Pilots For 911 Truth RO2 Flight Path Verified

[Brainster]

Can you give it to me in simple English? What was the PFT R02 Flight path? You said that it lines up with the light poles and Pentagon damage; does this rule out the North of Citgo claims?

I appreciate your work and would be happy to highlight it at SLC if I can make it intelligible to my readers.

 

[BCR]

Can you give it to me in simple English? What was the PFT R02 Flight path? You said that it lines up with the light poles and Pentagon damage; does this rule out the North of Citgo claims?

I appreciate your work and would be happy to highlight it at SLC if I can make it intelligible to my readers.

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.

 

[Bobert]

Ok so are saying that the NWO didnt simply replace flight 77 with a tunnel digging plance that then burrowed under the Pentagin?

Very nice work.
It will be comedy gold to see how CIT/PFT spins this.
I am sure they are are huddled together at the treefort.

 

[BCR]

Ok so are saying that the NWO didnt simply replace flight 77 with a tunnel digging plance that then burrowed under the Pentagin?

Very nice work.
It will be comedy gold to see how CIT/PFT spins this.
I am sure they are are huddled together at the treefort.

PFT did the Read-Out2. It is their flight path. How could they possibly disagree?

 

[Hokulele]

Polar to spherical requires only the site lat/long. That was obtained from GE since that is where the data was to be plotted. Both use the same projection datum.

What do you mean by polar coordinates? It is a distance/direction type of notation? If so, it is a planar system, and it will need a slightly different conversion than spherical to spherical coordinates (datum matching), which could potentially skew things by a couple of meters (depending on the area covered).

 

[Bobert]

PFT did the Read-Out2. It is their flight path. How could they possibly disagree?

They believe that the Secret Service planted plane debris and that frozen cadavers were wheeled into the Pentagon.
Believe me they will find someithing and say that your math is flawed.
I take your word that your math is accurate, I am not doubting you.
Are you sure your not a government operative?

 

[Bobert]

oops sorry double post

 

[beachnut]

So for those of us who do not speak fluent "aviation", someone care to summarize what the math concludes?

1. Do we have verification by others here that 911files math is correct, and that he has not used any corrupted factors or variables (such as using the wrong compass lines etc...)?
2. If all of his variables and math is correct, does it prove (A) North of Citgo, or (B) Flyover, or (C) that the Light Poles could not have been struck?

TAM

His data looks good. I have used his data to try to explain to Turbofan why the 1.5 DME recorded in the FDR can be an actual position of 1.725 NM or more and not an actual 1.5 DME.

His data confirms what most people here know. 77 impacted the Pentagon after it knocked down lampposts as seen on 9/11.

Of course JREF skeptics cheated 9/11 truth by using the facts and evidence to know 77 impacted the Pentagon.

His data shows 77 all lined up to impact the Pentagon and knock down lampposts!

His data proves 77 did not fly NoC (north of CITGO)! NoC has always been the super nut case idea; it confirms terrorist loyalist Balsamo's lack of knowledge on flying, physics, math, and the events of 9/11.

This information fills in the big picture. It refutes NoC.

 

[BCR]

What do you mean by polar coordinates? It is a distance/direction type of notation? If so, it is a planar system, and it will need a slightly different conversion than spherical to spherical coordinates (datum matching), which could potentially skew things by a couple of meters (depending on the area covered).

I would suggest reading up on the subject. Polar = range/azimuth. Degrees are degrees (or radians) and range in this case is nautical miles. I am sure Beachnut or some of the aviation guys can explain further, but there is nothing complicated about it. Since the lat/long used for conversion is from the same reference system it is plotted in, I'm not sure that would be much of an error factor. Please review the Excel workbooks for the conversion algorithm's.

 

[Hokulele]

I would suggest reading up on the subject. Polar = range/azimuth. Degrees are degrees (or radians) and range in this case is nautical miles. I am sure Beachnut or some of the aviation guys can explain further, but there is nothing complicated about it. Since the lat/long used for conversion is from the same reference system it is plotted in, I'm not sure that would be much of an error factor. Please review the Excel workbooks for the conversion algorithm's.

Thanks. I will check the Excel sheet for your conversions.

As an FYI, I do GIS and large scale surveying for a living, so I am quite aware of the errors that exist when someone simply swaps lat/long (spherical coordinates) for azimuth/distance (inverses), particularly over distances of several miles. For example, if you take any two points separated by several miles on the globe and measure the angle from point A to point B, and the angle from point B to point A, they are not simply 180 degrees off of each other.

 

[beachnut]

PFT did the Read-Out2. It is their flight path. How could they possibly disagree?

RO2 only has the accuracy of an INS (with VOR/DME updates); are you weighting the DCA point at the same time as the more accurate position?

 

[Hokulele]

I would suggest reading up on the subject. Polar = range/azimuth. Degrees are degrees (or radians) and range in this case is nautical miles. I am sure Beachnut or some of the aviation guys can explain further, but there is nothing complicated about it. Since the lat/long used for conversion is from the same reference system it is plotted in, I'm not sure that would be much of an error factor. Please review the Excel workbooks for the conversion algorithm's.

OK, I took a look, and it appears that you are using a Cartesian to spherical conversion using basic trigonometry. That works fine for shorter distances or "perfect" situations, but it isn't very accurate for mapping purposes. For example, it doesn't take scale or convergence factors into account. Since you probably don't want to invest in 3500 USD worth of mapping software, you may want to check out a simple converter such as this one, or simply list this as a potential source of error. Like I said, it probably won't be off more than a couple of meters, but when dealing with people who love to argue about minutiae (), it doesn't hurt to ackowledge the difference.

 

[BCR]

Like I said, it probably won't be off more than a couple of meters, but when dealing with people who love to argue about minutiae (), it doesn't hurt to ackowledge the difference.

When the noise band is at 0.94 nautical miles at 54 nautical miles, I am really not worried about a few meters. And no, I'm not converting from cartesian (x,y), but polar (azimuth, range). I did convert to cartesian from polar to plot in Excel, but you are talking about two different conversions. Please refrain from arguing about stuff you cannot even get right.

 

[jaydeehess]

Wouldn't the lack of return of the fly over plane refute their BS?

I was going solely on the data points supplied. You point out that there are no more and if in fact that is because the RADES no longer was receiving any return from an object along this path then, yes, it refutes their B$

ETA: I see that 911files has dealt with this.

 

[jaydeehess]

Perhaps you need glasses. The NoC path promoted by some comes down the east of the Potomac and crosses over Steve Chaconas's head south of DCA. This one matches the written IAD ATC statements and ends with a final heading of ~60 degrees; a heading which extended intersects the Pentagon and light poles.

I do have glasses in fact. A lot of us 50+ guys do.

I was being characteristically Canadian in my somewhat apologetically styled post above. Yes, I believed that what I was looking at was a so-called SoC flight path consistent with the path described by the downed lamp posts. I was looking for confirmation of my observation from you and others.

 

[BCR]

Yes, we 50+ guys do I am ready for a new pair of bifocals myself.

 

[Hokulele]

When the noise band is at 0.94 nautical miles at 54 nautical miles, I am really not worried about a few meters. And no, I'm not converting from cartesian (x,y), but polar (azimuth, range). I did convert to cartesian from polar to plot in Excel, but you are talking about two different conversions. Please refrain from arguing about stuff you cannot even get right.

Right, I was talking about the plotted points. Since coordinate conversion and point plotting is something I deal with on a regular basis, I thought this would be an interesting diversion.

But no worries, if you do not want any critique of your analysis or methods, there are plenty of other threads to peruse. *Shrug*

 

[BCR]

But no worries, if you do not want any critique of your analysis or methods, there are plenty of other threads to peruse. *Shrug*

No problem with critique of my analysis, but get what my analysis is right first and don't go spouting off "critique" of something that is NOT my method. There are NO conversions from cartesian to spherical.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Please refrain from arguing about stuff you cannot even get right.

In all due respect, that was unnecessary. She was trying to help by providing her own expertise. For someone who openly courted responses in your original post, that was a poor response. You could have written the exact same response except left out the above sentence, and still gotten your point across.

 

[BCR]

In all due respect, that was unnecessary. She was trying to help by providing her own expertise. For someone who openly courted responses in your original post, that was a poor response. You could have written the exact same response except left out the above sentence, and still gotten your point across.

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.