC.
I´ve seen YOUR ´ cartoons´ mate
I´m still waiting on your and Hokulele´s debunk of those images. Instead you cover your ears and cry ´I´m not playing any more´.
CIT failed, they are frauds.
Paik points south.
Middleton points south.
Madelyn points south.
Boger sees 77 enter the Pentagon.
CIT makes up delusions, you repeat them and then you call other people parrots because you can't do the math to see your paths from CIT are impossible delusions only you, CIT, and 2,223 g bad math Balsamo the failed pilot believe due to ignorance in physics, math, and logic.
The best part about CIT they are too stupid to edit out the parts that their own witness prove beyond a shadow of doubt the NoC is a moronic delusion. Are CIT still on drugs? Have you suggested rehab? With delusions like those you post from CIT they need help. Is Balsamo still going to kill people who disagree with his paranoid conspiracy theories?
This is unreal.
YOU are the one who is brushing this image aside BEFORE checking its validity and accurateness for yourself.
YOU are the so-called ´teacher of AutoCAD´. You SHOULD be able to debunk it.
How can I check its validity when you are unable to post the raw data used to create it? For example, what digital terrain model (DTM) did they use for draping the aerial imagery? If they didn't use one (and it certainly doesn't look like they did), what projection did they use for it? If they didn't even bother to use a projection, at what elevation is it pasted?
Without the very basic background information regarding how this cartoon was created, there is nothing to debunk other than the fact that it was apparently created by people who are either too incompetent to release their raw data, or have no idea what assumptions they used in the first place.
Incompetence in, incompetence out.
Have you actually followed the links
I have posted as to Maya´s capabilities and its ´design vizualisation´?
Ah, so you have no idea what the difference is between "design" and "visualization". Here's a small lesson for free. A design visualization package is used to take someone else's design, often generated as 2D shop drawings, and "visualize" it for someone, generally a layperson, who cannot read plan sets. It has nothing to do with creating the designs in the first place, and is well known to be woefully inadequate for vetting proper designs. This is why there are tools such as Navisworks for doing QA/QC, not Maya.
The ´cartoonist´ is an aviation professional taught and advised by an expert who uses Maya to design components for GM and NASCAR.
Ah, so someone who has no clue how to do design, and I would bet any amount of money that this "expert" does not use Maya to design components, but to render components designed with tools such as Pro-E, SolidWorks, Rhino, or Inventor.
You know, design software.
I have genuinely asked the author for the data you ask for and he wants you to go and ask him yourself.
I would rather ask a Benihana chef to give me a Swedish massage using his/her tools of the trade than register for a site that is well-known for capturing and making public the personal information of those who visit it. If your "expert" is unable to release his raw data, I would not only question his incompetence, but his integrity.
Flight 77 was identified, it is a fact; are you incapable of finding the evidence proving the point?
Chain of custody is important and the DNA meets that, you can't prove otherwise; you have not even tried; you just say so which a lie; you are a liar about the DNA and more. You have no evidence, all you do is post lies from CIT.
Prove the FBI does not have the FDR serial number! You have failed to prove anything so far; why? Why did the NTSB will not put serial numbers in their support work for a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION? oops I told you;
Farmer doubted the RADAR and NTSB; Farmer took all the RADAR sites and studied them to prove your flight paths are pathetic made up lies from CIT and Balsamo the failed math pilot. You just repeat the lies of CIT and call me a parrot on speed. Cool, Farmer does work, you talk.
Balsamo sat on the missing 4 to 5 seconds in the raw data he had and the p4t experts failed to decode. Pathetic pointing out how Balsamo and CIT are incompetent to figure out the data they sat on.
Everyone saw the real flight path which it is backed up by RADAR, FDR, and damage! The kinetic energy impact at the Pentagon is proof of the flight too; but you can't do physics to understand it!~ too bad
FOC, is that your next poor attempt at a Balsamo insult?
Good touch pointing out Farmer is a skeptic and proving you are not; why are you at JREF spewing Balsamo and CIT lies? To expose your ignorance on 911 and math, or to apologize for terrorists?
When will you post the math you did for a flight path?
This testimony contradicts Warren´s decode. His data describes a roll to the RIGHT of between 4º and 6º starting well before the plane reached her alleged POV and continuing until 0.7 seconds before the end of his proposed path (which misses the lightpoles, I might add)
Those decode push pins on the google earth image, How did you arrive at their placement? Did you actually visit Arlington and verify the plot points with a GPS? Hokulele brings up an interesting point when she refers to the differences between a grid topographic system and a spherical one. Apparently there are issues with longitude / latitude accuracy in Google earth.
Those decode push pins on the google earth image, How did you arrive at their placement? Did you actually visit Arlington and verify the plot points with a GPS?
In Erik's video interviews, Edward makes an interesting remark concerning the replacement of the 'bent' antenna on the VSP tower. At 07:20, Edwards states, "...the crane comes here..." and goes on to explain that they used the crane to replace the antenna.
In both Ed and Shinki's accounts, the time frame was the next day, or next couple days after the event. Shinki claims to have seen the 'bent' antenna on the day of 9/11.
Fortunately, with the new Google Earth historical imagery, it is possible for us to verify or dismiss this part of the Paik brothers accounts.
The first satellite image is from September 7, 2001 which can serve as a reference to the area for comparison with later images. The VSP tower location is marked using the NAD83 coordinates from the FCC ASR Registry. A-One Auto is to the upper left of the image (off image).
The next image is from September 12, 2001 of the same area. The time appears to be around mid-day (based on shadows). On the 12th, there seems to be very little activity around the tower and not much has changed since the 6th.
On September 13, 2001, the situation has changed dramatically around the tower. Low and behold, there seems to be a very large piece of equipment (red arrow) parked to the south of the tower with a tall structure casting a long shadow associated with it.
Consistent with Ed and Shinki Paik's accounts, there is indeed a large crane parked at the VSP tower which they claim was used to replace the 'bent' antenna. I don't know why inquiries with the State of Virginia, VSP, or VDOT have turned up no records for the work being done, but there is definitely something going on just as eyewitnesses describe.
Footnote:
I said earlier that I was done with this 'thread', but a more accurate statement would be I am done with the 'mudlap thread'. If he comes up with something other than cartoons let me know and I'll take him off ignore.
Houkele and I discussed the difference between spherical and topographical coordinates a year or so ago at some length as I recall. It is well to point out as AW Smith has already done to keep the distinction in mind. As mentioned in the documentation of my resultant model, there are NO datum corrections in any of the positional data calculated by me (I actually do provide the equations used). At the desired accuracy of my effort (+/- 0.25 seconds) datum errors are going to be well inside the error band (a plane can cover a lot of distance in 1/4 second at 400 knots!). Of course I don't expect CIT/P4T to grasp the concept of an error range associated with a model, so why even try to explain it to them. What I did want to point out though is that the FCC coordinates (NAD83 datum) are entered into GE for the VSP tower, they DO NOT align with the satellite imagery of the tower exactly (slightly east). That hopefully will illustrate that issue a little more clearly.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
