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.

 

American 77 Flight Path In 3d

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
American 77 Flight Path version2 - In 3D

Google Video Link

Google Link:
video.google.com...

08/03/07 - Three Dimensional view of American 77 Flight Path according to data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Removing altitude and NTSB northern plot data as a variable (see pilotsfor911truth.org... for more information), we use the "impact point" as point of origin working outwards based on heading, descent angles and bank angles to analyze if the data can account for the physical damage path. Please see Pandora's Black Box - Chapter Two for in depth analysis of complete data provided by US Govt Agencies who claim was generated by the aircraft which struck The Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

PFT Forum Topic link




posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Welcome UnderTow!

OK I'll bite-

So what are we discussing about this?

What's the point you are trying to make? You describe the content but where's your argument about the material? No disrespect. Just trying to understand. Thanx-

2PacSade-



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I would have prefered it without the music. It comes across as a kiddies show



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Hey this deserves a better response than this. But I have been absent. Got bored.

Great lookin rendering! Hat's off to Rob at least for the work put in. As for the music, watcged it with the volume down last night. But yeah, you don't miss much.

Re: your intro there, from Pandora's Black Box - in retrospect it's funny to compare the "NTSB report" with the 9/11 Comm "report," considering the animation they showed in the NTSB ballroom there was probably also an NTSB report, just not as "working copy" as the wrong one. So props on just looking at the more correct-ish data.

I would have to echo the other poster a bit - like what is the issue we're looking at here - Is this another no theory thing? It looks like the plane came in too steep to hit any light poles here, or the generator. Or am I reading that wrong?

From what I hear, the CSV trajectory was off by a degree or two and would've missed one light pole, right? This could be intersting but also seems like grasping at straws of mystery. Is there no fudge room at all allowed fro these readings?



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Still no other comments? UT? JDX? Others?
I think it's a well-done video, and an interesting visualization. I need to link to it at my blog.
For some reason, this is also the first place I'd really noticed the damage to VDOT camera pole.
What does everyone else think? Any theories?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I agree, it is a very good looking video, although I don't completely understand it's ultimate meaning.

Just how reliable is this data?

What data is this based on? Obviously it's not the FDR simulation because that appears to put the plane in a completely different location (as much as 20 degrees off as noted by Caustic Logic).

Why does the 9/11 commission have a different animation, and why is it different from the animation that P911truth (and others) got?

Isn't it interesting how well the physical damage (light poles, generator) lines up so well with an airliner strike? This animation/simulation does not appear to be that far off from the physical damage...

I really wish they would release the videos to end this controversy once and for all.

This image (that they did release) however, clearly shows what appears to be the outer portion of the plane on a downward angle:
www.prisonplanet.com...

The witnesses are pretty conclusive on what they saw however:
arabesque911.blogspot.com...

They described the plane as approaching very low to the ground at a "steep" angle, and hitting the Pentagon, and the image I linked seems to support that.

Although the simulation misses some of the poles and is just over the generator, it seems misleading to suggest that because the data is off by a few feet, the physical evidence therefore "contradicts" the fdr data. Just how accurate is the data and why should it "trump" the physical evidence?

It would be nice if the animation could look further into the Pentagon to dispel the disinformation floating around that the plane had to go through "three walls" to get the C hole.

Furthermore, the right engine allegedly was destroyed as it hit the generator, so it would not have had as much of an imprint on the outside of the Pentagon facade.

[edit on 10-8-2007 by Arabesque]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
im not 100% on this, so please someone enlighten me...

the end of the path according to the NTSB was 400 ft above the pentagon? and so this video compensates for that?

someone please steer me in the right direction here, links appreciated.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Sorry guys, I'm not trying to ignore this site. I'm just busy elsewhere. I'm in agreement with Arabesque of course - basically all evidence - actual evidence, not some oft-repeated misunderstanding - all points to physically what was said to happen. A 757 impact. Curious in fact how the Pilots aren't offering theories, but just focusing on an ever-narrowing ledge of questions/discrepancies. We're down to errors of a few feet here and otherwise the FDR showing what actually happened.


Originally posted by jprophet420
im not 100% on this, so please someone enlighten me...

the end of the path according to the NTSB was 400 ft above the pentagon? and so this video compensates for that?

someone please steer me in the right direction here, links appreciated.


Okay, there are actually several different reading of the altitude, which I've compiled and briefly explained here. There are sub-links from there.

The 440-feet above the roof readin was by John Doe X and based on the animation not showing the pressure reset at 18,000 feet recorded in the csv file. I don't totally get his reasoning, but it makes som kind of sense, and mans we'd need to add 300 feet to the final alt in the animation of 180 MSL, or 140 above ground. Another reding shows 270 feet AGL. The only one that makes sense and doesn't ecessitate massive fakery is about 5 AGL.

hope that helps.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
CL,

How come you haven't blogged about this animation?

It clearly demonstrates how the FDR is irreconcilable with the physical damage AND the eyewitnesses.

This can only mean that it is a badly done fake.

The fact that the NTSB animation is so botched up even in relation to the FDR simply demonstrates this even further.

Almost like they wanted to throw us off track.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
CL wrote in his blog:



A small post to tide my swarming readers over until I finish my animation geography analysis; I recently found, for what it’s worth, both the animation and the csv file seem to agree with the official story. This is nothing new, of course, but barring minor variations of whatever significance, and looking at the 320-mile long swathe of land flown over by Flight 77, it’s all a remarkable fit.
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...



Yet he has failed to directly address this animation demonstrating how incorrect he really is.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
CL wrote in his blog:



A small post to tide my swarming readers over until I finish my animation geography analysis; I recently found, for what it’s worth, both the animation and the csv file seem to agree with the official story. This is nothing new, of course, but barring minor variations of whatever significance, and looking at the 320-mile long swathe of land flown over by Flight 77, it’s all a remarkable fit.
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...



Yet he has failed to directly address this animation demonstrating how incorrect he really is.



What??? I haven't blogged on it because I've been doing other things. I mean to put a link to it in my video section, and I did link to it in my updated Fetzer rebuttal. I'm sorry, is there something remarkable in there I'm ignoring? If I write about it it's as likely to be a pan, not that I'm in a good position to technically challenge it...



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

What??? I haven't blogged on it because I've been doing other things. I mean to put a link to it in my video section, and I did link to it in my updated Fetzer rebuttal. I'm sorry, is there something remarkable in there I'm ignoring? If I write about it it's as likely to be a pan, not that I'm in a good position to technically challenge it...


Well since it demonstrates how the data is irreconcilable with the physical damage.......yes.

You report otherwise based on much less credible research.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   
oops - other thread

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

I'm sorry, is there something remarkable in there I'm ignoring?


Well since it demonstrates how the data is irreconcilable with the physical damage.......yes.


Barely. Some people call it fudge. I dunno about the margins allowed, but I'm just not even hearing the alarm bells anymore.


You report otherwise based on much less credible research.


some data doesn't quite fit the physical evidence - experts pore over it and yet their ledge of Qs keeps shrinking as the official story keeps emerging - give or take a few feet or like one degree - and I look at the physical evidence. Which has more bearing on the physical impact/fakery that happened?



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I certainly can't see how the aircraft could come in level. I'm definitely in agreement that 5 degrees nose-down attitude is likely.

You'll note also that the ground slopes towards the Pentagon (quite visible in that video). Makes a level approach even harder.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I certainly can't see how the aircraft could come in level. I'm definitely in agreement that 5 degrees nose-down attitude is likely.

You'll note also that the ground slopes towards the Pentagon (quite visible in that video). Makes a level approach even harder.


Exactly!

If you go there and see the topography this is very notable.

These shots from on top of the VDOT roof kind of show you how far down the Pentagon sits and what a steep descent it would have to make:







Here is video:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   
CL,

I was curious if you understood how descent and bank angles are pertinent to analyzing the flight path particularly as it pertains to the physical damage.

Because your blog only seems to look at the flight path from a 2-dimensional level.

So do you?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
CL,

I was curious if you understood how descent and bank angles are pertinent to analyzing the flight path particularly as it pertains to the physical damage.

Because your blog only seems to look at the flight path from a 2-dimensional level.

So do you?


Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
CL,

I was curious if you understood how descent and bank angles are pertinent to analyzing the flight path particularly as it pertains to the physical damage.

Because your blog only seems to look at the flight path from a 2-dimensional level.

So do you?


True - I'm good w/maps and trigonometry - 3D is a little harder but when I get it I do. I'm aware these issues exist and are relevant. Can I read them in the FDR and and understand? Not yet. Am I versed in what others have found? Also no. I do have blind spots.

So has it been shown that the recorded descent angle is what again? Impossible, or off? I don't think anyone says it was level level at 33 ft msl for any length of time - it was a slow descent down the hill AND from above roofs to the ground floor, so yeah, it would require some kind of descending attack angle of ?? degrees.

The last 600 feet is all the CCTV camera would've caught, and it was low but not necessarily level at that point. So agreed we need a downward angle. Is it recorded wrong or something?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   
dangit
delete

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
CL wrote in his blog:



A small post to tide my swarming readers over until I finish my animation geography analysis; I recently found, for what it’s worth, both the animation and the csv file seem to agree with the official story. This is nothing new, of course, but barring minor variations of whatever significance, and looking at the 320-mile long swathe of land flown over by Flight 77, it’s all a remarkable fit.
frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...



Also - THAT was a goof on my part - I should've clarified they agree ON WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THERE - the general flight path. On other points I dunno, a mixed bag maybe. Sorry. Updated. Thanks for the plug.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Caustic Logic]

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Caustic Logic]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join