reply to post by turbofan
Your style is becoming more and more typical, in its arrogance even when proven wrong. It is Attack, Attack, Attack....and no manner of logic nor
sensibility will stop you.
Well guess what, if the plane really made that damage, then it must have flown along a path IN LINE with the damage.
That's right. Following backwards from the very thoroughly investigated and reported line of damage INSIDE the Pentagon, the ground track can be
extrapolated out...OVER the intersecton of Rte 27 and Rte 244 (where the lightpoles were) and South of the gas station.
Want to know something else? The 1.5 nm radius +/- 0.1 mn MUST
interesct that flight path.
Yes.....+/- the 0.1 NM margin of error that YOU admitted to...correct???
Later, we will see how you (again) twisted my EXACT words. Reading and comprehension? Zero points. Arrogant attitude because there is
NO WAY
you could ever be wrong? A big whoppin' TEN!
Now, this:
PRESTO! We have all the co-ordinates we need including a vertical position!
Oh please,
'Sky King', explain to all of us the geometry...not only in TWO dimensions, but now you assert in THREE? How can you determine,
with only one line, and one arc, "all the co-ordinates we need including a vertical position" (your words).
Let me make it simple, first. Draw a line. Pick a focus, draw an arc. You will find TWO places on that line that are the same length (in this case
let's use 1.5NM)
Where is the vertical component? Well, the actual true airplane altitude is in doubt, has been debated...I guess you could try to use trigonometry
and the slant-range angle...but still you're guessing.
There are a multitude of errors that will be accumulating, because of several uncertainties...the true altitude AND as mentioned below, the DME error
margin....so still we have to approximate position, it won't be accurate to an inch...
NOW...here is your comprehension = Zero point:
Originally posted by weedwhacker
So glad you brought that up! One NM is 6,067 feet. One tenth of that is about 607 feet. SO....+/- 607 feet means an error (per the manufacturer's
data) of 1,214 feet. Correct?
MY exact quote, in its entirety. To reiterate: ....
+/- 607 feet means an error (per the manufacturer's data) of 1,214 feet.
Let this sink in a bit.........
..............because, YOU wrote:
NO.
It means an error of +/- 0.1 nm, or +/- 607 feet. A value Plus, or minus
607 feet....not a value +/- 1,214 feet.
See it yet? It went by pretty quickly, and those not paying attention might have been left (again) with the impression that YOU are always right...
there's that arrogance problem once more....
YOU:
not a value +/- 1,214 feet.
See it now? Twist and shout, twist and shout....was that an old Chubby Checker song?
Got it? 607 feet or less (typically calibrated for zero error by the MFG. These are worst case values).
Oh, I GET IT, allright. I get your game, here... and I suspect so does everyone else.
Example as exhibit....let's see, I've used up so many already...this is Exhibit 'J':
Without going through anything else (because lengthy replies seem to confuse you), you can deal with all the above fact.
Your witness......
[edit on 2 October 2009 by weedwhacker]
) 
