Originally posted by Boone 870
O'Brien did not state how far past the mall he was. Also, he did not state how far south of the mall he was.
He states he was passed the mall headed westbound after traveling north and west. This is not what the RADES data shows.
You're using nonspecific information to make specific claims. All the statements O'Brien made were relative to his position during the flight.
You are interpreting his words to match your theory.
Huh? That is what YOU are doing by ignoring the fact that he says north and west while the RADES data shows southwest.
North and west is VERY specific.
How could he be any more specific?
Just because you don't believe that a 4-5 mile vantage point from an aircraft can be considered a ''wonderful veiw'' doesn't mean that O'Brien should have been right above the mall to have that veiw.
It's the reference point he uses after having traveled north and west.
If he traveled southwest he would not use the mall as a reference point plus if his view of the mall from 5 or 6 miles away traveling southwest was so great his view of the plane coming directly in front of him at 9:34:25 would be even better.
North and west. Two separate words, two separate directions. You are the one that believes he flew northwest. He departed to the north and then flew west.
GREEN=Northwest flightpath
RED=Actual flightpath
BLUE=West
WHITE=Southwest
Red and white are both southwest.
Blue is west.
But O'Brien says he traveled NORTH and west.
Blue is northwest.
Red is north and west.
Both end up south of the mall.
You ignore the FACT that he says north when the RADES data shows the opposite.
The two yellow thumbtacks represent positions from the radar data. As you can see by the redline, Gopher06 flew closer to west than it did to the southwest.
But he says he flew north and west.
Why do you keep ignoring what he says and stating there is no contradiction?
