It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon NTSB animation - three CDs

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   
ETA: Sorry al for more apparent infighting - really this is more of a "am I on crazy pills here?" post. How on earth could I ever doubt the NTSB pedigree of the wrong animation of Flight 77 used in Pandora's Black Box? Well whatever is really the case, here is how I had been doubting it firmly till about six weeks ago. Now I'm just not sure... I have to think the NTSB is playing with us, but the people in a position to expose this did not and seem to have played along...

I've posted this long article at my blogsite for fuller explanation:
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...
I understand that the NTSB is now vouching for this animation, sending out copies on DVD (CDRs are not big enough to hold the 1.5 hour video) with letters that mention it (apparently a rough draft working copy), and acknowledge one discrepancy - the time stamp in GMY labeled as EDT. I never got tripped up there - But at first... when the first copy was sent to Snowygrouch/Calum Douglas in the UK (GMT time, oddly enough) and then used by Pilots for Truth to show a too-high and too-far north path - well, things were less clear.

Summation:

JDX on Snowygrouch: "[he] received the animation through the Freedom Of Information Act. It was supplied to him on DVD and he sent it to us."

His NTSB cover letter mentions no animation, no DVD. "“Specifically, you requested NTSB report of the flight path study for [flights 11, 175, 77] [...] the information requested is on three CD-ROMs.”
the letter

JDX's method for quelling doubts on the animation? Link to SG's letter. His only response I've seen to my questions: “I do not know why they did not mention the animation in SG's letter."

Okay, so it's evidence for NTSB pedigree even though the NTSB didn't actually mention it... so what did Snowygrouch do with this discrepancy? Explain their silence and guess on a reason? Nope... he just chose to keep mum on the DVD himself.



No fourth sleeve for the DVD apparently in the drive...



At his Ipswich speech on March 22 2007, he was still only citing, and displaying aloft, “three CDs,” He centered the presentation mostly around the animation of course, but did not clarify on what medium it was sent or even, specifically, that it WAS sent. He got a letter with his name on it, and three discs that contained “a document that had been requested before,” being the Flight Path Study. Stepping back and indicating the animation on the screen, he added “people who’d requested this before, never had anyone been sent this, which is the official flight reconstruction of Flight 77 from takeoff to the Pentagon,” and then proceeded as if it represented the Black Box data.


In his London speech, just after I asked him about the cover letter - mentions no discs at all. Really now, this proves nothing for sure, but what's up with this approach? Why be vague, dodgy, etc when the NTSB is sending you a damning DVD... why not be up front?

Why This Disturbs Me:I can understand being toyed with by the NTSB, as I got a letter mentioning the animation/DVD but it had NO DISCS enclosed at all. Weird but true and I'm up front about it. But what is so troubling about this case, an inverse of mine, is the way it was handled by Snowygrouch and the Pilots.


presuming the animation is really from the NTSB, the question we should ask is why is it not mentioned up front? If I got that package, I would’ve suspected a set-up to sow suspicion and pre-empted it by clarifying how ODD it was that they didn’t mention the DVD with the bizarre and can-o-worms opening “recreation.” But Snowygrouch has remained vague on how exactly the animation came to him from the NTSB, just that it did, presumably on one of the three CDs, and he was very unique that way. JDX just pretended like the cover letter explained it all and kept referring people to it until there was new corroboration to back it up. Now as I air doubts they don’t so much come clean and explain as spin faster and start to dig selectively into the complex story to shift the focus with hocus pocus. This is not a promising trend.


As Paulo Attivissimo writes about a related issue that applies here as well:

Research is based on sharing data, not on hiding it. Conspiracy theorists systematically accuse the Evil Government of hiding information, but now they're the ones doing the hiding.

link

Comments?

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 13-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]




posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I didn't think anyone would wanna touch this one.

Possibilities:
- SG just never mentioned the DVD, perhaps for feaar that since the letter never mentioned it they'd think he made it up...
- The animation was on the flight 77 CD, extremely well-compressed, and JDX is just confused, presuming it had to be on a DVD
- He's totally cleared the issue up somewhere else and I missed it - has he shown the DVD, explained the files type, name, size etc, and/or addressed why they didn't claim it as their own up front... can anyone point me to something like that?

There are of course other explanations but I don't need to go there, and the NTSB is fully owning up to the animation now, so maybe I should just ignore these initial questions and move on?

Or can someone explain how I'm reading these clues wrong? Am I reading too much into it, or is everyone else reading too little?

Additional thoughts:
- SG originally said he had animations, plural:

“After feeling rather gazumped by the prior release of the studies I think I`ve got some new stuff here although there is so much on the CDs it may take me some time to go through it all. However there are MPEG animations of the planes flightpaths! Does anyone else have this already?”
- August 17 2006
link
so perhaps each disk had the whole flight, just compressed extremely well to fit along with the other stuff... but since he never reuested anything for 93, no reason for that one, and 11 and 175 officially had no black boxes to cull animation from... FWIW

[edit on 14-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
I didn't think anyone would wanna touch this one.



... can someone explain how I'm reading these clues wrong? Am I reading too much into it, or is everyone else reading too little?


I am not a pilot so I dont understand all the implications here, but my take on it is, and correct me if Im wrong, that the NTSB info, as supplied by the Gov, as per your very own FOIA request, is WRONG. Is that accurate?

I dont understand the continued focus on P911T and snowygrouch.



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   
CL,

If I follow correctly--and it is a petty byzantine story--the whole thing smells of infighting and turf-wars by some people a bit too deep into the subject to keep sight of the big picture. Happens all the time with the hall of mirrors that is 9/11.

Whether the NTSB reconstruction came on a compressed CD or a DVD makes no difference and since this guy SG happened to get it first, the other fanatics are naturally jealous.

Since it was subsequently diffused to others via FOIA requests unaltered, really it's just a side-light and a tempest in a teapot.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo

I am not a pilot so I dont understand all the implications here, but my take on it is, and correct me if Im wrong, that the NTSB info, as supplied by the Gov, as per your very own FOIA request, is WRONG. Is that accurate?

I dont understand the continued focus on P911T and snowygrouch.


The correctness of the animation was the main themes of my other thread
Pentagon NTSB animation is wrong
In this case, I'm explaining more explicitly why I had initially put quotes on "NTSB."

I'm not here to make a big deal, but for the record... the new releases, which are documented and make sense, have indeed shifted the focus more solidly to the NTSB. Nonetheless, before that focus was shifted, we had the shady situation I have outlined - inexplicable silence on the NTSB's silence on its own animation. Since verified, but they DIDN'T KNOW THAT when they made Pandora's Black Box and called it an "NTSB" report when there was nothing but SG's vague word to back that up.

What's the point of that? I dunno. I'm just pointing it out...


[edit on 15-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 15-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   
BTW guys, thanks for the thoughts. It's good to see reaction of any kind to these troubling questions about our own fellow Truthers. I expected silence, but hoped for a backlash. So thanks.


Originally posted by gottago
CL,

If I follow correctly--and it is a petty byzantine story--the whole thing smells of infighting and turf-wars by some people a bit too deep into the subject to keep sight of the big picture. Happens all the time with the hall of mirrors that is 9/11.


Did you mean "petty byzantine" or "pretty byzantine?" How is it petty to point out possible forgery that claims to question the official story in the name of "9/11 Truth?" Please do clarify, what is the big picture here? Unity with idiocy? Sorry, I'm not here to rain on that parade, just to make this point for the record

I am very deep into this stuff, which could be evidence of 2 things:
A) I'm obsessed, driven by malicious or suspicious desires and/or
B) I know my stuff and have given it much thought.
Since I show my work carefully, B seems at least part of the equation, no?
It is a bit byzantine in a way, but then not really - NTSB never admitted sending SG the animation, he has hardly more than implied such himself, JDX refers people to the NTSB letter saying, in effect, "no animation here" to prove the animation is NTSB, they make big video based on this "NTSB report," which "matches" the FDR data. It isn't clearly NTSB and it doesn't match. This proves nothing in particular... but is that what the fans came away with?

Then - THEN - we start seeing NTSB letters that say, in effect, "here's the animation on a DVD."

All Im sayin' with any certainty here is ????



Whether the NTSB reconstruction came on a compressed CD or a DVD makes no difference and since this guy SG happened to get it first, the other fanatics are naturally jealous.


Jealous? Perhaps I am just motivated by jealosy that I wasn't the one behind that piece of crap misleading video. Well it's true I still never got my discs, but that's not the issue anymore. I've seen it already, and the new letters. Unless someone else has inserted themselves in the NTSB-FOIA chain, it seems legit. My questions now are - jeez, I don't even know exactly what. It's just still weird. Weirder yet in fact...


Since it was subsequently diffused to others via FOIA requests unaltered, really it's just a side-light and a tempest in a teapot.


Disagreed. Please cite for me where the lack of NTSB authenticity was EVER adequately addressed. It speaks to the core integrity of the Pilots to make the video they did knowing what they did. It is a misleading presentation of data, and the confusion over its authenticity never even being addressed adequately is part of that. It's telling.
---
Addenda:
Question: does anyone know if it's even possible to get a 1.5 houur animation of the resolution we've seen compressed enough to fit on a CD? I'm not ready to say it's impossible, but the one's they're sending out now are all on DVD?

Weird thought: Is it even vaguely possible this IS a forgery after all, someone at NTSB thought ot would be a funny joke to buy up P49T's stock of Pandora's Black Box ch 1 and send these out? SG may've been quite relieved if they started doing this ... he must relieved anyway, with the focus conveniently shifted to others and to the NTSB, suddenly explained. What responsiveness to help clear up this misunderstanding so quickly, compared to their reticence to answer any questions... and they'll apologize now for the wrong time stamp but not the wrong altitude or flight path?

I thank the Pilots for alerting us to this stunning evidence of an apprent info conspiracy by someone somewhere to cover-up, cinfuse, and divide, or whhatever. That's it. Take it or leave it, I just had to share.



[edit on 15-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
CL, you're such a conspiracy theorist..lol

We have explained to you before that we were skeptical of the NTSB data coming from Snowygrouch at first. I guess you dont remember the exchange where i said we called the NTSB directly to confirm the information sent to Snowygrouch prior to making any accusations (unlike you).

Its kinda funny the NTSB sent you cover letters but no disks... perhaps I intercepted your disks in the mail before they arrived at your house.. (insert X-Files music here).

Cheers!
Rob



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   
CL,

I meant "pretty" not "petty"; it was a typo, don't take it badly.

And no, I wasn't arguing about the content of the CD/DVD--which I am sure is a total fabrication. I was speaking to your questions surrounding its diffusion, and how I viewed it.

And when I mentioned the big picture, it was mostly in reference to the content of the CD/DVDs--that's the story, after all.

And I'm certainly not putting anyone down who specializes and digs deep into one aspect of 9/11; it's exactly this tenacity that will hopefully uncover important evidence. It's just that I've seen these sorts of rivalries develop in any subject--I've had more than enough contact with academics in my work to know they're a breed apart and amazingly thin-skinned; I see the same MO here.



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
IM doing my best to keep up here.
I read your other threads.


Originally posted by Caustic Logic
All Im sayin' with any certainty here is ????


Cool, atleast Im not the only one who doesnt know what you are saying here.


I wasn't the one behind that piece of crap misleading video.

What crappy video and what is misleading about it?
Are you talking about the NTSB animation?


Please cite for me where the lack of NTSB authenticity was EVER adequately addressed. It speaks to the core integrity of the Pilots to make the video they did knowing what they did. It is a misleading presentation of data, and the confusion over its authenticity never even being addressed adequately is part of that. It's telling.


Hasnt the NTSB animation been confirmed yet?
Im getting more confused by the post.
Is that your intention?
Im just not understanding what you wanted P911T to do.
Im pretty sure they encouraged you and NICK to get your own info via FOIA and verify yourself, which I think you did.

SO 3 CDs, no DVDs, and no animation? Or is it 'No CDs or DVDs but a cover letter'?
No animation anywhere except for P911T?
Is the animation accurate according to the blackboxes?
Is that accurate?



posted on Jul, 15 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Email Exchange with NTSB...

z9.invisionfree.com...



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
CL, you're such a conspiracy theorist..lol


Yep. That's how I got here with you guys.
I get tons of theories, most just pass through... I wasn't making an actual case above BTS, just a thought exercise.


We have explained to you before that we were skeptical of the NTSB data coming from Snowygrouch at first. I guess you dont remember the exchange where i said we called the NTSB directly to confirm the information sent to Snowygrouch prior to making any accusations (unlike you).


Yes I recall, they said yep they were handing out animations. I cited that explanation in the article linked to in the OP. Try clicking some links.
This is a good point for you, tho it's not clear it's the same animation just from that - tho that IS verified now, I'd have to hear the call to know what exactly they owned up to. Mainly I focussed on that you verified its authenticity by rigorously comparing to other FDR data, with which it matched. Thus it was NTSB, and could be used to debunk that other data where it DIDN'T match.

That still baffles me.


Its kinda funny the NTSB sent you cover letters but no disks... perhaps I intercepted your disks in the mail before they arrived at your house.. (insert X-Files music here).

Cheers!


Yeah, something a bit like that has occurred t me to, again in passing. All I know is it's odd, and honestly I'd not be surprised at people thinking I made up the no disc story to make some larger point. I'd suspect me. Anything's possible and this field is filled with intrigue.

Anyway, however founded my initial doubts, the NTSB are owning up to it NOW, and it seems the errors are from its working copy status, or perhaps some other calculation of the NTSB's. Though they have yet to own up to and explain THAT. Until then it's all open for interpretation, a gift that keeps on giving. I'm still puzzled at how little proof you all needed in the early days, but luckily it all lined up anyway.



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by gottago
CL,

I meant "pretty" not "petty"; it was a typo, don't take it badly.

And no, I wasn't arguing about the content of the CD/DVD--which I am sure is a total fabrication. I was speaking to your questions surrounding its diffusion, and how I viewed it.

And when I mentioned the big picture, it was mostly in reference to the content of the CD/DVDs--that's the story, after all.


No hard feelings - it's weird times. Do I follow correctly - the animation is faked, by whomever, and yet the content of the discs - the animation - is the big story? A wrong story is the story? I'd think the effects and origins of the fabrication would be where to look...


And I'm certainly not putting anyone down who specializes and digs deep into one aspect of 9/11; it's exactly this tenacity that will hopefully uncover important evidence. It's just that I've seen these sorts of rivalries develop in any subject--I've had more than enough contact with academics in my work to know they're a breed apart and amazingly thin-skinned; I see the same MO here.


Random, stupid infighting is a hallmark of 9/11 research. Like in the thermite/space laser battle - I'd have to side with thermite but don't know enough to weigh in - if there was a hologram/TV fakery fight, or a 9/11 happened on Moday/Wednesday grapple - I'd take no side obviously and step around it. But where a challenge is needed in my estimation, I push ahead until I'm on the record anyway.

And on this point, I wasn't looking for answers here, I just wanted to clarify a point I'd passingly made but never spelled out clearly before. I feel that that's done, and thanks for the assists guys. I'm moving on now.

Except 11bravo response...



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
IM doing my best to keep up here.
I read your other threads.

Cool, atleast Im not the only one who doesnt know what you are saying here.


I wasn't the one behind that piece of crap misleading video.

What crappy video and what is misleading about it?
Are you talking about the NTSB animation?


No, well maybe. I meant PBB - and I watched it again and it's not all bad - but I feel it's misleading in its presentation of the animation.


Hasnt the NTSB animation been confirmed yet?


Yes, I meant to say before they made PBB. I don't know I forgot that half of the sentence... Honestly I find the new verifications a bit odd, but that's just an impression. I'm no expert, and I'll call it verified...


Im getting more confused by the post.
Is that your intention?
Im just not understanding what you wanted P911T to do.


They do what they do. I just take note.
ETA: They coulda shown the mag dial matched the FDR, but instead zoomed in on the wrona anmation and pretended THAT represented the FDR dta, if vaguely and implied. It's too late now, but maybe they coulda handled that differently.


Im pretty sure they encouraged you and NICK to get your own info via FOIA and verify yourself, which I think you did.


Kinda. Nick7261 was banned and then disappeared so I've never seen his actual letter, nor has Ultima posted his. But considering we all got them at the same time, and cross-considering the anonymous character of internet chat, I'll take their word - but with a grain of salt... And I trust me almost 100% but somehow I got no disc. Anyway, as I said, close enough for now - it's NTSB. I'm just having a hard time letting go of my early suspicions.


SO 3 CDs, no DVDs, and no animation? Or is it 'No CDs or DVDs but a cover letter'?

3 CDs and letter, no DVD mentioned yet by recipient or in the letter, animation I guess only if it would fit on a CD, and was simulateneously not mentioned in the letter.

No animation anywhere except for P911T?

Initially no. I'm admittedly in conflicting headspace here... and have been mixing my before June awareness with after - sorry to confuse. But i think it helps clarify how weird it all is.

Is the animation accurate according to the blackboxes?
Is that accurate?

Partly - the north path no, the altitude close to the CSV pressure altitude, and its early stop actually seems to be reflected in the NTSB's loop map - check how it ends a bit short of the building.

Anyway, we can never say for sure the FDR data is legit, but it seems hard to fake, and most of it lines up with the official story, the phys evidence, eyewitness accounts, and radar track. How there got to be so many versions I don't know - the FDR is said to support like six different final altitudes.
I guess what I'm saying is, if your confused, welcome to my world. It's what happens when you dig into this stuff.

And that's it for now. Peace all

[edit on 16-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 16-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jul, 16 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Email Exchange with NTSB...

z9.invisionfree.com...


BTW good stuff there JDX - that's quite the brush-0ff. I contacted Ted L too. Jack Blood calls him the Goebbels of the NTSB or something. Oh yeah, you were there. He didn't tell me to bug off, but did refuse coment in almost the same words.

They ain't answering questions I guess.

ETA: but I will be contacting them, with questions about my no discs. I plan to document it and will post news.

[edit on 16-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   
This is indeed puzzling.

There are really two issues here:

1. Is the simulation legitimately from the NTSB? Pilots for 9/11 truth claims that it is, but not everyone is prepared to accept this view. I don't have a conclusion either way on this point.

2. If the animation DID come from the NTSB, why is the data self contradictory. Why does the data from the simulation differ from the other data provided by the NTSB?

In order to get an answer to this second question, the first one must be resolved conclusively.

Is the data contradictory because it is:

1. A forgery by the NTSB or other government source?
2. A poor translation of the NTSB data (i.e. "working copy")
3. The Animation is right and everything else is wrong.

I really doubt that there was a flyover, because there just isn't any credible evidence for it. No witness statements confirming a flyover by a building surrounded by large highways and typical, early morning traffic jams.

My review of the PentaCon showed that the only people who claim a flyover are the ones who witnessed the C-130 fly over the building. Almost all of the C-130 witnesses saw both planes, and described them both in specific details. No one claims a large jetliner flew over the Pentagon--and that includes the "PentaCon" witnesses who only disagree (even among themselves) over which direction it flew.

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

I've written a post about the flight path problems, 3 planes, war games, and other, non-physical evidence issues at the Pentagon:

arabesque911.blogspot.com...

#1 does not make sense from a motive stand point because if it was deliberate forgery, why would the NTSB implicate a plane fly-over--unless done by pure incompetence. Usually the purpose of a forgery is to make it accurate, although it is observable that the government is incompetent at fabricating evidence (see list of hijackers who turn up alive).

#2 Is possible, but why doesn't the NTSB spill the beans and simply explain its a working copy? They could just be authoritative and don't give a damn about the "conspiracy theorists".

A third issue becomes apparent:

Regardless of the above questions, the data in the animation contradicts the official story. Given the fact that the data is apparently self contradictory (it contradicts with the other FDR data provided), we can not make "theories" based on the data because it is inherently unreliable.

Although Pilots for 9/11 Truth advocates no "theory" for what happened at the Pentagon, not all researchers maintain this position.

This is the real problem in my opinion. If the data is self contradictory the only sold conclusion that can be made is that the government's data contradicts the official story. The conclusion can not be "therefore the plane didn't hit the Pentagon" because the data is apparently contradicted by the other NTSB FDR data (and much other evidence in my view).


[edit on 24-7-2007 by Arabesque]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Sorry for the slow response...


Originally posted by Arabesque
This is indeed puzzling.

There are really two issues here:

1. Is the simulation legitimately from the NTSB? Pilots for 9/11 truth claims that it is, but not everyone is prepared to accept this view. I don't have a conclusion either way on this point.


It would appear now that yes, it is coming from them. It's an errored working copy they say, they mantion it in new letters, are sending it out less compressed (?) on a DVD, not a CD. And it matches in style the newly released FLight 93 animation they're sending out as well. The simple "not-NTSB" theory is past me now. But it's just about as odd, if not even weirder.


2. If the animation DID come from the NTSB, why is the data self contradictory. Why does the data from the simulation differ from the other data provided by the NTSB?


Yep. 70 degrees is not 90, so it contradicts itself as well as the other data. It also differs from the OTHER NTSB (?) recreation for FLight 77 - can't find it around except shown for comp. in PBB chapter 2. It looks to be fully rendered in normal NTSB style, and shows the correct 70 deg path. (I requested this too from the NTSB - I don't know if it was on the DVD I didn't get or not...)


In order to get an answer to this second question, the first one must be resolved conclusively.

Is the data contradictory because it is:

1. A forgery by the NTSB or other government source?
2. A poor translation of the NTSB data (i.e. "working copy")
3. The Animation is right and everything else is wrong.


Officially it seems no. 2... hey, that came out funny! Number two is crrect to describe this turd in at leaast two ways.

#1 does not make sense from a motive stand point because if it was deliberate forgery, why would the NTSB implicate a plane fly-over--unless done by pure incompetence. Usually the purpose of a forgery is to make it accurate, although it is observable that the government is incompetent at fabricating evidence (see list of hijackers who turn up alive).

Ah-hah! Rummy slips and "admits" a missile. The FBI refuses to release its held videos, and the Pentagon holds its own tight. No ful inv. w/tail number identified, etc. The NTSB implies a flyover... two Pentagon cops assert this must be the case, apparently DESPITE what they actually saw. Lies have their place in the official account of 9/11, especially those that lead to stupid theorizing. Is NTSB in on it? Maybe, but they'll say it was a simple error if they ever explain at all...


#2 Is possible, but why doesn't the NTSB spill the beans and simply explain its a working copy? They could just be authoritative and don't give a damn about the "conspiracy theorists".


see above.


A third issue becomes apparent:

Regardless of the above questions, the data in the animation contradicts the official story. Given the fact that the data is apparently self contradictory (it contradicts with the other FDR data provided), we can not make "theories" based on the data because it is inherently unreliable.


Although Pilots for 9/11 Truth advocates no "theory" for what happened at the Pentagon, not all researchers maintain this position.

This is the real problem in my opinion. If the data is self contradictory the only sold conclusion that can be made is that the government's data contradicts the official story. The conclusion can not be "therefore the plane didn't hit the Pentagon" because the data is apparently contradicted by the other NTSB FDR data (and much other evidence in my view).

Indeed, this doubt is the route the smart Pilots have taken, but they apparently didn't reccommend the same caution to their viewers/readers... strenuously enough anyway...



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Sorry for the slow response...

It would appear now that yes, it is coming from them. It's an errored working copy they say, they mention it in new letters, are sending it out less compressed (?) on a DVD, not a CD. And it matches in style the newly released FLight 93 animation they're sending out as well. The simple "not-NTSB" theory is past me now. But it's just about as odd, if not even weirder.


I found it hard to believe that Pilots for 9/11 truth would make this up, because a lot of people had signed their names on this as legitimate in their press release. But, I found it puzzling some of the issues you were bringing up. Good to see this question answered.


Yep. 70 degrees is not 90, so it contradicts itself as well as the other data. It also differs from the OTHER NTSB (?) recreation for FLight 77 - can't find it around except shown for comp. in PBB chapter 2. It looks to be fully rendered in normal NTSB style, and shows the correct 70 deg path. (I requested this too from the NTSB - I don't know if it was on the DVD I didn't get or not...)


Alright. So we have data provided by the NTSB which is contradictory with other data provided by them. This is an ESSENTIAL point that needs to be emphasized. While the data must be accounted for, it means that we can NOT pick and choose what data is reliable to understand what happened at the Pentagon. The data is inherently unreliable. Especially since we are talking about an ANIMATION, and not the primary data here. It makes much more sense that there was simply a mistake in the translation to the Animation, and looks like the most plausible explanation for the discrepancy at this point.

It would be nice if the NTSB would simply answer these questions, but they seem unwilling at this point.



“2. A poor translation of the NTSB data (i.e. "working copy")”

Officially it seems no. 2... hey, that came out funny! Number two is correct to describe this turd in at least two ways.


Ok, thanks for clarifying. By the way, there is a new article on the E-4B that just got published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

www.journalof911studies.com...

“Working Copy” simply seems to be the best explanation for the problematic animation in my opinion, although I’d like to understand how these apparent errors came into the animation.


[edit on 25-7-2007 by Arabesque]



posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arabesque
“Working Copy” simply seems to be the best explanation for the problematic animation in my opinion, although I’d like to understand how these apparent errors came into the animation.


Ah yes, because the NTSB is notorious for sending out errored working copies

How many times has that happened in the past?

Didnt they have a better copy available by the time they sent these errored working copies out?

Where exactly did they obtain this errored working copy?
I dont know squat about planes. Is there an 'errored working copy' section in black boxes and FDRs?

Errored working copy


I dont buy it.

I say somebody in the NTSB/CIA sent this out to help/harm the truth movement.

Heck I dont know. All I do know is there are just too many freakish coincidences surrounding every facet of 911, and the pentagon just seems to get weirder and weirder, like you said Caustic.

Arabesque thanks for posting the questions and speculations that I would've had to sober up to even think about. Im glad you kept an eye on this thread and helped me deny my ignorance, because I was getting lost. You too Caustic.
Anyway, Im afraid I cant buy the 'simple errored copy' excuse.
Not with data being sent out years after the event, and the event being the biggest terror attack in history.

Its like the 'simple poor decision' to shred the flight controllers taped depositions about what occured on 9/11, or the 'simple short selling' of stocks in the weeks before 9/11, or the 'simple war games and hijack simulation events' occuring on the very morning of 9/11.



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arabesque
So we have data provided by the NTSB which is contradictory with other data provided by them. This is an ESSENTIAL point that needs to be emphasized. While the data must be accounted for, it means that we can NOT pick and choose what data is reliable to understand what happened at the Pentagon. The data is inherently unreliable.

Yes it's effectively unreliable as evidence. Final altitude in the anmation (180 ft MSL) does roughly match pressure altitude in the CSV file (173) - both too high to hit the building (official impact about 45 ft MSL). But this can be affected by speed and other factors I hear, and may in fact just be wrong by about 130 feet. This data is reliable if... accurate for what the FDR said (unknowable)... we can understand errors like this (most of us can't)... it matches other evidence for where the plane went and when (which the animation's final seconds do not). The animation at least is unreliable. Where it matches other data it can be used to help visualize what happened. Where it shows something else, its value as evidence is to show how errors are seeded and fertilized...


Especially since we are talking about an ANIMATION, and not the primary data here. It makes much more sense that there was simply a mistake in the translation to the Animation, and looks like the most plausible explanation for the discrepancy at this point.

It would be nice if the NTSB would simply answer these questions, but they seem unwilling at this point.


A mistake with these effects, that they refuse to clear up - it may be, but I tend to agree with 11Bravo:


Originally posted by 11Bravo
Ah yes, because the NTSB is notorious for sending out errored working copies

How many times has that happened in the past?
[...]
I dont buy it.

I say somebody in the NTSB/CIA sent this out to help/harm the truth movement.

[...] Im afraid I cant buy the 'simple errored copy' excuse.
Not with data being sent out years after the event, and the event being the biggest terror attack in history.


Yes, too many coincidences. They did move quickly on two fronts tho - owning up to the animation by mentioning it in all letters after Douglas (SG) and explaining the mundane error of the mislabeled timestamp. Wrong flight path pictired? Not necc. error, left hanging. The end effect of this is odd - continued speculation, mystery, etc. But charges of forgery quickly laid to rest. They want us to know one thing about this - it's from them, from the Black Box. The rest we're on our own.

But suspecting purposeful disinfo may be my paranoid disposition. I'm still sorting out the evidence.


Didnt they have a better copy available by the time they sent these errored working copies out?


I believe they did, and the 9/11 Commission showed it, and the Pilots showed it in the documentary compared to the "NTSB" report from the black box (the wrong animation, of course). I need to track this down better...


Where exactly did they obtain this errored working copy?
I dont know squat about planes. Is there an 'errored working copy' section in black boxes and FDRs?


Again, error is the official reason, so far, for the time stamp being four hours off. It might also be the explanation for not mentioning the animation on the CD, and/or for the mag heading discrepancy of 20 degrees. The most likely explanation for this is that the map IS accurate, except for the satellite overlay of the Pentagon area. Perhaps some intern was tasked with setting this in, heard the declination was 10 deg, and corrected backwards, rotating the map to the south, not north. But how curious that this gives us a striking flyover-implying path which they refuse to address...



posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Hey CL,
I'm glad to see some are finally over the whole 'it's fake (as is not from NTSB)' thing. That really just boggled me.

I don't have all the answers yet but I do notice some assumptions still floating around about the animation, NTSB, and the data in general. Such as the continuous misunderstanding of the 173/180 numbers. As far as anyone can say, the lowest point is about 480Ft MSL from the Altimeter, and 200 something from the Radio Altimeter. Remember both the Ft column and the end of the Animation are not adjusted for local pressure.

I can also pretty flatly state that the CSV Data, the Animation, and the graphs are all made by the same application directly by reading the Raw file. In regards to the Animation, the system used is aware of and uses satellite and geographical hooks. The snafu with the heading is quite a screwup, considering the same Engineer at the NTSB that actually read the raw file into Graphs, and Tabular data, would be the same person doing the Animation, and would be the same person who's name is on the Factual Report. I can not prove this entirely yet, but from available lectures and speeches by the people who own and build the readout software, this is what they imply.

But even beyond the Heading/Map rotation problem, there are other problems. The End of Data, Time of Impact, and Altitude. A complicated subject in itself, but again the same problem. If the data ends, you tend to deduce an impact time. Obviously there can not be more valid data After impact. Now look at the altitudes. A conflict again.

What about the CSV Lat/Lon data screw up, it is off by 20 Minutes. An absolutely huge margin. Yet in ReadOut2 we got very good data for this.

There are several more strange oddities of conflict between all the data sets.
Again I don't have all the answers yet, but am still working on it. Who knows, someday we may be able to produce our own animation. Just like the Pros at the NTSB.

I'll not be posting much here, so if you would like to discuss anything for your work drop me an email. It's easier for me.

UT
aa77fdr.com




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join