Flight 77 Animation

[B-Man]

I'm pretty sure this info is accurate as its from USGS.

As you can see, the overpasses are plainly "visible". Hope this helps Bill

ETA: the elevation rise on the right may actually be the Pentagon itself - I'm pretty sure the building is sitting on a flat spot..

Thanks for that.
All it needs to be is a mere 55' odd, and since it appears to be safely that, the 'can't hit street lights' thing is dead and buried I believe.

 

[Mechbob]

I had the impression that the comments were added by someone other then the Feds. I assumed that the pilot may also have been disoriented as well as inexperienced which explained the less then perfect control. Face it, they didn't take flight training to take off and land, they only wanted to be able to change course and crash. I thought that they would have planned to hit the building dead center at a 90 degree angle. That the hyjacker hit it imperfectly is really not revelent. Too bad all this info couldn't have been gathered and published in one weeks time. Seeing it now, confirms what logical people thought all along, but the CTs will still say it's all a sham.

 

[apathoid]

I got this from the Loose Change forum of all places...

I asked a person who analyzes FDR / CVR data for a living to have a look at the .CSV information, and this is what he had to say about it:

It does appear the case that the "Pressure Altitude" in the data is relative to 29.92, because it starts at 40ft, and Dulles is 313ft AMSL, which for the set Baro of about 30.21 is about right (That is, for a baro of 30.21, an altimeter set to 29.92 would read about 40ft when actually at about 320ft AMSL)

Since the baro set at the end was also about 30.24, you can use the same offset, which would mean that for the final reading of 170ft, the aircraft would indeed seem to be giving a pressure altitude of about (313-40+170)=450ft or so.

The problem is that the aircraft was doing some 460knots at that point. Since pressure altitude sensing errors are dependent on airspeed, and can be CONSIDERABLE at such high speeds (outside the aircraft design envelope) I simply do not trust an attempt to place the aircraft in space vertically based on such data.

Its unfortunate that radar altitude data were not made available; if I was trying to reconstruct a flight path thats what I'd want to use.

Simply put, an error of several hundred feet in pressure altitude is very possible at such speeds; without access to certification and test data for the aircraft you can't make any statements in more detail.

Afraid its not a complete refutation, but the data doesn't really support any conclusion in any direction. I would say there could be an error of as large as 500ft at such high speeds

.

Oh course, Mr D'oh has to weigh in.

You need to tell your buddy we arent talking about a 172 with a direct tube to an altimeter from a static port.

We are talking about an airplane with an Air Data Computer on board and a designed static port. The error is insignificant below transonic ranges. (otherwise all data in most high speed crashes would be rendered unusable).

Talking out of his fifth point of contact as usual..

Of course all the ADC does is convert pressure, air temperture and angle of attack to properly formatted data words for the altimeters and other electronics getting Air Data(autopilot/ATC). It has no magical powers that prevent errors in ambient pressure.

 

[celestrin]

Here's a topo map with contour lines, in case anyone still needs it.

tinyurl.com/gcalx

Pentagon looks to be in the 30s, perhaps GoogleEarth elevation with 33 ft. would be precise enough.

The plane came over the highway from the south west, right where the red and purple clover-like highway intersection is. It flew right above the Washington Boulevard overpass. Contour lines are a bit congested where the first toppled lamp post was, more or less exactly where the road changes from red to purple. From what I can figure out, the elevation there might even be higher than 60 ft. There is also a 50ft. contour line right across where the second and third toppled lamps would be.

And Mr. Zilla, great performance over at the Looser hideout. I haven't had such a laugh since lord Flashheart of the Blackadder saga!

 

[LashL]

I believe it was in the Skeptics forum, which is No More.

I've never used the Wayback Machine--would that be able to recover something like this?

I've never used it either, but from what I read downthread, it appears that it's all gone. (Note to self to check out the wayback machine, just in case)

It's all gone.
I tried to be funny at times, for the amusement of others reading it and also because I knew he wouldn't understand it.
But they wore me down by weight of numbers and I lost my cool for a while. But they don't bother me now, it's just a laugh.

Oh well, my loss.

I've heard a lot about you, and am pleased to "e-meet" you here. I suspect that the loosewiththetruthers won't take you on again.

To put it in short terms, Johndoe got owned.

For visual terms, I refer you to this.

[qimg]http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8858/ninjacatma7.jpg[/qimg]

Excellent visual, thanks Markyx.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm pretty sure this info is accurate as its from USGS.
http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/viewer.php

As you can see, the overpasses are plainly "visible". Hope this helps Bill

ETA: the elevation rise on the right may actually be the Pentagon itself - I'm pretty sure the building is sitting on a flat spot..

Neat post.

I agree with you that density altitude irrelevant. I also agree that pressure altitude irrelevant, unless one is trying to compare Baralt reading to AGL reading. Height of lightpoles is measured in AGL, not MSL. To convert, add 240' to the AGL of the light pole to get lightpoles in MSL per your previous post and calculations from QNH of the day. Light poles 40 tall? Added to max allowable error of 75' (go no go criterion for BARALT) and you get 75+40+240 =355'MSL for max possible height of the light poles, right? Still not sure how that squares with 180 feet and 480 feet, unless there is no error, so 355-75=280 feet. Still at a loss.

As to the R/D in the end game, we cannot assume a constant rate of descent for the entire last minute based on the noted control inputs and the fly by hand (autopilot off) configuration.

Most likely, R/D was a bit high, and he corrected all the way down, flattening out over the last half mile (4-5 seconds of flight). This flattening reduced R/D (the standard greenhorn's varsity correction in close, that hits the light poles on the way in) keeps him off the ground as he flies into the building while moaning "Allahu Akhbar!"

ETA:

Talking out of his fifth point of contact as usual

. LOL Doh is a freaking moron. "Air Data Computer on board and a designed static port" Idiot, every aircraft that has a pitot static system has a designed static port. Don't ever let that chump near an aircraft, he's too stupid to fly.

DR

 

[B-Man]

And Mr. Zilla, great performance over at the Looser hideout. I haven't had such a laugh since lord Flashheart of the Blackadder saga!

Thanks!
I really thought Jenabell was a female, until someone pointed out he wasn't. But I figured it didn't matter so kept on asking to see photos of him in a bikini anyway.
Ya never know, he might be hot.
(I'm straight as a steel ruler, for the record. Nice girls & front-bums only for me)

 

[Jocce]

I got this from the Loose Change forum of all places...

...
Simply put, an error of several hundred feet in pressure altitude is very possible at such speeds; without access to certification and test data for the aircraft you can't make any statements in more detail.
....

Thank you for this piece of information. This might also explain the freak reading of the onboard baro in the end which gives total air pressure 1400mbar. Slightly higher than would be expected...

 

[MRC_Hans]

I have been giving this some thought, and I think the reconstruction/animation may actually show that they were fearing interception.

Like most, I at first assumed that the pilot's arriving at the target with several thousand feet of altitude to spare was due to incompetence, but it could also be deliberate tactics to avoid or delay interception.

Obviously, there would be considerable reluctance to order a civilian aircraft with civilian US citizens onboard shot down, so such an order would probably be delayed till the intention of the hijackers was evident. Remember that although the plane was known with good certainty to be hijacked, it was not known for sure who was piloting it.

Had he made a straight approach for the Pentagon, his intentions would have been clear all through the last 10 minutes of his approach. By staying high, he left uncertainty both about his intentions and his possible target.

After initiating the 360deg descending turn in front of the Pentagon, it would be evident what was about to happen, but by then the plane was over a densely populated urban area, where downing it would result in extensive ground casualties.

Having US fighters shoot down a civilian plane over a US city would not be a bad secondary target for the terrorists.

Hans

 

[CurtC]

Had he made a straight approach for the Pentagon, his intentions would have been clear all through the last 10 minutes of his approach. By staying high, he left uncertainty both about his intentions and his possible target.

I hear what you're saying, but I still think the terrorists knew that, by crashing all the planes in a short time window, the US would not be able to get its ***** together to be able to shoot down an airliner with our citizens in that amount of time. Hanjour was probably glancing out his peripheral vision for fighter jets, but was doing the best he could to hit his target.

Having US fighters shoot down a civilian plane over a US city would not be a bad secondary target for the terrorists.

Agreed, but I think the terrorist planners knew this was unlikely.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I hear what you're saying, but I still think the terrorists knew that, by crashing all the planes in a short time window, the US would not be able to get its ***** together to be able to shoot down an airliner with our citizens in that amount of time. Hanjour was probably glancing out his peripheral vision for fighter jets, but was doing the best he could to hit his target.


Agreed, but I think the terrorist planners knew this was unlikely.

Certainly!. Both are possible. Either he arrived too high due to incompetence, or it was deliberate in order create uncertainty about his intention. In any case, he was committed to a 360 turn to bleed off that altitude.

And finally, about interception: In an airliner, there is really nothing you can do about interception except hope for the best. You have only radar looking ahead, and very limited vision, even forwards. Rearwards, you are totally blind. He could have a whole wing of F15s in his six, missiles locked, thumbs on triggers, and he wouldn't know. And knowing would be of no use; there are no countermeasures, an airliner has no capability for evasive maneuvres, no resistance to battle damage, no nothing. All he can do is sit it out as the sitting duck he is.

And I don't know how much it really matters to someone who is heading for martyrdom in a few minutes anyway.

Hans

 

[gumboot]

And I don't know how much it really matters to someone who is heading for martyrdom in a few minutes anyway.

Hans

Sometimes things like this make me wonder about Ptech.

No, supposedly the software has been checked out, and it's all fine, but you have to wonder, when a computer company with extensive and direct links to Islamic Terrorists has complete access to the structure and computer systems of practically every single Federal Department, including NORAD and the FAA.

I mean, imagine, in the Cold War, if the US found out a company that provided systems analysis to the entire Federal Government was owned by the KGB? You'd think they'd shut the company down. Not so with Ptech.

-Andrew