Pentagon NTSB animation - three CDs

Originally posted by UnderTow
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 hope this thread, the OP, helps clarify why I wondered that...

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.

Just comparing the non-corrected pressure alts - they don't match exactly but it seems in the fudge zone and not a relevant diff, both show about 130 feet to high. I've heard speed can affect this to the tune of 130 feet errors. Plus or minus? Depends whether you believe the rad alt or the evidence like impacted building, eyewitnesses of low impact, light poles, black box being in the building, etc. Diff people just think diff.

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.

Yes, the read out 2 showing the rad alt listed otherwise as inoperative (covered-up?) and JDX's correction. Both place the plane far too high to match any witnesses - even the PentaCon's. They all though it impacted, were largely close enough to see final impat damage on the ground floor and still believed it. They did not see a plane 400 feet-plus flying over as the bombs went off. This would not fool them, so they must all be lying? Or the alt is wrong? Is it the FDR, or the correction method? Or the lying witnesses thing?

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.

CSV and animation altitude match - and within poss. range of error for the impact elevation.

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.

?? I didn't mention lat/long becuase it only seemed a bit too far away to impact - mapped out from above, it seems roughly in striking distance at 9:37:44 - even the yellow line map in the Flight pathh study stops a bit short (go check it). I don't know what's 20 minutes off. I may ask you that, sounds new...

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

Thanks for popping in Undertow. These responses are for the people hanging around here. As the P4T member who first got the CSV file etc., you're someone good to talk to and I have your emial now. You may have mine soon, I do have Qs.
Peace.

CSV and animation altitude match

I know there is a huge number of threads dealing with this, but I'm going to cover it again as shortly has possible.

The NTSB CSV Column 'Pressure Altitude' is NOT supposed to match the Animation Virtual Dial except above 18,000 feet when the BARO is set to 29.92

Let's say this a different way. The number displayed on the virtual altimeter in the animation will (must) only match the CSV Press Alt Column when the value of the Baro column is 29.92

At the end of the animation, the Baro columns Does Not read 29.92, and the Animations "dial" should Not match the PresAlt column.

I don't know who many more ways I can say this to help people understand this.

The fact that the Animation Altimeter matches the CSV PresAlt column IS a deliberate cover up. The virtual dial at the end of the animation should read 480 if it was correct.

I have received 2 CDs from the NTSB in response to my FOIA request.



[edit on 26-7-2007 by ULTIMA1]

CL is wrong on many points as usual. Im not going to type them all out again as we already went over it ad naseum with CL in past numerous threads on this topic.


So, this is what i propose.

CL, email us when you're ready. I will give you my phone number. You call me with every possible question you can muster. I will set aside the time for you and record the call. I will then send you the unedited recording and you can post it. Or you can record the call as well if you have the equipment.

Then when you continue to ask the same questions, continue to be wrong, and omit pertinent information as you have done above and on other threads, you can play back the recording over and over to your hearts content and/or for others.

I will set aside the time if you want to take advantage of this opportunity. If you do not want to take advantage of this opportunity, you can continue your repeated path as seen above and when people ask me or other members of our organization questions based on your work, we'll set them straight and your work will continue to lose credibility.


One question everyone needs to ask themself is...

Why would all these Accident Investigators and Aviation Professtionals put their names and professional reputations on the line regarding P4T analysis while calling and recording the NTSB/FBI if we thought our interpretations were incorrect?

pilotsfor911truth.org...

CL, how much flight time do you have?

How much jet time?

Ever soloed a student?

Have any instructor time?

How much experiece do you have in Aviation Accident Investigation?

CL, you are way out of your league here. I had thought you learned your lesson the last time. Perhaps not.

I'll be waiting on your email and questions for interview. You can find our email address correct?

Rob

JDX:
I've listened to plane engines while flying. That's it. Got me there.

Am I in over my head here? To some extent. With the data field, I can see that questions that can only have one real answer wind up with several. I'm not an expert in aviation or data stuff, and so am at a double disadvantage in double-checking/second-guessing others' conclusions. Which seems to have become my specialty. But I try, and make some headway sorting things out, and in the process I've crossed paths with acknowledged experts (you guys) deeply vested in their project.

I don't doubt your findings, Rob, like the 300-foot correction thing, and don't intend to waste time arguing over technical points I can't refute. I'm willing to discuss my initial doubts but also cede that this seems to be authentic - if flawed - data you are working with. My questions are other - logic, motive, methodology, intellectual honesty, theories, massive evidence of a 757 impact... but you don't even have theories to debate, do you? Besides, I don't need to push the issue, I'm happy to let you guys continue with your projects and me just doin' my thing on the sideline, a non-expert, don't mind me.

I just did this thread because it annoyed me no one else had ever mentioned the obvious oddity of the unaddressed NTSB silence, CD/DVD paper trail confusion, evasiveness, etc. Someone had to say it. I said it. It can be done here if you'd rather let it drop.

But I do appreciate the offer to hash it out and I will take you up on it if you're still game. I'd like to see some things cleared up now, and will have to take some time to sort out my own thoughts and questions, to make our time as efficient and productive as possible. If we're both reasonable people, we'll sort this out. Look for an e-mail within the week.

Adam


[edit on 29-7-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Here is an idea - send a FOIA request explicitly requesting the animation for Flight 77. They must answer that one, either way.