At last, The "Watergate" Of 9/11 :

For the readers :
There is a Google FAQ page.
earth.google.com...
earth.google.com...

Search for eye alt error. Or eye altitude error.
Or eye alt error while viewing photo overlays
Or eye altitude error while viewing image overlays

And this is their User Guide :
static.googleusercontent.com...

Go to PDF-page 81 to 83 from 131, and look into "Creating an Image Overlay".
Page 83 :
""Manual coordinates for each corner of the image overlay. This is
similar in principle to the manual setting discussed in Repositioning
Placemarks, except that instead of setting coordinates for a single point,
you set coordinates for each corner of the image overlay. You might want
to use this feature if your image overlay comes from a precise map where
the exact coordinates are known.""


www.vineview.com...

-Why doesn't my VineView image line up well with the Google Earth background, or why does the background around my VineView image look different?

Google Earth does an excellent job of virtually seamless integration of different types of imagery over the surface of the entire world. In order to do this, however, some high resolution spatial accuracy is sacrificed. In some areas there may be an inaccuracy of 20 meters or more, especially in areas of variable topography. To rectify this problem, VineView distributes alternate background images with our Google Earth files. These background images are either survey accurate USGS orthophotos, or our own images that have been georeferenced to those orthophotos, with an absolute accuracy of 1 meter or better. These background images are more accurate than Google Earth, and we have blended them into the Google Earth background to preserve the seamless appearance of the interface. Contact us for more information.

That's why you see all those other runways and taxi lanes shimmer through Balsamo's 3000+ offset pictures. And also in his wrongly overlaid "corrected" one.
The error margin of Google Earth HD pictures of Dulles Airport, and all other Airports, is less than 1 meter.
And thus also in all the pictures I and him have laid before you, the readers.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by LaBTop
Tezzajw, are you serious?

This is what I see and probably what a lot of other people see:

You created this thread with a really-really-really long, convoluted post. The start of your opening post and all the way through your opening post, you claimed that Balsamo stated the pushgate was D9 or D11.

Then, you admitted that was a mistake.

Essentially, you and Balsamo both agree that the data is highly suspicious. But, your attempt to discredit Balsamo didn't work as planned, when you had to backpedal and apologise for making the mistake that you did.

I agree with you that complete records about all of the arrivals/departures from the D concourse gates would be extremely benefical. How do you propse to obtain that information?

Well, my main claim was that he claimed a broader subject. He stated that the plane must have departed from a NORTHERN gate, and that was the crux of the matter. Balsamo held tight to that northern gate for 7 long months, up till now, without giving any number.
I used the numbers Jan Zelman decided on and made a small mistake in thinking he also mentioned them.

Now he, but also you, tezzajw, suddenly make those two NUMBERS the crux of the matter, while you BOTH should be very aware that the meat of this thread STILL is to this day, that he keeps saying that that plane must have departed from a NORTHERN gate, and could not have departed from a southern gate.
See his last post where he again tries to wriggle himself out from a clear case made by me already in the preceding posts but that he totally neglects that it indeed was a southern gate, and we can decide with an error margin of less than 1 meter, which gate it was towed away from, and at which exact spot (within less than 1 meter margin) it started its engines and registered the first subframe number in its new flight of that day, with the exact lat/long number in it.

I have one question to you again, tezzajw. Why do you use only the numbers, but not the NORTHERN remark?
And then make it sound as if my whole argumentation over seven long pages is worthless because of some minor identity switching with gate numbers?
The main problem was and is the NORTHERN position, which I definitely proved to you, is wrong. And I'm gonna give you some additional proof, which will nail the case closed.

You know that the gate number is not very important, it is the overall position. There's a whole building between northern and southern gates. You have to taxi around that huge building to come to an opposite gate!
You can't say that the error margin is so big that it hinders you in determining between north or south of that building, when looking at the first departure positional plots.
If you look at Balsamo's last triumphant post, one thing is clear, he does not attack my mathematical method, showing him to be wrong with his overlay technique.
No, he goes attacking the messenger AGAIN, by claiming that his very spacious and not sharp square M1 ends up in the building.
And he's again neglecting what I showed him in preceding posts, that there still is a Jan Zelman image, which shows a sudden 38 meters shift to the south and that shift to the south of those 38 meters you must add in his picture with the precise plots of the departure route in it.
Thus I am going to show the real one, corrected by me.

Well, let's first make one basic effect clear without already showing that new image.
The plane could not ever leave from a northern gate, which you can conclude from his own 3000+ ft off-set image, which I did my mathematical "trick" on.
Thus, the plane has for sure left from a southern gate. Thus, his assumption that his position M1 must have been inside or against the southern building wall is illogical. Planes do not start from within a building.
He of course knew that Jan's corrected image by me was coming. But he wanted to have his last moment of fame and as usual, just as he did to Warren Stutt, tries to humiliate his opponent.

Here's the, by me corrected from the original Tume image, departure taxiing route :




The runway and taxi lanes you see shimmer through there at the turn south to the first taxi lane, are a Google artifact, as I already explained before.

One thing you, tezzajw, wrote, really managed to upset me :

But, your attempt to discredit Balsamo didn't work as planned, when you had to backpedal and apologise for making the mistake that you did.

Your choice of words shows some state of mind I had not expected from you.

Because he's in fact clearly the one who tries to, and does discredit people!
I am not the one having trouble with admitting my mistakes.

I am trying to get that through to people which have obvious short attention spans (not you, and a lot more here, luckily), who perhaps thought that P49/11T was on our side of the fence.
They have to carefully reconsider if that is true in all cases.

Did you even read my only thread by me there?
Where I gave a lot of info why I think the real Flight 77, departed from Gate D26 and really did impact the Pentagon west wall.
Too many hardworking honest American and foreign witnesses told you that an AA plane impacted.
And not those FALSIFIED FDR's. Those show in fact a fly-over, when you believe the analysis of Balsamo and some others at his site. And that's why he won't admit to a southern gate, with an error margin of less than 1 meter. It immediately proves the whole FDR falsified, which means the death of his fly-over theory.

He wants to keep it an undecided case, so he can go on and on with his analysis of a clearly falsified FDR.
You can't from now on, use any of his years long analyses regarding that now clearly falsified Pentagon FDR.
And it also means you can't trust any of the FDR's, any of the radar data, it's all a big bowl of baloney, offered to us by the perpetraitors themselves, to let us endlessly squabble with our peers, which took the forward movement out of our investigations, they effectively put us on the wrong foot again.

And Balsamo is weeding out all opposition from his forums, WHY ? Is that his real task?
Does he realize for a long time already, that when all these FDR's and radar data are false, his Pilots forum looses a lot of its importance, since there is no truly viable aviation material to analyze anymore.
All these pilots must fall back on other sources again...... The witnesses.
Which I started to address for them in my thread there.....
And I get banned?

It's in fact quite simple to understand why I am so upset about Balsamo's attitude, not only towards me, but to many more intelligent analysts of 9/11. Whether they are right or not, they still add new facts and opinions to the 9/11 discussion, and that is very important, keep the pace going, do not stall.

Tezzajw, I insert a PM I got a week ago, perhaps that gives an impression of what other readers think, contrary of what your impression is.
Btw, thank you CherryV for taking the time to check my arguments here and at P49/!!T, and for taking the time to write your impression of what was going on there in your PM :

7/11
reply forward save delete
from: CherryV
sent: 7/8/11 at 08:09
Hi LabTop,

It is taking me a fair while to go thru your post bit by bit, so much I did not know and so I am following it up as I read through it.

I have been over to browse the Pilot forum too, why are they calling you a troll and saying you did not follow up time and time again with info? Im sorry to ask this, I thought maybe better to ask you in a PM, but feel free to add to a post if needs be.

I don't understand why they would be calling you a Troll for showing up info that they seem to have misrepresented, unless I am totally wrong here, you have done a helluva lot of hard work, and meticulously picked up on errors they have presented.

Are they trying to deliberately hide facts? Or is it a case of none can agree, or that someone is not happy that you found this out?

This is exactly the feeling I get over and over again, when I reread what I represented there.
What the hell makes Balsamo think he can brand me as a "troll"? There is no reason at all, or it must be his constant lying to the audience, about me not giving enough details or a viable flight path arc for the Pentagon attack plane, which I laid in front of their eyes just a few minutes before. He only seems to not have a pair of compasses......

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”

blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...
Noam Chomsky



I'm reminded of Noam when I read this thread.

Tezzajw, you could begin by just reading my post here :
pilotsfor911truth.org...

and Balsamo's answer on that. Btw, in his next post after that, he banned me for "trolling". Be your own judge.
And if you can't detect an obnoxious compulsive .... in there, then I start seriously worrying about you.

Balsamo : I missed it all, because you did not provide a radius. Just as you have still failed to provide one in every one of your posts for any arc you have attempted to draw.
Let me know when you do, plug it into the formulas I have provided based on aerodynamics, and produce numbers based on speed. So far, you fail.

I just gave him a viable arc in my preceding post, he just has to pull up his pair of compasses, and he plainly rejects to, and says I did not give him an arc. Anyone knows what word you have to fill in, after compulsive ......?
I have also posted in that thread a years old image by me, with a composite arc in it, based on all 13 CIT NoC witnesses.
I repeatedly attended him on the fact that the formula he used, is at best a simplified high school formula, it is a case where you assume both constant speed and a constant arc. Basically, a description of a toy plane on a string.
Which of course is totally misleading, that plane descended down from the Navy Annex, corrected its lateral arc towards the space between the ANC and CITGO (4 ANC witnesses, one Helipad operator) and changed engine power ( all witnesses) and then changed its vertical arc about 100 meters in front of Route 27 (Turcios says it dipped its tail to hop over the light poles in front of the Helipad, six Route 27 witnesses in front of the Helipad said it did ref up its engines, some say it made a slight left bank when coming out of its long right bank). That's not by far a plane in a constant arc and with constant speed. Why on earth not one of his pilots there ever reacted on his fairy tale, is a mystery to me.

I also gave him all the real formulas to do the real math, from several online lecture courses by an American Aviation professor. He refuses or does not know how to use them. Integral math too much for him?
It will be an immense task, since you have to guess the speeds, the partial arcs, the banking angles and a myriad of things more. He very well knows that no one on this planet can do that, without a RELIABLE set of data, like a real true FDR. He uses a lot of techno babble, without explaining what he means, every time he tries to convince his readers that he is right and everybody else is wrong.
I still haven't seen him answering my repeated requests to give more details from Dennis Cimino, the FDR expert who said the FDR was garbage, because he did not find carrier and other data in there.

But we have some fifty witness interviews who all describe a huge plane descending down from the Navy Annex and that impacted at the Pentagon's west wall. Passing over some heads inside cars, in front of some windshields or in some of their rear windows, or plainly over their heads, since these people stood near the Helipad.

My arc you used is in the vertical. You have failed to provide a lateral radius for the turn NoC.
Do you even understand the argument? If past experience with you is any indication, you clearly do not.

See? Compulsive .......! Then as always when he has decided that you are his enemy (I just explained to him why I was not! ) the usual humiliation attempt.!
I just gave him, in my preceding post, that lateral radius, and a much better one than his, since I used all the 13 witnesses interviewed by CIT and their remarks about their positions. I did not use a fraudulent FDR to "conclude" to a fly-over, I used honest hardworking US citizens their statements.

Btw, he keeps saying any poster is a troll, the moment you touch his immense ego.
He is really convinced that only him and a few other people with an "aviation" background can really count in his circle of friends. But he leans on intelligent non-aviation people like Tumetufaisdubien who come up with the brainpower which puts his aviation background in the shadows.
Then he write articles in his front page where he copies all their hard work.
A generous guy would ask Tume to write that article, and he would make his own footnotes afterwards.
That's how it's done in scientific circles. And here at ATS.

You should really read some or all of his reactions on the hard work of Warren Stutt. That man was a Saint. Never seen a man with such stamina, staying so civic under all the humiliation by Balsamo, and keep giving his discoveries away for free, so that everyone can read it and interpret it.
In normal scientific circles we expect help from our peers, in this case I suppose that Warren genuinely expected help from Balsamo and friends, since Warren honestly said that he had no aviation background, and hoped to get assistance from all those airliner pilots over there.

Are there really so many of them, actively participating every day in those forums? Looks to me there are a lot of "sleeper cells".
What he got in the end is humiliation, a "troll" vignette, and constant attacks so vicious, that he moved on to Official Theory Followers forums like JREF. Where he hoped to get better assistance. He did not, they pulled him into writing together with two others there, a thesis which was not fully thought out, and has serious flaws in it. At least the version I read months ago.

QUOTE.I gave you the means to calculate the whole flight path after the return to level flight.ENDQUOTE

Do you think a 757 has an instantaneous roll rate?
Do you even know what a roll rate is?
Clearly not.
Let us know how much time you will allow for the aircraft to roll "level" from your NoC turn, after producing the numbers for radius, bank angles and G Loading for the NoC turn, combined with my vertical arc "pull" (which doesnt even impact the first floor). Good luck!

I just gave him the links to the lectures from that US university Aviation professor. I had meticulously tried to implement all those Greek mathematical characters in their posting window, so, I did during three weeks a lot of previewing those characters in my posting windows,quite some complicated formulas and long explanations which could be seen by an admin (or the CIA, the perpetraitors, etc, who want to discredit a pilots forum?) without posting. I have the feeling that some admin there followed me to every post I looked into, there were on the latest and earliest moments always two visitors, one member, me, and one guest (an admin (or a hacker/cracker) can easily hide himself).
Then after three weeks of very hard work, I saw my 89 MB Wordpad with all that text, images, photos and video links disappear in a few seconds, and I could not do anything to stop it, even pulling the Internet cable did not interrupt it. So I immediately tried to use my backup file on the desktop, that one was also EMPTY. Can you understand my frustration now ?
And I am honest to myself, I first considered an outside P49/11T source, nested in between their server and the first backbone, or just somewhere routed to that server first. Seen that done too, in my forum years. Always Virginia servers first, then routed further.
Thus, after a few days off, I posted plainly the links to the Aviation professor, and told them to try those themselves.
However, the reactions from Balsamo and friends were so puzzling to me, and then that ban from nowhere ( see those two posts before he banned me) made me rethink my options. I decided to wait three months, since any sane human being would after that contemplating time, see that my simple math on Balsamo's single image with the UnderTow offset-plotting of 3000+ ft in it, would convince everyone. It did not.

So, quod erat demonstrandum, I have now a strong distrust in the real task of P49/!!T, and if all what is posted there is truly true. That's why I decided to engage Balsamo on neutral grounds, since you have not a shimmer of a chance at his own site.

Btw, I have more than a million miles in passenger airplanes behind me. I'm old, despite my Avatar.
Do you really think that a meticulous guy like me, steps in an airliner without studying what the risks really are, and not delve after that in all kind of books to be able to talk to pilots and cabin personnel on another worldwide flight sequence? They tended to stroll around quite a bit on long flights, and I learned a lot of them.

Ever hear the term, "When in Rome..."?
In other words LaBTop, if you are going to discuss the information with verified professionals, you may at least want to learn the terminology as you'll only end up confusing yourself, while the rest of us laugh.

As the clever ones will have seen, English is not my real language. We tend to need more time for posting, and think longer. We use dictionaries a lot, despite the spell-checking functions nowadays.
Thank you btw, for another attempt on humiliation, Ace.

Let's see how you try to wriggle yourself out of this one again.
You saw what I did? I admitted I made an error, and went on with life.
I will keep a keen eye on you, to iron your errors out.

To the one poster, onesliceshort, before I got banned : do you want to continue our discussion about a fly-over, or an impact? I do. You seem to be gifted with a good analytical mind, just as Tumetufaisdubien/Jan Zelman, so I am eager to extend it to here. Please do not as Balsamo, but use your own screen name, or say in the first post here who you are there. But learn to have some patience with the elderly, we are slower, but meticulous.

Before I forget. Tezzajw.

Did you read when and especially why Balsamo moved my gate posts to a separate thread by himself ?
I'll help you out :
Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757, PilotsFor911Truth.org
Page 5, post #85 :

LaBTop : Apr 4 2011, 03:11 PM Post #85

From the 757 - 200/300 Flight Crew Operations Manual :

QUOTE
The IRS consists of three Inertial Reference Units (IRUs) and the IRS Mode Selector Panel. (for the 200-series)

Fast Alignment
Following operation in the navigation mode and with the airplane parked, performing a fast alignment removes accumulated track, ground speed, and attitude errors, levels the system, and updates present position. This is accomplished by positioning selectors to ALIGN, entering present position, and repositioning selectors to NAV. Fast alignment completes in approximately 30 seconds.

Fast alignment can be accomplished without entering present position. However, greater navigational accuracy is attained by entering present position.

A full alignment must be accomplished when the time from the last full alignment to the completion of the next flight exceeds 18 hours.ENDQUOTE


The pilot should shift all 3 mode selector switches to ALIGN, then enter the present position, and switch all 3 back to NAV. If he does not enter the present position, but keeps it to the earlier, before the last engines-off position, f.ex. the main airport position which could have been entered after landing the last flight, that position would still hang in the IRS memory.
That position is very near to that gate, AA 77 has departed from, as officials tell us.

I do not believe in that scenario, but we have to look at all possible explanations, to be prepared for further back-tracking from the opposition.

NOTE: as you can read, according to the maker of the planes, when you boarded as a pilot a 757-200 or 300, and the last full alignment was less than 18 hours ago, you did not need to perform a full one, but you could pull a fast one.
It looks as if the pilots from that falsified FDR performed a Fast Alignment with entering present position (the D18 or D20 gate position read from the IAD-Jeppesen chart), but used a very fast align 4 times on the way to Runway 30, without entering the present position.
Then, near Runway 30, they used again a Fast Alignment with entering present position. This kind of procedure seems not to change the lat/long data in the FDR, however in another place in the plane's panel it does, and then the plane knows then, where it is.
But all the FOIA released AA FDR's still kept registering the old 3000+ ft far offset position and counted through from that position on, that's why the overall pattern is alright but not the positions. You must copy the pattern onto a real map from an airport by shifting that copied pattern over the map, until all corners and taxi lanes are precisely fitting, then you automatically arrive at the arrival or departure gates. ENDNOTE.

rob balsamo : Apr 4 2011, 03:17 PM Post #86
QUOTE (LaBTop @ Apr 4 2011, 03:11 PM) *
From the 757 - 200/300 Flight Crew Operations Manual : ENDQUOTE


From the American Airlines 757/767 Pre-Flight Checklist (and sourced in the Original post/article of this thread)

(IMG: i47.photobucket.com... )

A FULL alignment is required prior to ALL flights.



QUOTE
That position is very near to that gate, AA 77 has departed from, as officials tell us.ENDQUOTE


No... it isnt "very near to the gate". It is more than 3000 feet in error. There has yet to be one verified pilot willing to come forward and say that he/she is willing to depart with an IRS having more than a 3,000 foot error. Every pilot i have spoken to would never have left the gate with such a large error, nor will I. Let us know when you find one that will. Those who claim to be pilots and make excuse for the govt story, arent even willing to put their name on such an absurd claim of departing with an IRS more than a half mile out of positional alignment.

I am getting the idea that Balsamo asked all those verified pilots he has spoken to, if they would leave the gates with an IRS having that error. The simple solution for Balsamo's misconceptions could be, that the American Airlines IRS is updated by the pilots at the gates, but then the FDR does not get updated automatically. The FDR remembers the last full align, and adds all the new positions, but far offset. And when all the AA pilots followed the same time-saving Fast Align procedure, while all consequent flights were all within 12 hours from eachother, there was no need to do a full align, as Boeing says. And everything we found so far, seems to indicate that exactly that was the case, TIME-SAVING by a greedy airline before departure.
Remember, it is not the FDR which flies the plane, it's the INS/IRS system which knows where the exact position of the plane is while flying. And while taxiing....

Perhaps it was so obvious for the NTSB people, that they not even bothered to react on his emails, after the first one that mentioned an IRS offset error instead of an FDR offset error.

LaBTop : Apr 4 2011, 03:39 PM Post #87
I am with you on this subject, don't worry, we are not all your enemies.
But always be prepared for any new arguments. Better from us, than from them.

Here are three screen shots from the IRS page in the FCOM :

Part one :
(IMG: files.abovetopsecret.com... )

Part two :
(IMG: files.abovetopsecret.com... )

Part three :
(IMG: files.abovetopsecret.com... )

I thought I read somewhere in this thread that the airport long/lat definition was very near that gate, I'll gonna check it, and find that post.
Probably that poster was in error then, or worded it a bit too broad.


QUOTE
Rob : ""A FULL alignment is required prior to ALL flights.
No... it isn't "very near to the gate". It is more than 3000 feet in error. There has yet to be one verified pilot willing to come forward and say that he/she is willing to depart with an IRS having more than a 3,000 foot error. Every pilot i have spoken to would never have left the gate with such a large error. "" ENDQUOTE


If the last full alignment was within 18 hours after completion of the next (to be flown) flight, a fast alignment seems to be OK.
According to this FCOM.

Balsamo : Apr 4 2011, 03:49 PM Post #88
QUOTE1 (LaBTop @ Apr 4 2011, 03:39 PM) *
Here are three screen shots from the IRS page in the FCOM :
ENDQUOTE

That is not from American Airlines. It is a generic document. Read, Learn and Study please.

QUOTE2
I thought I read somewhere in this thread that the airport long/lat definition was very near that gate, I'll gonna check it, and find that post.
Probably that poster was in error then, or worded it a bit too broad. ENDQUOTE


Once you shift the error/offset and align the lat/long with runways and taxiways, the plot is then departing a gate which is different than D26, the gate claimed to be used by "Aa77".

Read, study and learn.

pilotsfor911truth.org...


QUOTE3
If the last full alignment was within 18 hours after completion of the next (to be flown) flight, a fast alignment seems to be OK.
According to this FCOM. ENDQUOTE


Wrong. A FULL Alignment is required prior to all flights during Pre-Flight Checks on ALL American Airlines 757/767's. Again, your document is not from American Airlines, mine is.

The Pre-Flight Check does not occur "18 hours prior to departure". It occurs when you arrive at the aircraft and provide power with intention to board passengers and then go flying.

Read the American Airlines procedures.

The data is not from an American Airlines 757, nor the aircraft described as "AA77", nor does the data support an impact with the Pentagon.

Reaction on his answer on my Quote nr1 : I just had proved to him that I read, learn and study by posting that Boeing manual, which he could not find, like so much more; onesliceshort had to find the Biggles 757 cockpit software for him, which I found in 3 secs.
If I were a pilot, I would study the Boeing manual a tad bit more intensive than the Airline manual, at least I would compare them one by one.... And I would every time balance my decision, if I should use the makers advice, or the greedy buyers. Always with the value of my life and that from my passengers as the first contemplation.
Balsamo however loves to show himself off as the pedant prick he acts like. Like an actor.

Reaction on his answer on my Quote nr2 : That poster turned out to be him. He knew what I meant, but directly moved my next posts to the Debate forum, where everyone can have fun with people who do not follow self-proclaimed leaders. Childish behavior. And came up with his 3000+ feet, again. Boring.

Reaction on his answer on my Quote nr3 : There are very strong indicators that you, Balsamo were wrong. It looks as if all FDR pilots paid by AA, were neglecting at least for weeks after weeks, your precious American Airlines Manual.
And chose to follow Boeing's Manual.

Balsamo : Apr 5 2011, 12:07 AM Post #89
The rest of this "debate" with LaBTop has been moved to our Debate section here.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Read those posts too to get the whole picture....


I think I have to repeat all the meticulous footwork by Jan Zelman and Warren Stutt, then compare it with the NTSB data,( like they did!)
Then plot it using my skills, and see if I get somewhere else than all these certified, verified pilots over at P49/!!T.

I showed the readers at the begin of this post, the corrected by me, already pattern-precise lat/long plots by Jan Zelman, from that first 9/11 engines-start lat/long point on, up till Runway 30, where the plane began to take-off.

There you can see, that there were seven 90° turns "made" by that plane, described in that falsified FDR, in the last 300 meters before turning onto Runway 30 and following take-off, according to Jan's precise plots.

Which he by the way got from Warren Stutt, who made his own software program to decode the offered FOIA released FDR's himself.
A plane does not make such crazy moves, thus it is surely every time a 30 seconds at the maximum, Fast Align, they probably made a position input every time when they saw those small, low but long white signs along the taxi lanes with that spot's lat/long on them in glowing in the night characters. Or one or both of the pilots had a GPS device with him.

Warren Stutt also decoded Flight 93 its FOIA released FDR, which btw also had such a huge offset from the runway and taxi lanes, so it looks that AA pilots all used Fast Align procedures, to loose no time at departure.

I will pay close attention to Warren's decode, since I have a few, unknown to most of you, facts to compare at last against a decoded FDR from Flight 93. Which will prove that that FDR is also for sure a falsification.

And Warren, if you read this, I would love to talk with you. About a lot of analytical details regarding your wonderful work.
But not at JREF, it's the same snake-pit atmosphere as at P49/!!T. I abhor the groupies mentality expressed there, one good remark, 50 hails. One bashing of an honest visitor, 100 even worth styled bashings, without a shimmer of additional value to the discussion point.


Ah, yes, Tezzajw.

The problem I have with that northern gate of Balsamo, is that he based his stubbornness on 2 things.

1. He keeps saying to this day, that the INS/IRS has an inherent far too big error margin, to be able to pinpoint a specific gate.
I called him out on that, and proved to him just a few post back, and again and again, that he should do his homework better.
The error margin of the Google Earth images he used, is smaller than ONE METER, while he keeps saying that it, combined with the error margin of the INS/IRS on the ground, is so big, that you can not discern if a plane is parked at a northern gate, or a southern gate. Total misinformation of the baddest kind. The last figure he used in this thread was 50 feet (15.24 meters). The combined error margin after pattern shift is the best and smallest margin, which is less than 1 meter.

2. He refused to accept all the hints for a southern gate he got from his own members, and stubbornly holds on to "a northern gate" in his front page article, because it better fits normal airline procedure, or words like that. Whatever that may mean. To this day he holds on to a northern gate.


In the 9/11gate thread he already slightly back-paddles now, by introducing D18 and even D20 further east (which is impossible) "when it was a southern gate".

I mixed his broad remark of a northern gate up with Jan's remark of it being D9 or 11, because Balsamo used all his discoveries verbatim in his front page article, but not Jan's first post identification of those northern gates.

Balsamo held it vague, "a northern gate." But still won't let it go, and correct that statement, after all the evidence I laid out that it is a southern gate indeed.
And he took not at all took in consideration that post of Jan Zelman with his find of a sudden 38 meters position shift while the plane was standing in the exact same angle as its departure Runway 30 :



That's it for now, sleep well.

LaBTop, this is from my first post to you in this thread:

Originally posted by tezzajw
Basic summary that I gather is:
You: Gate D18.
Balsamo: Gate D9 or D11.

LaBTop, this is from my second post to you in this thread:

Originally posted by tezzajw
So far:
You: Gate D18
Balsamo: Gate D19 or 21 maybe from a North push gate?

Today you have asked me the following question:

Originally posted by LaBTop
I have one question to you again, tezzajw. Why do you use only the numbers, but not the NORTHERN remark?

LaBTop, in my second post to you, you will see that I used the words 'North push gate' as part of Balsamo's claim on P4T. I don't see why you're claiming that I never mentioned the North push gate, when it was clearly stated in my second post???

LaBTop, do you agree that the following summary is correct with regards to push gate claims?
Official story: Gate D26
Stutt and Legge: Gate D26
You: Gate D18
Balsamo: Gate D19 or D21 - a gate that's East and more likely North

If you don't agree with that summary, please state what you think it should be. All I was trying to do, from my initial post, was to figure out who was claiming what with regards to the push gate. You have to admit, that your mistaken claim about Balsamo only served to cause more confusion. That's why my second post contained a correction to Balsamo's claim and your follow-up apology helped everyone to understand who was claiming what.

As I've stated a couple of times before: You and Balsamo both agree that the data is probably false and gate D26 was probably not the push gate.

If you feel that Balsamo was attacking you in the P4T forum, fine. However, it's also fairly obvious that you've attacked him here as well. He's called you a 'clown' on P4T, you've called him a 'pedant prick' in this thread.

All I'm saying is that when you claim Balsamo treated you poorly on the P4T forum, you were quick to insult him here on neutral ATS ground. You've done exactly the same thing to him, that you are accusing him of doing to you.

What a wicked world we live in.




A lot of us will have to contemplate on our position regarding the 9/11 Pentagon attack.

Please take the time to let this sink in.

I do believe this is the real, reality corrected Jan Zelman image.
I must say that this was the last thing I expected to come up.
However, every honest researcher will publish all data, also the ones he did not expect.....

Tezzajw, sorry, this really blew my mind off. I have to rethink quite some latest years posts.
It's clear that Balsamo suddenly is not so important to me anymore.

Btw, the answer you asked for is suddenly a totally different one, for me :
This is with great certainty, the real gate in that thus NOT FALSIFIED Flight 77 FDR depicting the departure of Flight 77 from Gate D26.
That gap I drew, is exactly the same length and angle, as the second Fast Align, above the one at the bottom, which Jan Zelman already found. The one I found, must be a Fast Align, coincidences like this, that's too much to not be true.

Pay special attention at the two orange triangles I drew near the gates, I think many of you will instantly understand that they are duplicates from the ones I drew at the bottom of our image (Jan and me).
A lot of the praise should go to him, it's guys like him who do all the hard "footwork" that get things moving.

WHAT A SURPRISE for a lot of us.

And I'm sure there are a lot of pilots, ATS'ers, JREF'ers etc, who will be just as shocked as I was when I saw these white lines develop under my fingers on my screen, and when I put the correct orange lines, angles and distances in, I was totally surprised.

I am VERY curious what Balsamo and friends have to say about this image.

You see, the combined brainpower of two analytically trained researchers nullifies all that aviation experience of all these pilots, who were all standing on the wrong foot.
Me too, in a very long first instance, I have to admit graciously.
I hope he learns some modesty from this totally unexpected by both of us, development.
I do, for sure. What a shock.

Logic tells us, that this gives evidence of a few things I already addressed.
Planes FLY aided by their INS/IRS, and planes REGISTER the flying through their FDR's.
Pilots and owners choose for ease of operation and speed, not for "concrete rules". Thus those Fast Aligns.

Imagine that you have it printed out, and you cut both Fast Align distances out with a scissor. Then you move the three separated pieces you are left with back down, until they are connected again, the bottom one on Runway 30, and the middle one with its bottom to the Runway 30 green line drawn by Jan Zelman, and to the over the old Ramp F taxiing plane. Now lay that again over a second print out which you did not cut, and you see how much distance the plane is placed further south then Jan showed them first with his green line. In effect, you have moved it those 2 orange triangles at the top, downwards to the south.

Also take in account, that Ramp G and H were not there or could not be used yet, in September 2001, I expect, because the new 2004 Jeppesen Chart for IAD (Dulles Int. Airport) remarks, that its reason that it was printed were the addition of Ramps G and H.
Left corner bottom : Changes : G and H ramp added, taxiways.
Here's the screenshot :

Original size = 1024px x 791 px : files.abovetopsecret.com...
ATS size 640x494 :




To show you that Gate D26 its passenger loading tubes were stretched out to the southeast of the D-Concourse, see this HD image of Dulles D-Concourse :

Original size = 1.166px × 799px : files.abovetopsecret.com...
ATS size = 640px x 438px :



The distance to the next passenger loading tube is 68 meters / 232 feet.

Took some time to think it completely through, result : this :

Either the taxi lane was different in 2001 than all the photos the pilots post from 2010 and 2011. (post the ones from 2001)
Or, there is only one Fast Align, the one Jan Zelman found.

Jan, can you look for another sudden positional shift at the spot I indicated, to the north of the one you found?
If I look at the Jeppesen chart from 2004, where they said the Ramps G and H were added, and taxiways, I see a somewhat different configuration than nowadays.

Why? Because I made a mistake in the first corrected one, two posts ago.
Thus I made the final corrections, see this one :

The clever observers will have noticed that the first Fast Align is in fact resulting in the smallest orange triangle, and the second one in the bigger triangle.
That's why I should have switched both, the smaller triangle must be the most north one in my image, the bigger one south of the smaller one.
Red/white dot 2 lays then just a few meters right of Jan Zelman's red dot D26 in my image.

EDIT1 : Changed image. Added one text line to indicate D26 as departure point.
EDIT2 : I will have to change this image again, because I see I have still included in my white taxiing line, the first sudden Fast Align position switch line-length, and that's the reason why there was a gap in that line, exactly the wideness of that first switch, which of course has to be erased from that white taxiing line by me. I'm gonna do that now, just wait an hour or so, for my next post.



Thus you see immediately, that this FDR in fact depicts the usual Gate D26, at its INS/IRS start up in the morning of 9/11.
And that that part of its FDR thus really was recording Flight 77.
The passenger tubes from Gates D26 and its neighbor D24 both are usually rolled out in a southeastern direction.

It also gives evidence in hard copy, that the ramper's interview I linked to in one of my former posts, by the FBI is a correct interview, the man said that the pilots from Flight 77 started their engines while under tow, which is not usual behavior. The pilots also did not wave when uncoupled from their tow, to this ramper walking back from the plane's nose wheel to his tow tractor, which is also unusual behavior, all according to this ramper.

This question may be too basic for most of the commenters here to think they should bother answering, but I would appreciate an answer, if anyone doesn't mind doing so.

This discussion is very lengthy, and the original poster's information is a little technical for me. I am open to possibilities, and certainly do not trust the government. I do not understand, though, where the discussion is going when alternate planes are discussed, or no planes at all. Why would different planes have crashed into the towers/field/pentagon, what is the purpose? Did the alternate planes also have people on themf? If they did have people on them, why has nobody reported these family members dead? If the people on the real flights, which it is being suggested didn't crash, didn't die, where are they and why hasn't somebody seen them? Again, if no planes actually crashed at all, where are the people that the family members claim are dead?

If researchers want the "sheeple" to stop being "sheeple", then besides putting out your technical data, you should also put out some plain english summaries of what you think you have proven, and why you think it may have went that way. It would be worth your time, I think, since you have already went to so much trouble.

All five 90° turns are Fast Aligns, which must be eliminated from the taxi path, beginning at nr 1, and so on downwards to nr 5. Just cut out the equal distances around the 90° corners. The route becomes shorter by the sum of the diagonals between all horizontal and vertical legs beside those five 90° turns.





By the way, this is the image by JanZelman I have used to correct :



Jan Zelman's original image, with all five 90° turns in it.
A 757 does not make 90° sudden turns, while it also suddenly jumps to another latitude and longitude.
That is a sure indication that the pilots were typing in every time it occurred, in less than 30 seconds per event, the Boeing Manual listed Fast Aligns. And probably used the IAD Gate D26 position at tow-off from the gate, and a handheld GPS device at the other 4 positions.
Or just used their rulers on the Jeppesen chart, where the latitudes and longitudes are printed on the sides.

Jan Zelman wrote that he painstakingly has plotted all UnderTow FDR decode its COUNTER numbers their latitude and longitude data, then shifted them all a set distance (horizontal and vertical) which he found by comparing also known set turning points and runway landing and lift-off points.

In the coming days I am gonna plot the latitude/longitude data from UnderTow his decode, the Warren Stutt data from his decode, and the NTSB data from their decode, in a HD Google map.
And shift them in the same manner, to compare the three of them.
Why nobody ever did that, is beyond my grasp.
It's not complicated math, it's simple math.

Originally posted by gidwa
This question may be too basic for most of the commenters here to think they should bother answering, but I would appreciate an answer, if anyone doesn't mind doing so.

This discussion is very lengthy, and the original poster's information is a little technical for me. I am open to possibilities, and certainly do not trust the government. I do not understand, though, where the discussion is going when alternate planes are discussed, or no planes at all.

One thing is clear, you at last convinced yourself, that you have to join a 9/11 forum, and start to ask for answers. The problem with that is usually, that you first have to catch up with the few of us who are checking up every damn lying government we can. That's about all of them.
That means, that you have to start reading first. Now I know, that most of you fresh entering people, have lurked as a reader, most of the time. So, I expect that to be true for you, too.

In this case, I gave you several times the link to the only thread I managed to begin (7 pages) at the P49/11T forum. That's your lead. Then read this one again, then ask me again what is not clear to you.

Forget alternate planes, I just proved to myself, that against everything I believed up till this day, there was simply the same plane as ever that took off from Dulles at its normal departure time.
Flight 77, spotted by ground personnel at it's usual Gate D26.
At last we can say that the FDR handed over by the NTSB depicts at least the right departure gate.

We still have all the NoC witnesses, and according to P49/11T, that same FDR does not depict a NoC flight path.


Thus, no alternate planes. The plane left from the right gate.

And no planes? This is not the thread for that, I do believe all the planes were where we saw them end up, except for flight 93. Too many anomalies that indicate real foul play with perhaps two identical looking planes, or one plane that flew on and another one which shot a hole in the ground where wreckage of a plane was planted in the months before.
If we follow the witnesses, that plane flew so low in the last kilometer, that it would have had to steeply ascend and then descend vertically, to have been able to disappear in that hole.

One quite shocking effect from this thread is, that I, the OP writer, did not expect at all to find out, that when we re-arrange the lat/long data registered in that Flight 77 FDR system, for the five Fast Aligns we see happening in that image above, in effect we have proved to ourselves that the US government at least in one thing was honest.
Flight 77 has departed from its usual Gate D26 at 09:10 a.m. on 9/11.
Now we have to find out if that FDR really does not show a North of CITGO flying plane.

Why would different planes have crashed into the towers/field/pentagon, what is the purpose? Did the alternate planes also have people on themf? If they did have people on them, why has nobody reported these family members dead? If the people on the real flights, which it is being suggested didn't crash, didn't die, where are they and why hasn't somebody seen them? Again, if no planes actually crashed at all, where are the people that the family members claim are dead?

If researchers want the "sheeple" to stop being "sheeple", then besides putting out your technical data, you should also put out some plain english summaries of what you think you have proven, and why you think it may have went that way. It would be worth your time, I think, since you have already went to so much trouble.

I thought I already used an overload of plain English in extensive posts to really try to make it easier for you.
But you must follow all links and read them too, otherwise you will stay in the league of uninformed 60 seconds TV-news packages convicts.
During the first year you will find out, that reading delivers the most, and the fastest solutions for your thoughts and worries.

That plane really flew into the Pentagon, but it did not come further than the back wall of the first ring, the E-ring. Then 20 minutes later they let the building collapse on top of the wreckage inside.
That way they could clean up the place during many later months, in all secrecy.
When the scientists at last were allowed in, the wreckage was gone, and the rest of the building interior was cleaned out.
It looks as if a lot of planning went into this attack on the Pentagon, and that one tiny little detail went wrong.
Perhaps the mast on the other side of the NAVY Annex, from the Washington Transportation office, stood not on their flight map...

That's why the explosive charges, planted months before during the renovation of that wedge of the building, went off and created a damage path inside, that seemed to indicate a plane flying south of the CITGO gas station, and penetrating the west wall at an 62° and something, angle. And did end up at the back wall from the C-ring. Which was an entry hole to get to the Navy's ONI office, about the most secret office they had there, with the most secrets in their main frames. All gone, no backup, were we told.

That decoded by UnderTow ( who more, assisted with that decoding? ) a77.2_complete.cvs file at P49/11T Forum is so loaded with anomalies that we can truly say that, if an FAA inspector had checked that FDR before take-off, he would have alarmed the whole Airport, and Airports country-wide, to immediately stop all departing American Airline flights and keep them grounded, until the problems with their FDR's were found and solved.
One of them :

COUNTER nrs, ALT, ALTrad,
147198.000, 2792, 2790,
147199.000, 2830, 4000,

And from that moment on, the ALTrad value flutters back and forth from 4000 to 2795 nearly the whole length of that file, until it reaches nearly at the end of the file, this counter number, where it changed at last, back to normal values which stay in line with the constantly changing ALT values, which represent the altitudes recorded by the plane's InternalNavigationalSystem / InternalReferenceSystem and also saved in its FlightDataRecorder :

151719.000, 2884, 2577,

and then it goes on, registering a following quite bumpy ALTRAD descend, until it registers a constant steep dive downwards in the last 24 seconds, recorded in the COUNTER's
151719.000 second up till 151764 second and then the fourth and fifth #ERROR lines were recorded.
UnderTow posted that he had asked for those extra 2 lines.
Asked who? I don't know, did he ask the decoder, or the NTSB? Why should the NTSB gave him those? They already gave him all they got, they said. So, it must have been the decoder, who's name and credentials have not been given as far as I can find, by UnderTow and Balsamo.


That is a fluent descent rate. And we know that it ends not at the Pentagon wall, but somewhere beside the Sheraton Hotel.
It was Warren Stutt who found another extra 4 seconds in the "tail" of the NTSB decode which were not fully complete (that's why the NTSB did file them as ERROR), they lacked more and more data values, the more the plane neared in those last 4 seconds the Pentagon's west wall.
So I am going to analyze Warren's last extra 4 seconds, to see what exactly I can extract from them. If I can find some other anomalies, and in case I do, if I can prove then, that the plane flew into the west wall, with that FDR decode in hand.

Warren, if you read this, I invite you to contact me through ATS personal message system.
Just become a member, and PM me.
We should combine real analyzing powers to finally put all these years of squabbling aside.
Jan Zelman, to you the same invitation, you have an analytical brain, just as Warren. Anyone else who thinks he can put some new power to real and honest 9/11 investigations, I extend the same invitation to.
For example _Bonez_, Brian11, Achimspock, Weedwhacker, the two JREF guys I mentioned, we can easily use the internal PM system at ATS to nearly full-time communicate.

We can ask ATS to extend the PM possibilities only for those who participate, so we can communicate without the time brake on it. Now you must wait a few minutes before you can PM again, so the servers are not overloaded by all the members suddenly PM-ing eachother when a global event strikes again and again and again. They know we get easily upset (smile).
But after all these years at ATS, I also know that their first concern is to be honest and neutral towards their members.
That's why I call ATS my online home. There are not many more like them

I must say this is a great post. I like to thank the person for starting this thread, now I must start reading quite a long way's to go.

reply to post by Evanvoid


Let me spoil the ending for you. In the end the truthers lose.

Originally posted by LaBTop
if an FAA inspector had checked that FDR before take-off, he would have alarmed the whole Airport, and Airports country-wide, to immediately stop all departing American Airline flights and keep them grounded, until the problems with their FDR's were found and solved.
One of them :

COUNTER nrs, ALT, ALTrad,
147198.000, 2792, 2790,
147199.000, 2830, 4000,

And from that moment on, the ALTrad value flutters back and forth from 4000 to 2795 nearly the whole length of that file, until it reaches nearly at the end of the file, this counter number, where it changed at last, back to normal values which stay in line with the constantly changing ALT values, which represent the altitudes recorded by the plane's InternalNavigationalSystem / InternalReferenceSystem and also saved in its FlightDataRecorder :

You do understand that this is radar altitude not pressure altitude ? You do know the difference right?

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by Evanvoid

 

Let me spoil the ending for you. In the end the truthers lose.

So from what I will presume from you reply, we should believe the American Government?