Originally posted by spcengineer

Sorry Lear, I just run the data...

All I have to say on the subject is in the study. I'll leave it to others to speculate.

Yes spcengineer, thank you, I have seen you try that wriggle before. As I have made it clear I am not a rocket scientist so please tell me what it is you are trying to prove or disprove. In other words what is the 'Study" about. What are you comparing? I would love to speculate but I need to know what I am speculating about. Also, do you think that 1 degree of latitude is equal to 1 degree of longitude in terms in distance (3rd request). Just curious. Thanks.

I confess that I've only made it through about 14 pages of this thread so far, but concerning the misalignment of the NTSB animation and the heading of the aircraft, has it been considered, possibly, that :

- perhaps the NTSB simulation/recreation software which interprets the data does not link directly with satellite map data? Does anyone know this for sure?

- assuming the former, then to get the photo of the pentagon into the animation (for dramatic effect or point-of-reference), someone would have had to have added it in ex-post-facto

- the recreation is plotted in a virtual 3D space, to put the pentagon in there, someone simply had to cut out a chunk of a satellite map and plop it into the rendering software giving it a set of coordinates to put in in the right place

- the virtual 3D space is entirely referenced to magnetic north, as it should be and as all aviation is done. Maps, however, are generally referenced to proper north. If someone simply took the pentagon map and dropped it into the rendering software, assuming north was north, then the pentagon image would be the thing that is not in the right place, with its northward facing vector aimed at magnetic north and not map-north, thus giving it an anticlockwise rotation of 10 degrees in the map space and putting the approach vector of FL77 on the north side of the citgo station

This could be the honest mistake that was made by the NTSB - the data and the animation do match, but just the decorative addition of the pentagon could have been the thing that was put in the wrong place. Then everything is exactly as it should be, or at least exactly as we're meant to believe. It doesn't settle the altitude or approach-pitch problem nor does it address the issue of the police witnesses seeing the plane on the other side of the station, but at least it leaves the csv and the animation self-consistent.

It could also be the subject of a legitimate question posed to the NTSB - not one fraught with truther overtones that would make them reflexively stonewall, but one which they could answer, at least in isolation, without compromising their position. Simply - "Does the recreation software intrinsically link to map data or was it added in afterwards? Could this after-the-fact addition be the source of the discrepancies noted?".

[edit on 26-6-2007 by justin-d]

Lear:
Can I venture a guess on lat-long equivalency? I'd guess they are equal at the equator but long lines get cloeser together near the poles while lat lines remain parallel so the further north or south you go the more difference there is.
If I'm wrong no loss, just wondering.

Good points Justin D!

Originally posted by justin-d
I confess that I've only made it through about 14 pages of this thread so far, but concerning the misalignment of the NTSB animation and the heading of the aircraft, has it been considered, possibly, that :

- perhaps the NTSB simulation/recreation software which interprets the data does not link directly with satellite map data? Does anyone know this for sure?

- assuming the former, then to get the photo of the pentagon into the animation (for dramatic effect or point-of-reference), someone would have had to have added it in ex-post-facto

- the recreation is plotted in a virtual 3D space, to put the pentagon in there, someone simply had to cut out a chunk of a satellite map and plop it into the rendering software giving it a set of coordinates to put in in the right place

- the virtual 3D space is entirely referenced to magnetic north, as it should be and as all aviation is done. Maps, however, are generally referenced to proper north. If someone simply took the pentagon map and dropped it into the rendering software, assuming north was north, then the pentagon image would be the thing that is not in the right place, with its northward facing vector aimed at magnetic north and not map-north, thus giving it an anticlockwise rotation of 10 degrees in the map space and putting the approach vector of FL77 on the north side of the citgo station

The rest of the ground is not filled in with reference details, but it does have geo plots along it - I''m not sure if anyone has mapped these out to see if the final map is off from these or not. John Farmer (spcengineer) would be a likely guy is anyone to have looked at this.

As for effect, well it made Pandora's Black Box, and even tho there's supposed to be no direct relation (??) it helped set the stage for the PentaCon. So it's raised a lot of questions.

As for reason, now that I'm fairly sure this is an NTSB error or "error:"

This could be the honest mistake that was made by the NTSB - the data and the animation do match, but just the decorative addition of the pentagon could have been the thing that was put in the wrong place. Then everything is exactly as it should be, or at least exactly as we're meant to believe. It doesn't settle the altitude or approach-pitch problem nor does it address the issue of the police witnesses seeing the plane on the other side of the station, but at least it leaves the csv and the animation self-consistent.

This seems a likely explanation. If no one else has figured it out for me, I'll checkinto it sometime and see how that map lines up. Hopefully I'll have the disc fairly soon.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Lear:
Can I venture a guess on lat-long equivalency? I'd guess they are equal at the equator but long lines get cloeser together near the poles while lat lines remain parallel so the further north or south you go the more difference there is.

Correct. Good reasoning. Now the reason I brought it up was because spcenenger said he didn't know about anything except numbers and was not a pilot AND all of his longitudes were off. So I figured he was using latitude equals longitude and thats why his figures of the crash weren't even near the Pentagon. Thats because one degree of longitude at 38 N is going to be less than one degree of latitude.

Also spcengineer has dodged questions from both me and Nick as to what he is actually trying to present.

With using just a bit of logic one can conclude that there is no hope in hell a Boeing 757 can be controlled with Jet Fighter accuracy hitting a few lamp posts, still managing to retain its guidance, then successfully hitting the pentagon metres off the ground without even touching the lawn

Also some windows around the impact area are still intact, there are spools in the front of the impact area still intact, there is a table, books etc not even on fire. The official explanation retains that the Twin Towers collapsed due to the jet fuel and raging inferno's which got so intense it weakened the steel but yet you look at the pictures from moments after the plane apparently crashing into the pentagon - No Raging Inferno. Tables, Chairs, Books, Windows etc still intact.

What is underneath the Blue Mat that Pentagon officials covered on the the day of 9/11?

If a Boeing 757 was indeed what hit the Pentagon why till this day we have seen no footage of a 757 hitting the Pentagon?

To shut the case on all this so called "conspiracy" nonsense one would only need to show the 9/11 Truth Movement a video of a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon.

A Boeing 757 DID NOT hit the Pentagon from a bit of logic and common sense one can also conclude the same.

BeZerK

Mr. Lear, please don't misrepresent my response to you and nick. I have in one form or the other answered your questions (in nicks case multiple times). Your questions however indicate that you have not read the material I have already written and I'm getting rather tired of saying the same thing over and over. All of your questions you have asked are answered in the material I just posted.

So no evasion here Mr. Lear, just I have better things to do with my time. That is why my home address, email address and telephone have been posted here and multiple other locations. I'm available to anyone needing clarification, but I insist they take the time to study the material first.

Dear all,
Time moves on inexorably as always, things are a way down the line now. However if anyone wants DETAILS on any of the information discussed here please feel free to email me personally:

Calum42@gmail.com

Or of you find youself in Oxford do pop in for a cup of tea and I will happily show you all the origional NTSB paperwork and DVDs etc.

I do insert my email into all my net lectures in the hope that people will take the opportunity to ask me questions when they are unsure or even suspicious. It is a point of much wonder that nobody ever does!

Happy christmas and new year.

Calum Douglas, Cert math (open)
Oxford Brookes University
2nd Year BEng Undergrad.

I only just came across this thread - shame I didn't search earlier
I had no idea of the amount of research you've done on this already

I've been independantly going over the available data recently and I just want to say I concur 100% with what's being presented here after much pouring over the csv file, maps etc.

Something that has me puzzled is the witnesses at the Citgo who were under the awning when the plane passed over - how could they see the plane or were they reacting to a fleeting shadow there while the actual plane was somewhat south (I estimate the sun was about 25 degrees above the horizon which would cast the plane's shadow over twice its altitude to the northwest)