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.

 

Flight 77's Shadow?

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Just like you will never have evidence or proof that it is a shadow of a 757 I will never have evidence to prove it was added so why are we sitting here making this a focus of conversation as if it is even remotely relevant to 9/11 justice since the evidence is invalid anyway?


This is the crux of it. I don't want to argue about whether the video is manipulated (in the inserted shadow sense).
1)Your case for video manipulation is compelling but not proven
2) even if the overall screen was re-arranged and views removed, this is not proof anything was altered within the camera views.
3) Neither would the overall screen left as-is proof that nothing was altered within the camera views present.
4) All alteration questions must therefore be kept open, and the evidence looked at in its proper ambiguous context, not dismissed. It's either
a) evidence of the plane
b) evidence of fakery to that effect, or
c) something else.

So far a has not been disproven, neither has b, and c has not been argued effectively yet.


EVEN IF they did not have to manipulate the data (hypothetically speaking) to remove the extremely relevant and critical view in question the fact that they withheld this view implicates the suspect in a cover-up.

This is a fact.

If you are scrutinizing data in an investigation to determine if the official story is fraud or not it makes no sense to accept this data as valid AT ALL.

There is no escaping this logic.

If you are merely looking at stuff for fun without scrutinizing the official story you are not conducting an investigation at all and are merely spinning your wheels with no purpose or direction.

No legitimate investigator would accept data controlled and provided for solely by the suspect as valid evidence in support of the suspect's innocence.





It is impossible for us to prove what was manipulated in that video.

This only serves to deflect from the real issue and that is EVIDENCE TAMPERING which is a federal offense and directly implicates the suspect in a cover-up.


The real issue in this thread is that, considering as you say we can't prove what was (and wasn't) altered, or I'd add that ANYTHING was altered, we must look at what's there and see what that evidence lines up with. In this case, the 'official story.' Your 'real issue' serves here only to clarify this ambiguity - which is fair. It's not cause to ignore the evidence entirely.


Yes it is if you are really investigating the validity of the official story.

Of course some evidence will "line up" in a psychological deception of this nature with the suspect in question who has unlimited, power, authority, time, resources, technology, and access.

It's the evidence that doesn't line up that needs to be focused on.

Especially if the evidence directly implicates the suspect in a cover-up which we know that it does from first hand testimony of the citgo manager.

Why do you always refuse to accept evidence showing the official story is a lie?





But I do know they manipulated out those relevant views AS WELL AS manipulated out Robert Turcios since his story is backed up by his manager and all the other witnesses who were at the station so I have no doubt they would throw in a few flashes and shadows to add confusion.


Out? I thought he was just at the wrong pump from where he did the interview?
And again, why remove views that would only show what the witnesses saw? They were fooled, why not a crappy camera?
And is it proven the cameras in question were pointed towards an area that would've caught anything? I'd like to see some analysis on the probable views for each removed camera. I can find it but if you have one good link that'd be great.


Him and his cart were manipulated out completely.

The notion that he was at a different pump is disinfo from Farmer based on nothing.

No maintenance cart can be identified at the back pump.

He was at the front pump and he had his maintenance cart with him just as he said because his story is backed up by his manager AND the other citgo witnesses.

They released that video 5 days after we announced his account.



Plus the manager already TOLD US that it DID have a view of the Pentagon wall!

The camera was on the north side so naturally it would have caught the plane flying there if it had a view of the Pentagon wall.

The fact that you don't understand why they would not release this incriminating data despite the fact that the witnesses were successfully deceived into believing in an impact is pretty silly.





This is 100% invalid evidence in support of the official story and all of the witnesses are 100% valid evidence that prove the official story a lie.


See... 100% invalid, 100% valid, prove. This is not the language of reason, even if you were at more realistic figures like 80%. Unfortunately for you, you're closer to ass-backwards than correct in your math here.


No this IS reason and logic.

No honest investigator would accept evidence controlled and provided for solely by the suspect in support of the suspect's story.

Therefore the data is unequivocally 100% invalid within the context of this investigation.




posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 



EVEN IF they did not have to manipulate the data (hypothetically speaking) to remove the extremely relevant and critical view in question the fact that they withheld this view implicates the suspect in a cover-up.

This is a fact.


I appreciate that you can still speak hypothetically.
If the view was removed, then it was covered up, I agree. What this proves is another story. Depends in part on the views, I will look into this some more - the three locations, what they might've been set to point at, what Barbara said, all evidence... Perhaps they removed all clues but one of the official path actually happening to cripple research like mine and leave mystery open. I know you think there's no logic to that since any question are bad, but I just strongly disagree with you. They would have plenty reason to want needless mystery.


No legitimate investigator would accept data controlled and provided for solely by the suspect as valid evidence in support of the suspect's innocence.


Unless it happened to be true, and getting your facts straight were important to your case. I'm not saying this is the case for sure, but total dismissal - on top of your other unexplained necessary deception (the fakery) - is telling. Throw out all the logical sounding stuff you like, you are a smart guy, I admit, and you're able to put more time and thought into all this than I. You'll stump me, dance around the questions, 'de-bunk' all my points to your satisfaction, and keep right on walking.

But don't think I don't have my eye on the big picture as to where CIT stands in relation to the truth. It's all been covered elewhere and will be again - no need to repeat it all here.

And in this case, those dark pixels ARE THERE, and are therefore EVIDENCE of something. I admit I can't disprove that they were inserted as another south-path psyop, but it also is possible it's a real shadow. And if so, all evidence except its video appearance as two floating dots support it being the 757 that hit the Pentagon.

You're quite sure of the north path, this shadow clearly counters it, so in your mind it must be a digital lie, so why am I the one bringing attention to it while you try to dismiss and ignore it as you always have? If your story is true, this is CLEAR and precise deception and should be great evidence for a CIT forum thread, shouldn't it? Proof of informational Citgo video tampering?

You're already arguing it re: Turcios:


Him and his cart were manipulated out completely.

The notion that he was at a different pump is disinfo from Farmer based on nothing.

No maintenance cart can be identified at the back pump.


Thanks for the tip. True I can't identify what he's talking about, but I haven't really tried. I'll look closer. That's some odd editing to have to do. It was done to discredit him then, and cast doubt on his testimony? Huh.


Plus the manager already TOLD US that it DID have a view of the Pentagon wall!

The camera was on the north side so naturally it would have caught the plane flying there if it had a view of the Pentagon wall.


I wonder was it even a station camera, then, or used by DoD as a (secret) distance monitor of their building? Cause I don't see any reason a station sec. cam should point away from the station to buildings a 1/4 mile away. Do we have something other than the manager's word? If it was pointed at the Pgon it might be leased to DoD and might have a different jurisdiction and NOT be multiplexed with the other feeds.

Is that worth suggesting?

[edit on 30-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


A DoD Secret distance monitor?

Then how would the citgo station manager know about it?

This is insane.

Look at what ridiculous lengths you are willing to speculate to make excuses for the suspect.

In absolute spite of the evidence!

She said it had a view of the Pentagon wall.

This meant she could see the feedback meaning it was at the Citgo station and not Cheney's bunker.

It had a view because it was pointed in that direction.

It was at the far west corner of the building pointing towards the pump on the east so it had a view of the Pentagon.

Why is that so unbelievable?

Here is Farmer's graphic that he got so pissed about me using in the LCF:


I don't vouch for the accuracy of the camera angles but this is a good indicator for the locations and the views that were depicted and left out of the data.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
 


I don't think it's ridiculous, but it's also probably not true. They would also need a view of the outer pumps, so that's probably it. Just a thought.

So, with or without the removed cameras and possibly frames, we have always had looking over this video the possibility of informational doctoring.

You say it's proven fact, since Robert was edited OUT of that very frame, so a shadow being inserted there also seems quite likely.

An alternate explanation is that Robert was simply not outside as he says (Barbara also specifically testifies he was outside, right?) and the dark pixels are a result of the plane passing by on a route reported specifically by some eyewitness, that allows it to clip the poles, generator, fence, and vent structure, and do the building damage.

In this scenario, Robert is discredited by the video - not by fakery within it but by the reality within it. Therefore, you will say it MUST be doctored, whereas I'll have to say it's possible, but all things considered, unlikely. And you'll say there's no logic to that and round and round we go.

BTW: I watched the video again, and there seems to be a person at the west pump, doing something with white things at about chest level, and runs into the store after the shadow passes. I think that's what Farmer was talking about. That's not Robert?


[edit on 30-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Caustic Logic
 


There is no visible maintenance cart.

That is not Robert.

Robert and his cart were edited out.

The manager specifically told us that he was outside filling up water doing the pump maintenance when he saw the plane on the north side.

We then went back to California, called Robert at the station about a week later, and he confirmed everything the manger told us but also told us that he ran up to the mound and saw the plane pull up over the highway.

10 days later they released the security video.

Within 2 months I booked the return trip, got a hold of Lagasse and Brooks, and obtained all of their accounts on video where Robert reiterated everything the way he and his manager initially told us. It was within that period that they painted the station and removed all reference to CITGO.

So once again you can choose to believe dubious data controlled and released by the suspect with dubious timing that we KNOW they have in the very least withheld the most relevant views of......or you can choose to believe the independently corroborated testimony of real people who were there.


What you are failing to realize also is that not only is it incriminating for them to release this data with the most relevant views removed.....BUT THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE REASON FOR IT!

Why would they bother?

There are something like 80 other videos that allegedly don't show the plane or the "impact" that they won't release while citing that very reason.

Why release this one after REMOVING the views of the Pentagon?

The timing of the release and the fact that Robert's story is confirmed by the manager and all other citgo witnesses tells us exactly why.



posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I just came back to this thread and gave a cursory glance over the discussion.

I looked at the video again, full screen, and I see two cars. I see a change in the grey tones above the "shadows". I think the first vehicle (the one on the left) is an SUV or van of some kind and the second one is a sedan. I don't think my eyes are fooling me.

I don't know anything about the technical arguments going on but I see two cars.

Sign me, "voice crying in the wilderness." lol.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
[edit on 31-10-2007 by scrapple]



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
..this is car you're looking at here, but the shadows I showed are not. Point attempted and failed.
[edit on 28-10-2007 by Caustic Logic]


Closet Logic,

Interesting how a car (middle dot) passes over the same patch of highway with plenty of space between your engine-to-fuselage (outside dots)







posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by scrapple
 


Well that's kind of interesting. Cool graphic. Your paper airplane is scaled properly to a 757? I admit my part ID was just a best guess, and I'm open to that I could be wrong on the engine-fuselage interpretation. There's really very little data here to go on. I'll look at it closer when I have time.

The main thing is despite any possible errors in actual shadow correlation, it still fits the 'official' model perfectly:
- Its sudden appearance and disappearance,
- the 2.167 sec lag before evidence of explosion matches the FDR speed,
- the altitude/location nexus indicated by sun angles shows the oficial path and an altitude that works.

This is a graph I did of pitch angles necessary:

should work well with the new scroller thing.

And my blog post is finally up and helps set the context:
How the Citgo Video Contradicts the North Side Claim



posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

The main thing is despite any possible errors in actual shadow correlation, it still fits the 'official' model perfectly:
- Its sudden appearance and disappearance,
- the 2.167 sec lag before evidence of explosion matches the FDR speed,
- the altitude/location nexus indicated by sun angles shows the oficial path and an altitude that works.



..."still fits the 'official' model perfectly"????


A 757 was a pretty big piece of the official model - no?

I dont see 757 shadow geometry anywhere.


I do see two dots spread way too far apart, appear and dissapear at the right time and place - but that does ZIP ZERO to support the 'official' model - as you may have in error wrongly suggested above.

-IMO anybody supporting this video evidence as legit - had better start hedging any love they may have for the offical 'story'.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by scrapple

..."still fits the 'official' model perfectly"????


A 757 was a pretty big piece of the official model - no?

I dont see 757 shadow geometry anywhere.




Again, this is crappy video. VERY crappy. So perhaps my guess on HOW it represents the plane was off. Factt is it appears suddenly, has no precedent in the video frames before it, lines up fairly well withthe official 757 path, and fits perfectly in the timeline. These are all parts of the 'official' story that come through more reliably than apparent distance between ill-defined blobs.

You can see 'the engine and fuselage' too, or you wouldn't be saying they're too far apart.


I do see two dots spread way too far apart, appear and dissapear at the right time and place - but that does ZIP ZERO to support the 'official' model - as you may have in error wrongly suggested above.


and as I just re-suggested right above. Add zilch and nada and maybe you'll be right on this point.


-IMO anybody supporting this video evidence as legit - had better start hedging any love they may have for the offical 'story'.


What's love got to do with it? What's love, but a second hand emotion?

Who knows if it's really legit? All I'm saying is however it happened there pixels in there that support the official clip-the-light-poles, plow-into-the-building, kill-people-with-jet-fuel, and leave-a-scattered-757-inside flight path. If they doctored it, they did so right on the mark, and you have... what? They painted the engine and fuselage too far apart?

Thanks for the laffs, mate.


[edit on 5-11-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Major revision that ultimately doesn't change much:


PLEASE NOTE: The solar angles I had used for my original detailed analysis were not accurate. My presumption of steady change during the day seems to be at fault. Steady change would create a triangle waveform of change - /\ - which is not how the sun moves. In reality the pattern is curved, and so degree change minute to minute changes in a steady non-linear pattern that I don't know how to calculate, so I've used a solar calculator as recommended by helpful comments from a knowledgeable reader (please see comments section below). I've found, as the commentator did, an altitude of 32°, not 25, and an azimuth of 113°, not 126. I have update ALL my math, graphics, and text to reflect this. Distance/speed has not changed at all, but my original altitude of 72 feet above the shadow has been increased to 115 feet, and pitch issues have been raised. See below for details. All other findings stand as is.

I've updated my blog to explain more fully. I explain the pitch change difference in special depth there if you have any questions.

Here are the new graphics:











It's very tiring to have to re-do this, but I'm pretty confident I got it right this time. I better have. It's a little more iffy for pitch but I think totally plausible. See blog for explanation of that if anybody cares.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Also I've removed the plane-on-ground photo used in the OP> I didn't have rights to re-post it, but to view this and another similar photo, click this link and search for ["Mark Wilson" shadow air].

Here is a perspective model I just did to help translate a 757 shadow partly into camera view form.

Compared to the original frame:


Is that really so far off? I note Scrapple's earlier graphics have disappeared BTW.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Closet Logic

You’re omitting visible airframe shadow to support your dot theory????

frustratingfraud.blogspot.com...

and the lower ‘enhanced black' pixel image cant be taken as legit - until you reference where you got a clean hi-res, other than what is now avail on the web.

Once again, seeing how passing vehicles are perfectly visible in the area you're missing shaddows; it is interesting that the plane's full geometry would not both project AND show on that same surface.


I am seeing full shadows at your 115'


BUT - most curious of all is how you back project plane position from an 'estimate’ of an 'incomplete' shadow...

The P4911T guys last I checked had proven how bogus the ‘Official” Flight Path is - but since youre trying to reverse shadow-4support-Official Story , why not take the Official FDR altitude of 239’ over CITGO, which when applied to Google Earth Elevation puts 'Official Story' Flight 77 at around 185’ not your 115’.

Can you image what happens to your dots when altitude over CITGO gets in-line with 'Official' black box flight data???

You may as well assume ALL of the 'Official' data shouldn’t you



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by scrapple
 


Definitely a fair point, and one I realized as I was doing the graphic. I just let you mention it first. Again, cool graphic
It lines up w/mine pretty good.

Possibilities: most likely I read the shadow wrongly as engine-fuselage, or I'm missing some important factor about the roadway, or the topography of the slope, refelctivity of grass, or placed the shadow too far north, or something.

Really look at that crappy video and tell me how I or anyone could try to be dogmatic about what exactly it shows. It shows something dark, sudden, timed perfectly for distance till flashes, and placed app. correct for the official path. Finer details than that remain elusive...

I admit I don't have all the answers here.


BUT - most curious of all is how you back project plane position from an 'estimate’ of an 'incomplete' shadow...

The P4911T guys last I checked had proven how bogus the ‘Official” Flight Path is - but since youre trying to reverse shadow-4support-Official Story , why not take the Official FDR altitude of 239’ over CITGO, which when applied to Google Earth Elevation puts 'Official Story' Flight 77 at around 185’ not your 115’.


Well, since that data was recorded four seconds back from that spot, at the top of the hill at about the Sheraton hotel, there would be little point in projecting it forward to the Citgo or past, as the Pilots and others, including me, have done in the past. It's the news - Google it. 911files.info.


Can you image what happens to your dots when altitude over CITGO gets in-line with 'Official' black box flight data???

You may as well assume ALL of the 'Official' data shouldn’t you


I assume nothing. Others assume it should all be rejected/marginalized/neutralized/ignored because it's invalid evidence. Fine, I'm just saying this is what that evidence shows. I believe it's most likely legitimate, because I had already decided by much other evidence there was a plane there - it would cast a shadow - the camera was pointed that way - etc. So when I see a shadow... Yeah, it's a bias. So what?



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   
dbl post

[edit on 8-11-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by scrapple
and the lower ‘enhanced black' pixel image cant be taken as legit - until you reference where you got a clean hi-res, other than what is now avail on the web.


Sorry I missed that line. I got it at the secret vault reserved for DoD disinfo operatives of course. Jealous?

Two stars for each Crapple post - one from Merc and one from Lyte I'd venture.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Caustic,
One of each of those double stars is mine.
Because I had the impression you had put a lot of effort into this subject of those black dots, but didn't make a strong impression of actually believing yourself, that they were parts of an eventual shadow of flight 77 passing by the Citgo on the south side.
And Scrapple did counter your, I admit that, hard work, by using your own kind of logic and reasoning and proving your conclusions wrong or at least questionable, in my eyes.

The one star of mine is for your follow up long post, where you gave the info to find this highly interesting link to the research of John Farmer :

911files.info...
911files.info... : page 2, which holds his view of the last seconds of the FDR and 84 RADES files released to him by a FOIA request :


I have completed my initial analysis of the AAL77 FDR end of file. Using documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act from the NTSB and 84 RADES, a number of irrefutable facts emerge.

1. The FDR data was terminated to correspond with the time of the last RADES radar return.
2. The NEADS clock which created the time stamp for this return was off by 25.3 seconds.
3. The last RADES return is NOT associated with the impact object (LT: the Pentagon west wall, I assume, however I would have typed "impactED object, so he can mean AA77, but then how did he conclude that -NOT- remark ?).

These three facts result in the FDR data stopping prematurely at a position 4-6 seconds prior to the impact position. The full analysis is available in pdf format for download and all supporting data and files are referenced and downloadable.

911files.info...


This person uses a high definition of logical reasoning, and we should listen to it with an open mind.
I still am convinced that the PentaCon witnesses are damn convincing, so we have a long way to go to find out why the US government and DoD went so far out of the truth, to provide faulty FDR or/and 84 RADES data sheets.

Read up the latests 20 or so posts on his blog from the point at page 2 where he posted this :

Data Tampering Proven
Filed under: Flight 77, NTSB, Radar Data— BCR at 6:07 pm on Saturday, October 6, 2007

I will be posting my EOF analysis of AAL77 either late Sunday or early Monday morning. I have been awaiting the radar data to verify what I already suspected, that the Flight Data Recorder is missing the final 6-8 seconds of flight data. I’ve learned it is hard to be dogmatic about much in this mangle of information/misinformation, but this is something I can be about.



This is John Farmer's Final Analysis of NTSB Flight Data Recorder Freedom of Information Act Documents.pdf

I find it a very interesting read, and will comment on it after I have thoroughly studied it further.

My first comment however is on his Figure 2 picture at page 4 of his "final" pdf :



( smaller picture on his page here : 911files.info... and read his past comments! )
John Farmer made this latest comment about the 2 last, seemingly "impossible", RADES radar returns :


The final two returns attributed to AAL77 in the RADES data are somewhat misleading since both are not associated with AAL77 and in the discussed time frame should be post-impact.


Timestamped at 9:37:36 (North of Citgo) and 9:37:48 (South of Citgo).

The very first thing which came to my mind was :
Damn, that pretty much looks as if the North of Citgo flying plane launched a drone about a mile before it reached the Citgo, which drone took a right turn loop which took 12 seconds to perform, and then the drone passed the Citgo at the right, south side, and the plane passed it 12 seconds earlier on the left, north side, because it took the straight flight path to the Pentagon's North side and passed it on its way out of the scene.
This would explain the PentaCon police witnesses observing the plane, and the other Route 27 witnesses observing a smaller but AA painted drone which toppled the light poles and impacted at an 43 ° angle at the Pentagon's west wall.
But why don't we have any witnesses who saw 2 planes?

What exactly was the time again on the fallen clock from the Pentagon heliport tower, which halted presumably at the time of impact, when it fell on the floor?
Found it, 09:31:39 AM.



That's quite different from 9:37:48 AM .
6 Minutes 9 seconds difference, i.ex. earlier.

Of course it could have been set wrong in its past.
But do you really believe that they mis-set a clock, at that heliport tower, where they waited for top brass and the president to arrive on schedule that afternoon ! No way in the rigid military mindset, that type of mishaps would be tolerated, THERE.

It looks more like the helicopter observed by some witnesses, just before the impact, has something to do with the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.
That one could be accounting for one of the final two returns attributed to AAL77 in the RADES data.

[edit on 8/11/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


LaBTop,

Please be EXTREMELY skeptical of any analysis from John Farmer.

We are quite certain he is deliberate disinfo.

Like Caustic Logic & Arabasque, he appeared as a prominent 9/11 blogger shortly after the release of our evidence and focused heavily on our work.

Except that Farmer was a bit more smooth about it at first and played like he was a CIT supporter while simultaneously throwing out convoluted incorrect information to help neutralize our info.

He closely aligned himself with Pilots for Truth and came to the conclusion that the FDR was fraudulent.

Despite claiming support for the north side evidence and including us in all emails regarding information he received via numerous FOIA requests he eventually had a break-down and spiraled into a strange irrational unprovoked yet very public personal attack against us complete with name calling. All in hard defense of the legitimacy of the citgo security video data with the only stated reason for his attack being the fact that I used one of his images at the Loose Change forum.

We have evidence proving both the RADES data as well as the NTSB data fraudulent.

Despite claiming the FDR is fraudulent he will defend the Citgo security video and newly released RADES data to his death regardless of the evidence we have proving it false.

Although Rob from P4T has published articles based on Farmer's work in the past he has since severed ties and now sees him as deliberate disinfo.

Farmer is one of the most shady characters to have come on to the scene in a while.

I highly recommend that you take ANYTHING he says with less than a grain of salt.



posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Source : 911files.info...
This source includes also comments from Aldo Marquis from CIT, about the C-130 and his actual situation described by a reliable witness, which does not fit the reasoning.

This is John Farmer's reasoning for the 2 last radar returns from 84Th RADES :


Comparison of this image from the beginning of the video with later frames indicates that the rising fireball and smoke column are moving slightly to the southwest. The most likely explanation for the last RADES return for AAL77 is the rising fireball from the impact. Certainly no other airborne phenomena can be observed in the vicinity of the return (10 seconds into the video).

This also further reinforces the time difference between the AAL77 FDR time stamp and the RADES time stamp. The FDR places impact at or later than 13:37:47, which clearly with the RADES time stamp is well post impact.


So he thinks that RADES has got 2 returns within a timeframe laying between 9:37:36 and 9:37:48.
This is exactly the 12 seconds radar sweep time needed by the actual radar disk at RADES to record this anomaly.

And that it is caused by the RISING heat from a fireball inside the smoke column.
That would mean that the last radar return at 9:37:48 MUST have an attached higher altitude than the former, 9:37:36 radar return.
I expect at least 200 feet higher.

Why is the altitude of both last radar returns not given by John Farmer in the reasoning part?
So that we could see if his reasoning is correct or faulty.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join