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.
Originally posted by cesura
As for the divergence between pressure altitude and my
calculated altitude: Either curve can be moved up or
down, without changing its shape, by applying a simple
additive correction (which, for the pressure altitude,
is needed anyway to adjust for barometric pressure).
So the curves can be made to coincide at either end of
the graphed interval, with the divergence at the other
end.
To those of you in the US: Have a nice Thanksgiving.
I'm off to cook some Texas chili.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by 911files
The impact points on the poles would supply a very exact measurement of the plane's altitude and angle of bank at that instant if the measurement of the poles' remains was actually done. With a major building in ruins and a large number of casualties, general hysteria going on I don't know why anyone would go to such extremes in terms of documenting the very minor collateral damage but it is possible that it was done I suppose.
Are you aware of any such measurements being available?
Originally posted by tezzajw
As far as light pole one is concerned, it is a government myth that it was ever knocked down. You will only find media driven 'information' about the event.
Originally posted by 911files
A cab driver's testimony is a 'government myth'. I find this shocking.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Originally posted by 911files
A cab driver's testimony is a 'government myth'. I find this shocking.
Lloyde has discredited himself as a witness, 911files. I have little doubt that you have watched his interviews with CIT and that you already know this.
Besides, show me one formal interview or transcript for where Lloyde was officially interviewed by the government?????
Anyway, there's other threads about Lloyde's contradictions. Pilgrum can view these threads about Lloyde and the lack of light pole data. There's no need to drag this thread off topic.
Originally posted by PilgrumAren't you talking about actual air pressure versus rate of change of air pressure?
Originally posted by cesura
As for the divergence between pressure altitude and my calculated altitude: Either curve can be moved up or down, without changing its shape, by applying a simple additive correction (which, for the pressure altitude, is needed anyway to adjust for barometric pressure). So the curves can be made to coincide at either end of the graphed interval, with the divergence at the other end.
Originally posted by cesura
To tomk52:
The Nyquist criterion is double the lowest frequency that you don't need to see or to distinguish from even lower frequencies.
Originally posted by cesura
The cause of the Moire effect in Figure 5 is that our visual systems choose an incorrect low-frequency interpretation for inputs whose correct interpretation involves frequencies above the Nyquist limit.
Originally posted by cesura
Applying that to the radar height, we might interpret a sawtoothed ridge that generally rises in height as a smooth decline, or we might interpret two distinct buildings as a single building, but we won't see radar heights that aren't really there. Is your point that the geographical elevations used by 911files may contain too much detail, and should have been smeared before they were compared against radar heights for his statistical analysis?
Originally posted by turbofan
P.S. John, I know you're not much for the CIT boys, but you should really
watch Lloyd's interview (the most recent) before coming to a conclusion.
[edit on 26-11-2009 by turbofan]
Originally posted by 911files
There is only confusion among CT forum 'experts' who have no clue what they are talking about.
Originally posted by 911files
Tomk52, I listened very carefully to your feedback and I think you misunderstand the concept.
Not even close to your nail impression analogy.
I have no opinion on that hypothesis except that it seems qute reasonable.
I don't know enough about the system to have an opinion, but sounds like a reasonable hypothesis to me as well.
If it happens to support yours or Mackey's hypothesis is for others to debate.
But I would suggest that instead of nit-picking you come up with a better model.
Yet I still anxiously await what censura comes up with.
Originally posted by tomk52
I think that you'll ultimately find that there is also an approximately 1 second skew in the radar altitude height (delay) with respect to the rest of the data, including the PA. It seems that the RA is (more or less) the last datum to be sampled as the data words are assembled. This means a LEFTWARD shift of PA data by about 1 second is necessary to get the PA to align with the RA.
Originally posted by tezzajw
It's ok to admit that it's not just the 'CT' people who are confused, 911files.
Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by 911files
What do you mean by leading? Lloyd said his car was never on the
bridge even though the photos proved otherwise.
Originally posted by 911filesHe said the poles were downed at the same intersection CIT convinced Lloyd he had to be on.
SGT Lagasse He said he was at a certain pump, but changed his testimony when Craige challenged him with the Citgo video. He was leaning in his car talking to his K-9 when the plane passed with his back to the area he claims to have seen a plane, but in his words, he doesn't have "eyes in the back of his head", so he could not have seen it. Discredited.
Robert Turcios - He too was at a different pump than he said he was. He also could not see the location he said the plane was from where he was. Not only that, he said he ran up the hill for a better look, but in reality he ran into the station scared witless. Discredited.
SGT Brooks - He claimed the plane was a United plane. In his earlier recorded statement he said he saw the poles hit. Discredited.
Ed Paik - He said the plane hit the VSP tower and bent an antenna which was replaced the next day. He went into detail about how it was bent over 90 degrees and saw it. His brother backs up his account. Consider them both discredited.
Terry Morin - He claims he was between the annex wings, but in 2001 in his own words he says he had just walked out from between them and turned towards the guard shack. Discredited.
Boger He said the plane went NoC. But in 2001 he said he saw the plane enter the building and heard the sound of metal crushing. Discredited.