CIT Fraud Revealed

[Hokulele]

You lost me. ;(

He was making a visual joke that the Maya cartoon should have shown half a plane for the entire flight to match the witness testimony more closely.


(At least, that is how I read it.)

 

[A W Smith]

You lost me. ;(

Half a plane flying. I should have put a smiley in that post.

Hokulele, are ya waxin down your surf board? Or evacuating?

(do they even wax surf boards anymore? Or am I a relic?)

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Like I have said repeatedly about those cartoonists, incompetence in, incompetence out.

And in case you ever need to know this (I can't think why, but someone may need this information), last I knew, QuickBird satellite imagery has an average error of about 15 meters. It may be better in the Washington area, but I would have to send someone an e-mail to find out for sure. I think even the best areas are still about 4 meters off. Sure, if you are simply looking for landmarks, 15 meters will get you close enough, but if you are trying to make any kind of accurate calculation, get it surveyed.

And just for A W Smith, the high-end GPS units ($15,000 +) are typically accurate to 0.6 meters, the mass market ones will generally be around 5 meters, depending on your view of the sky and how many satellites are available. With post-processing, survey-grade instruments can get down to sub-centimeter accuracy.

I'm just thinking idly here while I sit in frightful anticipation of a wall of water heading towards the Philippines ... but: I wonder how quantifiable the error induced happens to be from Google's need to distort images of a curved surface (the earth, of course) in order to stich together all those series of flat-projected images. I have no idea where even to begin reading about that (save for quickie Googlewhacks with the obvious search terms). But of course, there will be issues matching edges of photos. Of course, they'll have to discard quite a bit of area in a photograph due to barrel distortion induced by the lenses of the cameras involved, but still... my point is that there must be some error inherent in that stitching together, and I'm just casually pondering how measurable it is.

Granted, Google Earth and Maps is (are?) probably not trying to spend too much time overdoing precision; most people aren't trying to use it to measure as precisely as our treefort psychos here are. But at the same time, I'd imagine Google would have at minimum some idea of the error inherent in their product.

Meh... idle pondering. That's all this is. I should go do something actually productive... go work out, maybe.

 

[mudlark]

With your hero's being CIT and Balsamo almost everything has you stumped. Balsamo with 2,223 gs of stupid math, and CIT with moronic lies you are a prime suspect when it comes to being gullible, naive, susceptible, credulous, easy to fool, and trusting total dolts. You are still stumped.

Says the ranter who never answers straightforward questions with straightforward answers.
STILL waiting for you to define the SOC path or at least plot YOUR points to show that the path is NOT straight.

I was looking for an academic answer. To fly a True Course we correct for winds to give us a true heading. If you could do math and aero, you could add details which I will let you mess up more? You gave me the moron answer and added stupid.

Next, the stupid…

But i thought you said that I as a "sock troll" for Rob Balsamo.
I DID ask a pilot for his opinion on this answer though.

You are calculating True Course from Wind speed and direction. You cannot do this because Wind Speed and Direction are not recorded at the same exact time as True Course in the FDR. This is why you are getting different numbers for the same time stamp, albeit 0.1 degree difference.

Do you check anything the morons at p4t dish out?... Based on the physics of flight, if you keep the wings level and yaw the airplane with the rudder, the thrust then has a lateral component to the flight path and will supply the necessary horizontal force, and a turn results. Got physics?

You are trying to say that since the G Force was less than 1 G in less than a second, the plane turned left in a right bank.

Essentially this is true and would be significant at a higher bank angle and higher G Force if at a longer period of time, however it is insignificant in the data to cause any type of actual turn.

5 degree right bank with a less than 1 second duration of less than 1 G did not turn the aircraft left. The Course data does not show a left turn. The Heading data does not show a left turn... from the VDOT to the Pentagon.

*snipped meandering rant*

Plot the points and show this path that "isn´t straight"
Show how this plane that was allegedly "slightly North" of SOC made even a 1.3º change in course to line up with the directional damage.
All within less than 3.5 seconds at 540mph. AND without the necessary left bank lacking in Warren´s decode.

You spent a lot of time to calculate those numbers and they mean nothing. You are doing it to confuse the masses as those course numbers also will not support AW Smith´s absurd path north of the physical damage in order to cast a shadow on Paik's shop.

Bottom line, Math, USGS Topography data, Sun data and FDR data place the shadow south of Columbia Pike. Ed Paik saw the right wing of the aircraft. This places the aircraft on the NoC approach. Stop chasing shadows and 0.1 degree True Course changes at more than 450 knots in 5 seconds.

If YOU are convinced of what you are saying, demonstrate it. Plot the points.

 

[mudlark]

The only path there is went through the light poles hitting the generator and inflicting the damage witnessed on 9/11/2001. Unless you can show how that all was faked all you're doing is typing practice.

Can you show how this physical evidence was faked?

I´m trying to determine exactly WHERE the SOC path is according to the posters here from BEFORE the Navy Annex through to the VDOT Tower.

Why is it so difficult given the points I have raised?

Looks like I´ll be getting a lot of "typing practice" in until I get an answer.
Beachnut has been left to rant and confuse the issue whereas normally certain other posters are pretty "vocal" on how the FDR data trumps eyewitness testimony.
NOW we are seeing that apparently there are quite a few variables on SOC that change to suit the argument, NOT based on data, physics or logical deduction.

Mangoose maintains that the plane flew parallel to the Navy Annex according to Terry Morin.

BCR claims that the plane hit the VDOT tower.

Beachnut backs Madelyn Zakhem´s testimony (ignoring Paik´s and Morin´s) and places it further North. Also judging by his insistence that a left bank was executed though recorded nowhere he is emphasizing his preference of ths path.

AW Smith, according to his shadow math has it further North on Columbia Pike. Hokulele apparently agrees with him.

ALL contradictory bar BCR, to the "consolidated path" derived also from the NTSB data.


Do you have a preferred choice DGM? Or are you just happy to go with the flow and agree with anything put forward by any poster mentioned above?

You guys harp on about the NOC path yet you can´t (make that refuse to) identify the SOC path.

 

[mudlark]

Both those images are watermarked by Google Earth. What "software" did he use to verify the positional accuracy of those image overlays and pin placement?

As I said, ask Warren.
What CAN be seen is that HIS translation of the data is that the plane travelled in a straight line. NO left bank indicated by his placement of the pins OR his data.
The trajectory also matches Farmer´s "consolidated path"

Why would YOU have a problem with it when your math for the shadow was based on an area along this very path?

 

[mudlark]

From the complete decode of data supplied p4t years ago, Warren decode the final 5 seconds Balsamo has been hiding from the world so he can sell idiotic delusions on DVD.

The final points come from the navigation system no Flight 77 and the errors range from 200 feet to 2,000 feet; 605 feet on good day.
[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1CITFRAUDexposed.jpg[/qimg]

mudlark calls this the official flight path.

These push pins are from the FDR sampled from the navigation system with at best expected 605 feet accuracy. Errors of over 600 feet can be expected, at takeoff errors were over 2,000 feet.

So these push pins define a path with an error budget from 600 feet to 2,000 feet.

No surprise here as the no math team of CIT and Balsamo have pushed mudlark out the door with no clues.

Yes the real flight path of 77 is within 600 to 2,000 feet of these push pins, with the headings the most accurate part of the deal. Headings are kind of good, and very close to being accurate. I say +-1 to 2 degrees.

Thanks mudlark for exposing your lack of knowledge on another science aspect of your delusions.

The FDR describes the real flight path on 911, when you understand the errors in each value stored in the FDR, you can make rational conclusion about the Flight path.


So we have a description but mudlark has help from idiots who can't grasp what the FDR has in it. They have no clue about flying.

For the last time Beachnut, neither this map nor plotted path is MINE.
It is Warren Stutt´s. It his HIS translation of the data. It is he who you say "can't grasp what the FDR has in it".

So these push pins define a path with an error budget from 600 feet to 2,000 feet.

The exact lateral placement of the pins isn't the issue Beachnut. It is the undeniable fact that the path is a straight line both outlined in the data that YOU are attempting to make "fit" with your conclusions (whatever they are), AND the directional damage.

Why all the ambiguity?

At what point within the 3.7 seconds between "slightly North" of datapoint -4 on Farmer´s "consolidated path" and lightpole 1 at 540mph would the plane have had to have been on the directional damage path?

How far "slightly North" are we actually talking?

Are you pushing the path you claim Madelyn Zakhem saw?

If, as you claim, there is a "600-2000ft" margin of error, what exactly makes you so confident that the plane was "slightly North" of the official SOC path?

Is it contained in the FDR data?
I ask this because you are so confident that there was a "left bank" in the final seconds even though it is not recorded anywhere on Warren's decode.
Also because Farmer's "consolidated path" allegedly takes all FDR and radar information into account.

WHY THIS SPECIFICALLY "SLIGHTLY NORTH OF SOC PATH"? THE PATH THAT NOBODY HERE HAS PLOTTED.

Are you, along with others here, who are watching and not contributing, claiming that the "consolidated path" is in fact now NOT the path the plane allegedly took?

Based on what exactly?

You MUST have an idea of the path you are pushing, no?

Why not SHOW me and the people reading this thread the plotted points as YOU see them according to Warren's data and directional damage.
Show that the path that you say is not straight and not on the official SOC directional damage path.

I've spelled out my queries very clearly. Please do me the same privilege.

 

[mudlark]

Originally Posted by Reactor drone
Just out of interest, how high above the ground is the virtual camera in those photos, how far away from the window is it and how tall are the windows?

ETA- also what lens are you using?

Too low, too close and too tall. But, what would that matter?

Why not check out Larson's video?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165041&page=10#

At 01:10 in the video of Larson's interview, Ed Paik describes exactly what he did before and after the plane passed his shop.

"We heard a big sound and then I just look out like this (bends down to look out window, up at the sky)"

01:33

There is a view from this window but from a different angle.
The SOC path would have been clearly visible as depicted in the image.

02:15

"I could just see a big black wing"

02:57 (exactly)

We get a perspective of just how tall Ed Paik is alongside the window while standing upright.

03:40

In his 2006 interview he mimicks the EXACT SAME motion. That he bent down and looked up.

Even IF the image had been from a lower perspective, it still holds true to what Ed Paik describes as the fuselage of the plane can be seen.

What can be clearly seen in the video is that the entire plane would have been in his view had it pased SOC.

 

[mudlark]

Did I miss mudlark's reply providing us with the "NOC flight path over and away from the Pentagon?"

Don't worry bje, I´ll get to you soon

 

[carlitos]

¡Órale, pues!

They got a big Hispanic population up there in Ireland?

I never knew the Mexican Mafia had an Irish accent.

Orale.

I think that would be O'Rale?

 

[mudlark]

What answer? You never answered my question in the first place, that's the point.



So he saw the right wing and the fuselage fly this entire path?

[qimg]http://lh4.ggpht.com/_MSV5A_kgZ98/S4VFbMGqZ4I/AAAAAAAABIE/0qY9XFGzW3A/s576/paik.JPG[/qimg]

Just tell me if you think he witnessed the majority of the flightpath he drew?

I never once claimed that he could physically SEE the plane over the two areas in question.
He logically deduced the path he drew, given the physical realities of being able to see the right wing and describing the fuselage as being out of his view because it was above his roof area when it passed.

Tell me Cornsnail, if you were in his position and saw what he describes (3 times no less), what trajectory would YOU have the plane on?

That he describes the plane in this area AT ALL contradicts the official story and FDR.
He is corraborated by the Navy Annex witnesses and Terry Morin.
If you had been following the latest posts you will know that the alleged SOC directional damage path is very specific.

Do you believe he saw the plane on the SOC path? Yes or no?

That's a totally different issue than what I'm asking about.

I see what you meant now but the post I was referring to gives an idea of his perspective

 

[mudlark]

Since someone brought up a straight-line path, I thought this image might prove useful to the discussion.

[qimg]http://zoesflight.com/files/straight.jpg[/qimg]

I have labeled the track angle at the appropriate data points and connected them with at straight line. It becomes obvious that the final positional marker is clearly not on the straight line path, so some type of in-flight correction was definitely in play. It also shows that what I said before in regards to the model being shifted slightly to the south relative to the final 3 DCA radar returns is consistent with the markers as well. The plane would have had to be a 100 feet or so further north to avoid the over-the-road structure.

Now this image illustrates the Google Earth errors that Hokulele has patiently been trying to explain to some individuals.

[qimg]http://zoesflight.com/files/topo_error.jpg[/qimg]

Although slight, there is a clear shift in the marker positions and the straight line reference (unchanged in the two) when satellite images from 2001 and 2010 are interchanged.

So yes YouTube generation, there are errors associated with the GE positioning. I know that really hurts, but that is why it is impossible to reconstruct the exact actual path down to feet. From the GE imagery, my resultant model does appear slightly south of where the actual flight path was, but that is why I used the last 3 DCA radar returns to estimate the error range. I gave that error band earlier. I was wondering then why the plane was so high on the northern limit of that range, but thankfully mudlark helped clarify that the Sun was actually lower in azimuth, thus reducing those altitudes to within what I had expected to see. Thanks for the help mudlap, I mean mudlark.

This has NOTHING to do with what I have said Farmer.
I have simplified the alleged SOC path for you.

I have said, repeatedly, that the straight line MUST be worked BACKWARDS from the directional damage first of all. No lat/long GE errors need be considered for this.

THEN take into account that you must specify at what point the plane had to line up with this damage.

Was it at 3.7 seconds before the plane allegedly reached lightpole 1 at -4 on your "consolidated path" which is before the Navy Annex?

Was it 2.7 seconds before at -3 on your path midway past the Annex?

At which point could the plane physically line up with the physical damage from "slightly North" of SOC at such a high speed and within less than 2 seconds?

Given that Warren's data doesn't account for ANY left bank whatsoever within these datapoints, just WHERE is the data to back this claim up?

Beachnut claims that "Hani" pulled off a left turn while rolling right. Which I've been told IS physically possible but NOT under these conditions.
Beachnut claims this even though he can't/won't plot any path that he believes the plane made this left bank from OR back it up with data.
Simply that it CAN be done.

That's a stupid question. (on asking where he believes the SOC path is) Draw a line from where the plane hit the Pentagon back through where it knocked down the the lightpoles, and you've got it.

See? Even william gets it! Lol.

NOW do you understand my question? Albeit in layman terms, I'm sure other laymen reading this thread know what I mean. I KNOW that you and Beachnut know exactly what I mean.
Stop fudging. Both of you.

 

[mudlark]

I guess I'll just need to keep repeating this until it sinks in: My drawing does not show any "trajectory." It's a scale drawing that shows Paik's approximate vertical field of view out that window. In the interview video, Paik points out that window at about a 35^o angle to indicate where he saw the plane. From that video, I estimate that he could not possibly have seen upward at more than a 45^o angle. I have indicated those two angles in my drawing. Are you with me so far?

Did you or did you not pinpoint what you claim Paik could have seen using those specific angles?
How can they be an accurate reflection of what you are trying to say when the trajectory of the plane, which he personally drew on several maps,places the plane over his yard?
You cannot make any estimation at all using the drawing you did.
For the exact same reasons that I outlined in my previous post to you. End of story.

How did you actually come to the angle of what he saw?
Have you actually watched Larson's interview?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5579434&postcount=395

At 01:10 in the video of Larson's interview, Ed Paik describes exactly what he did before and after the plane passed his shop.

"We heard a big sound and then I just look out like this (bends down to look out window, up at the sky)"

Which he is also recorded to have claimed in his 2006 interview (contained in the Larson video)

Even your angles are wrong when you look at what he actually said.

He is also your average sized Asian guy. Not so tall. Was that taken into consideration?

Originally Posted by mudlark
Now look at the MAP Paik drew.

I have. He drew a path that crosses over his parking lot, perhaps 30 feet SSE of that window.

You have ignored the fact that he claims to have been bent down viewing upwards through the window.
He also claims that it was "very low".

You have also ignored the fact that the fuselage is depicted at @30ft SSE of that window" and that the wing extends a further 50ft.
He is also unsure if the plane was in any bank, which would have further come into his view.

Your drawing is rigid and does not take any variables into account whatsoever.

Originally Posted by mudlark
Now look at topography of the area. In this instance the position of Paik´s shop in relation to the 200ft+ Sheraton Hotel..

Which is completely irrelevant to the point of my drawing. Please try to focus on Paik's vertical field of view out that window.

Uh huh..your drawing is "completely irrelevant" given the inaccuracies.
The reason I pointed out the Sheraton's position which is CRUCIAL, totally blows your depiction of the plane going over Paik's roof as you described out of the water.
The trajectory HAD to be further out for the plane to be able to pass the hotel which is in fact verified by his maps.

Now it's my turn to call your attention to Paik's map: He has the plane flying over the Annex building after passing over his parking lot. That building is about 70 feet tall. Are you still with me?

When Paik says that the plane flew "very low" over his shop, just how literally are you taking this?
He says that he "felt that" the plane was going to hit his roof.
That it cleared the Navy Annex gives you an idea in his map of just how "low" he remembered it to be.
YOUR drawing exaggerates the size of the Navy Annex for this purpose.

But there isn't any "depiction of the NOC plane's trajectory" or any other "trajectory" in my drawing. I have one depiction of the plane directly over Paik's head and at the bare minimum altitude if would need to clear the Annex building (even if it were in level flight at that point, which it wasn't), which simply shows that if the plane had really passed there, then Paik wouldn't have seen it. I have a couple of other arbitrary depictions that are not any attempt to indicate a particular flight path or trajectory, but rather a simple fact of geometry: For Paik to have seen the wing and fuselage out that window, the plane must have been at least as far SSE of that window as it was above the ground. If the 35^o angle he is pointing to in that video is reasonably accurate, then it was even farther away than it's altitude. I've lost count of how many times I've said that now

Again, you are talking of geometry when ALL your parameters are off,
including your angles going by his testimony.
And again, you have taken a literal approach to exactly what he said and ignored all of his other testimony, both in this video and in former interviews.

You used the plane furthest away in your drawing to depict the SOC path. Admit it. To reinforce the idea that the plane had to be further away towards SOC.
Fail.

The altitude and positioning of the plane, when scaled to the rest of the drawing is TOO CLOSE and TOO HIGH.
Fix the scale and THEN talk about geometry and angles proving any point you have.

Originally Posted by mudlark
His map reinforces the inaccuracy of your interpretation of the trajectory and DISTANCE from his POV.
He clearly places the plane over his front yard where he described only the right wing as being visible

And there's the point that you seem to be determined to not understand. If the plane was on the path he drew on the map, maybe 30 feet SSE of that window, and he was looking up at a 45^o angle or less, then the plane would have been at an altitude of 30 feet or less. If the plane had been anywhere near that low, there is no way it could have cleared the Annex building. QED, Paik's map CANNOT be accurate, unless he lied about seeing the fuselage. Get it now? Either Paik's map is wrong, or he didn't see the plane. Which would you like to go with?

Again your "angle" is off according to his testimony.
Get it now?
You do NOT have the FUSELAGE at 30ft SSE of his window.

You haven't taken any avariables into account such as a possible bank at this point, even though Paik didn't describe one.

He "lied"? NOW we are getting to the crux.

YOU are wrong. YOUR drawing is wrong.

Originally Posted by mudlark
Your "SOC plane"...how relative is it to the actual proposed SOC path?

The left wing of your "SOC plane" closest to the "NOC plane" is actually overlapping the wing of the "NOC plane"

The furthest "SOC" plane

Just WHERE do YOU believe SOC actually was??

That's a stupid question. Draw a line from where the plane hit the Pentagon back through where it knocked down the the lightpoles, and you've got it. You seem to have forgotten that you're supposed to be proving that's not right. Paik's inaccurate map certainly doesn't do it, nor does what he said he saw out that window, not does Balsamo's graphic.

Not so "stupid" a question if you had been following the recent posts. Even posters here won't pin their colours to it.

You obviously didn't follow your advice to me to ascertain the SOC path for the drawing. No matter how much you deny that this wasn't what you were intending to show.

As I said, you have it too high and too close.
Your parameters are wrong. Your drawing is not witness compatible as is Rob Balsamo's which actually used a program for such illustrations.
Rob's is also based on publically available data.

Ok, so if it was somewhere around 350 to 400 feet up, no more than 430 feet up, then that would be about the angle he pointed, wouldn't it. You've supposed to be proving that's not the case.

The plane was allegedly @230ft agl according to Warren Stutt's decode at this point, though Terry Morin has it at only 50ft above his POV in the Navy Annex. That's around 120ft agl at the midpoint of the Annex.
At the official speed that is roughly a DIVE of @90 ft per second taking the elevation of the Annex into account.
AND if you take it literally.

Either way you would HAVE to almost halve your estimate of what Paik could and couldn't see.

"No more than 430ft up"?

Where did you pull that figure from? As I said, according to Stutt's radalt data it was 233ft MAXIMUM.

Also take into account that he claims to have been at a LOWER POV.
Remember we are talking of an average sized Asian guy here.

Do you see where you have been going wrong?

No, I'm not "placing" the 260 ft away. My drawing simply concerns the angle at which Paik viewed the plane and what that implies. The entire problem is that neither you nor I nor Paik can use that angle alone to "place" the plane. But what my drawing shows is that Paik's placement on the map can't be right. And if it's wrong, it's meaningless.

Exactly which post were you reading? It certainly can't have been mine.

Your drawing is totally inaccurate on every front.
You are drawing conclusions that are not based on anything apart from a literal translation of a portion of this guy's description of what he saw. What he has described on three separate occasions to three different interviewers. One CIT, one who turned out to have his own agenda and a vociferous anti-CIT "truther".

Paik said that he "felt that" the plane went over his roof. His various maps has the plane over his front yard.

What you should be doing is calculate the actual height and position of the plane according to HIS testimony. Taking ALL values into account including the witness margin of error which has been narrowed down significantly in this case due to the physical view he described regarding the plane.


What is repeated in every interview is that he could only see the right wing and part of the fuselage and that IF it had been further off he would have been able to see the whole plane. His words.
He describes ANYTHING BUT THE SOC PATH.

You say you drew "the angle at which Paik viewed the plane".
That is a SPECIFIC measurement added to a drawing that is also not to scale on any level as well as ignoring his testimony.
The "planes" are not positioned correctly to scale.
The buildings are not to scale.
Your "angle" is meaningless in the context of all this.

Originally Posted by mudlark
The scale of the Navy Annex to Paik´s shop?
The Navy Annex is 4 stories tall @69ft.

You have Paik´s shop scaled to 6mm.
You have the Navy Annex scaled to 7cm.
Are you really trying to say that the Navy Annex is almost TWELVE times taller than the shop??

Doesn't make a bit of difference, since the important feature is that Paik couldn't have seen more than about 45^o up. That and the rest of your post are irrelevant, since you still didn't seem to understand what I was getting at. I do hope this helped.

Wrong again according to HIS testimony.
It is not something I'm pulling out of the air, like your conclusions, but testimony that has been verified THREE times.

The "important features" are the cumulative points I have listed which you totally ignored.
The worst thing about this "debate" on the subject is that even though I showed you where you went wrong, and they are patently obvious, you actually cannot concede ONE point I have made, even going to the point of calling it "irrelevant" (LOL) and I have had to spell it out again.

 

[DGM]

I´m trying to determine exactly WHERE the SOC path is according to the posters here from BEFORE the Navy Annex through to the VDOT Tower.

Why exactly? If the plane hit the lamp posts, generator trailer and the Pentagon as viewed on 9/11, what does a few feet north or south mater?

Do you have a preferred choice DGM? Or are you just happy to go with the flow and agree with anything put forward by any poster mentioned above?

I pick the path that is a straight line from the hole in the C (?) wall to the hole in the exterior wall through the generator and light poles. A little north or south makes no difference to me.

None of this is NOC.

 

[BCR]

Looks like mudlap has been busy posting the Craig/Rob emails. Nothing of value of course, just more ignoring of the data without presenting the requested data.

Times for his last 3 posts...

03:57 PM
03:59 PM
04:00 PM

The data indicates to me (due to the length of each post), that someone is copy/pasting from emails and the posts are not the original work of the poster. Can someone define what a 'sock puppet' is for me?

 

[Wolrab]

We should go through the membership list and find all the ones that have registered but not posted. I would imagine a goodly number would be the next socks.
I seem to remember the indignation of truthers when people here signed up on A&E4twoof with names like Hugh G. Rection (have those names been weeded out?). I think registering socks months or years in advance is a sign of mental illness.

 

[carlitos]

As was mentioned above, at the very least he's posting on behalf of banned members. Those walls o'text are very much like the original CIT nonsense I read in a few of the old threads. Although, to be fair, he isn't demanding real names etc.

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Ranke is the master of deception. How do I know?....................

Yes, that's his GF...

I have to give Ranke props for his taste in women.

 

[carlitos]

sauce?

/4chan

 

[beachnut]

How much a course change would you experience with a less than a tenth of degree change over 5 seconds. ...

A planes course can change without a heading change; aircraft fly in air; air moves. BUT...

Last 7 seconds of TH, true heading, Track Angle True, and TC, true course.
TH --- TAT --- TC
59.4
59.8 - 61.2
59.8 -------- 61.3
59.8 - 61.5 - 61.1
60.1 -------- 61.6
60.5 - 61.5 - 61.6
61.2 -------- 62.4

The true heading goes from 59.8 to 61.2 in 5 seconds. not 0.1 like, but 1.4 degrees.

Try to avoid Balsamo and his 2,223 g math stuff.

How much would the course change flying your desk in a 0.1 degree change over 5 seconds. lol (jk) .

I am not the one who needs help with math, you said a 1.3 heading change was 0.1 degree. ? lol (nk)

It HAD to be in a straight line to line up with the physical damage.

Wrong. True course last 5 seconds.
61.3 - if straight the next value would be.... the SAME
61.1 - not the same
61.6 - not the same
61.6 - kind of straight but this is a sample at a moment of time
62.4 - oops;
Not a straight line.

No "math" needed for the points I´m making just honesty and logic.

You never presented the math for your NoC flight path; no surprise you announce, “No math needed”.

you left out the logic, and honesty, just like the math...