Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NoC versus SoC issue. Let's set the facts straight, once and for all.

page: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by huh2142
reply to post by LaBTop
 


LapTop,

Are you trying to convince yourself that you are correct? No one else seems to be buying what you are selling. Good luck in figuring out the truth.

If I recall correctly it was quite a struggle for you to figure out the correct departure point of this flight.


That's right, and ALL these so called pilots and flight engineers and god knows who else in all these 9/11 conspiracy and debunking boards and blogs, were not capable of doing exactly that, with the minimal facts we had at hand.
I was the only one that succeeded in exactly calculating what the taxi lanes roll out path was for AA 77, in that start of the FDR. Based on the footwork of Tumetuesdubien from PfT, who however did not dare to come to the inevitable conclusion, which got me banned at PfT.
He knew he would be banned too, when he would have ended his previous work to the logical conclusion.

I did not notice you participating in that thread, nor in any thread at Pf911Truth.
So what fine work did you do to unravel the truly amazing facts of 9/11::::::?????

PS: try to write my screen name correct in future.




posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
AA77-55°toWall-35°toPerpendicularToWall-65°trueNorth124Feet-wingspan

External full URL link:
files.abovetopsecret.com...




Can anybody explain this drawing away?
Only when you either :

Move the impact point far up north,
or
Move the 42° line far up north.

In both cases the wingspan of the plane does not clip that foot stand of the VDOT-camera mast off anymore.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Six SigmaDid you bother to look at the receipt? The Citgo video and hard drive were confiscated on September 12th. Not within "minutes" of impact.


Well in the interest of "truth", the receipt I posted was the one issued to DPS for their camera footage, not the Citgo. I challenged LaBtop to produce similar receipts as evidence of his claims regarding the Citgo camera, using that one as an example.

The Citgo video runs a full two hours if I recall correctly. So definitely was not confiscated within "minutes", but rather "hours" at the least. The "original" VHS tape was donated to the Arlington County Public Library. But nothing unusual about that. They wanted to secure the video record before people started getting the idea of taking them home as souvenirs. If I recall (been a few years now), Fort Myers told me that the FBI was on the scene rather promptly (within hours) to look at their footage. However they did not take their footage because theirs were located at gates and mainly looked at the in and out lanes. Sadly, they recorded over the footage from the day (rather standard procedure) when they did their monthly tape rotation.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Always doubt everything, thus, also your own words.

After I stared for a day at my above drawing, I saw my mistake.
The impact point was not where I drew it, I remembered my photo from page 1 where you can see that tree stump right under the impact hole in the west wall.
So, when I pivoted my yellow line around the 19 meter line start point at the VDOT camera mast, which 19 meter line depicts half the wingspan of a B757, until its impact-end rotates so far north that it touches that tree you vaguely see, but its shadow better, then that resulting yellow line runs parallel to the ASCE 42° line.

I also remembered that little post of mine where I mentioned the last FDR its Lat/Long values found by Achimspok :
38°52'08.77" N
77°03'45.82" W
This can be used as another fixed point where to draw lines from, towards the impact point, now precisely known as at the broken trunk of that tree that grew just in front of the west wall.
In all the following GE-maps I used, you can see that tree but its shadow much better.

I made a series of corrections on my above drawing, beginning with this one :



The above one is still using the wrong impact point, that's why the attack angle drawn from the last Lat/Long values from the AA 77 its FDR, is too high.

then I drew this one, in a 4/1/1999 GE map, because that one shows the lamp poles and the VDOT camera mast their shadows so damn well :




And then this one :



And the last, very precise one, which comforted me at last, since it shows that the FDR data support an SoC flight path EXACTLY, and also the exit hole position.
But not the internal damage path, that line is a 36° angle to the perpendicular on the wall.



I am convinced now at last, that also the end values from the recovered FDR from Flight AA 77 are just as right as the starting values at Dulles International. They do cover the observed internal and external damage paths, also the exit hole, and the damage to the VDOT camera mast, the tree beside the north side of the south going lanes of Route 27, and the right and left wing tips were able to cut the 5 lamp poles on its 62.21° attack flight path :




Do note that the Lat/Long values for the last FDR positional values are shown in the center bottom.
And in other GE maps the impact Lat/Long values in the center bottom.
That impact point is as good as precisely at the broken off tree stump, which is clearly to see under the impact hole, in all the Riskus and all the other photographers their 9/11 photo-shoots.

Thus, now I have proved to myself that the FDR is either the true FDR belonging to the true AA 77 flight on 9/11.
Or it is a very clever constructed falsified copy.
This last sentence is only true, if we can prove that the NoC witnesses were not mistaken.


A good start would be to come up with the exact positions taken on 9/11 by Christine, Penny and Vin. If they also were near or at either Exit sign 1 or 2, then I am going to believe that those two Pentagon Police sergeants have played a very sad prank on us all.



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Thus, now I have proved to myself that the FDR is either the true FDR belonging to the true AA 77 flight on 9/11.
Or it is a very clever constructed falsified copy. This last sentence is only true, if we can prove that the NoC witnesses were not mistaken.


Let me see if have this right now? Your precisely measured path (according to you) matches the falsified FDR which matches the falsified damage path which matches the falsified ASCE Building Performance Report which matches the falsified video from the gate camera and the deciding factor to decide which is the truth is a interpretation of a bunch of outlier witnesses all to the North of the flight path who were interviewed and interpreted by a bunch of LYING clowns?

I am absolutely shocked at the truly astounding logic being demonstrated. Labtop, you will go down in history as the one who finally discovered the conspiracy after 11 exhausting years of searching for the truth.

I want an invitation to the award ceremony of your Pulitzer Prize. I promise I'll be there, but only if I can stop laughing long enough to attend.

ETA: Just imagine, Labtop, you might even be knighted by the Queen in her Jubilee year. Sir, Labtop has a nice ring to it, don't you think?
edit on 26-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


The only thing which doesn't match and which amazes me still, is the ASCE Building Performance Report angle they deduced, of being 42° to the perpendicular on the wall.
I measured 36° to the perpendicular on the wall.
That's 6° too little, while the exit hole fits perfectly my drawn attack line heading of 62.21° true north..

Did the ASCE team measure nearly all their drawings wrong? I already pointed at that fact, while showing you all those ASCE drawings with wrong angles in them (when you compare them to their accompanying text).
Also, the fuselage of the plane goes in all the ASCE report drawings through the trailer, while in my last map you can see that it just misses the 2001-corner (imagine that 2001 fence corner as the perpendicular on the protruding part of the west wall). The fence in this above 62.21° flight path drawing by me, on a 1999 GE map, is stretching longer north.

I am now going to try to prove the NoC witnesses wrong.
That is the only task left for my Pentagon investigation.
I already asked you guys to help (John?) with the CITGO video. I think I have to re-install my old high resolution Illyama multi-sync monitor for a while, those are outright sharper than these flat screens.
I still have the impression that Lagasse stood the wrong way to an eventual NoC flying plane, with his back to the gas pump.

I also realized that the flash on the ceiling can be for example the impact flash reflected from a parked car window, that stood parked under a specific angle to that CITGO canopy ceiling.
I must now calculate how many seconds it should take for a NoC flying AA 77, from north of that canopy to impact.
I will do that later. (for the FDR end speed and for various other speeds).
When it takes f.ex. 2 seconds, then the immediate reaction of all the people in the CITGO video is not logically connected to an impact flash. In such a multiple seconds from impact case, it must have been something else what caused that flash, and not the impact. We will see.

Reheat, I did sleep a lot better tonight.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

I am now going to try to prove the NoC witnesses wrong.
.


911files believes that this is brooks car and brooks said the plane appeared on his left side.

That would place the plane south.




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by LaBTop

I am now going to try to prove the NoC witnesses wrong.
.


911files believes that this is brooks car and brooks said the plane appeared on his left side.

That would place the plane south.



Well, I would not say that I "believe" that for sure, but definitely a strong candidate and the only one on the video who even comes close to matching where Brooks said he was at the station. But, what little that can be seen of him when he does go inside the station earlier is a good match.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 911files

Well, I would not say that I "believe" that for sure,


Sorry for putting words in your mouth, but I wasn't sure what word to use. Thanks for clarifying.

He does also race off towards the pentagon Immediately after impact that is the response i would expect from a policeman. The average person would get out of the car stand there and look.


edit on 27-6-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


Of course the response will be, "you can't tell who is who on that video!". Well, CIT could tell who Lagasse was. I would however avoid using the YouTube version of the video to do any analysis with. Quite frankly, the quality is so bad you can't tell much at all. Hopefully he downloaded the HQ version from MegaUploads before the Feds shut it down. If not, then he can always download my old files from 911datasets.org.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
CIT let Chadwick Brooks tell in his interview, that he and his car were parked at the opposite parking, along St. Joyce Street, and his car stood in the first parking space to the left of the entrance lane of it, seen from the west side of the CITGO gas station.
It's the long stretched out parking under the row of trees that grow along Columbia Pike, where that street winds downhill from the Navy Annex its former Wing 8 building, where now the NAVY Memorial is situated.
That row of trees lines up parallel with the CITGO station its western facing canopy rim.

I think I have once downloaded the HQ version from that closed down mass download site.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
CIT let Chadwick Brooks tell in his interview, that he and his car were parked at the opposite parking, along St. Joyce Street, and his car stood in the first parking space to the left of the entrance lane of it, seen from the west side of the CITGO gas station.
It's the long stretched out parking under the row of trees that grow along Columbia Pike, where that street winds downhill from the Navy Annex its former Wing 8 building, where now the NAVY Memorial is situated.
That row of trees lines up parallel with the CITGO station its western facing canopy rim.

I think I have once downloaded the HQ version from that closed down mass download site.


I find it strange that you accept without question what Brooks said his location was 5 years after the event. Yet as we see, Lagasse and Turcios got their position wrong and you spent most of this thread questioning the location of all the other witnesses. Do I detect a slight bias in your research?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Thanks John, for that depository of your old FOIA acquired files once posted at AA77flight.com

One thing I still have to clear up : my remarks about the ASCE report angle of 42°.

When I was contemplating again on the below map with my deduction of the real attack angle which Google Earth provides, and its accompanying yellow flight path line, based on two well-known by now, and also well-defined points; one thing came to mind, that I could calculate the ASCE internal damage angle from this :

1. The last recorded Lat / Long positions of AA 77 that can be found in the recovered FDR.
That's the green dot I drew, the starting point of my yellow colored AA 77 flight path line, south-east of the CITGO gas station
and
2. The impact was on column 14 head on, but since I can't find a precise GSM value for that exact position of that column on 9/11, I used a substitute, which is also very precise, enough for our purpose. It's clear to see in a few Riskus photos, that the broken off tree stump, left over from the trunk of the tree that AA 77 must have hit head-on before hitting column 14, is situated nearly exactly below the center line through the impact hole at column 14 and at the re-bar filled, second floor concrete slab.

GE gave me the heading angle, when I drew that yellow line from the last FDR position to that tree's trunk, even better to see in the 1999 GE snapshot of the Pentagon area by observing the starting point of the foliage shadow.






Since I read in many posts, that in the Pentagon area the difference between magnetic heading and true north heading is 10.2°, it's easy to calculate the resulting ASCE internal damage path angle :

62.21° true north heading - 10.2 = 52.0° magnetic heading.
That's thus 90° - 52.0° = 38° to the perpendicular on the west wall which is not the ASCE report's 42°.

That yellow line makes an angle with the 90° perpendicular on the west wall of 36° when measured with my graduated arc.
I measured the angle with the west wall to be 54°, thus to the perpendicular on the west wall is 90° - 54° = 36° which is not the ASCE report's 42°.

And one thing is also clear, there is a consistent 2° difference between what I measure with a good graduated plastic arc, and what the GE heading calculator gives as their angles.

And I constantly use the GE function to reset the true north and true 90°-down map-view :
GE-menu : View-Reset-Tilt and Compass,
to be sure that I always have the exact same standard map views to work with.

One possible reason for the GE to arc-measuring anomaly could be something I discovered during enlarging of a GE map with the mouse its scroll-wheel.
In extreme enlarging cases, the heading angle of a fixed position, indicated by the little hand or bullseye, does move away considerably while the Lat/Long position changes too.
However, the fixed starting position of the point on that map where my yellow line starts, clearly does not move during extreme GE-enlarging of the map (zooming-in).
When I then re-position my little hand icon back over the starting point of my yellow line, the exact same Lat/Long is indicated again from the FDR.

I do this to be able to measure angles with my graduated arc as exact as can be. And at the same time, being able to compare them with the GE heading angle GE provides in its small Ruler _

For those reading this, and asking themselves what rare breed I must be, the answer is in a description from my home country. I am, literally translated, what they call, an "ant-fornicator". With the accompanying occasional smile...
In your English it is something I can't type here (ant f......), but I hope you get it.
Someone dedicated to an extreme amount of detailed evidence, so he will be able to weed out his own research mistakes, and at the same time mistakes made by others (f.ex. peer-reviewers).

That is the reason I also still have questions about this ASCE report drawing, where their 42° impact line when extended, does not fit the "exit" hole.
And I do not understand how they superimposed their drawing of the columns and impact path plane, and internal damage drawing; over that pre-9/11 aerial picture.
Because their plane cuts with its fuselage right through that generator trailer.





Either the fence corner in the underlaying zoomed-in aerial picture is situated in a very wrong position compared to their drawing, or their picture is real.
If I see it right, the nose of their drawn-in plane does impact the tree stump in front of the later impact hole at column 14.
There's a faint greenish shadow of that tree under the plane's cockpit and nose cone, in front of column 16 and 15.
And I also see the two other trees in front of the west wall (at the dividing line between Wedge 1 and 2, in front of columns 3, 2 and 1 of Wedge 1, and of columns 2, 3 and 4 of Wedge 2), The firefighter truck was parked a few meters northwards beside those two other trees, and got hit by debris at impact, which caused its rear to be set on fire.

So, yes, it seems as if the overlay of the ASCE drawing on that aerial photo of the Pentagon's west wall is correct.

Why is it then, that my GE map with my drawn-in yellow line does not lead the plane's fuselage over the generator trailer, inside that fence corner region?
It misses the corner by a few meters !
And I got the last FDR position exactly right on my GE map, and i.m.h.o., the impact point too.

EDIT : After long staring at that impact point, I suddenly saw that the angle of the SHADOW of the protruding part of that west wall is a quite sharp one in that 1999 GE aerial map.
So I made a positional error for the trunk's position in my above last posted picture of an impact angle of 62.21° true north, look below to see my correction for that impact angle (GE heading angle in its small Ruler window) :

AA77-62.21°corrected-flightPath-fits5Poles-fitsLastFDR-Lat-Long-fits-not-ExitHole :




An additional error made by me, I just noticed. I placed the end of my impact line of 62.21° at the second Ring-D, and that must be of course at the Ring-C wall with the AE Drive.
Now it suddenly doesn't look anymore as if the exit hole is the end-point of that impact-angle line !
It's too close i.m.h.o. to that connection bridge between Ring C and Ring B.
But it's not a real big difference, so perhaps, if someone comes forward with the precise impact Lat/Long values, I can see if the resulting exit hole position in Ring C will match what we see on photos of it.



Thus, the real angle of impact (the heading angle in the GE small Ruler window) is 64.64° true north.

64.64° true north heading - 10.2 = 54.44° magnetic heading.
That's thus 90° - 54.44° = 35.56° to the perpendicular on the west wall which is by far not the ASCE report's 42°.

I measure 34° to the perpendicular on the west wall with my graduated arc. Again, nearly 2° difference with GE its offered heading angle.
I really would like to know what on earth that consistent 2° difference between hand-measured angles, and GE angles can cause.

I have trouble letting the wing tips hit the cut lamp poles 2, 3 and 5 in this i.m.h.o.p. best official flight path drawing on the 7/9/2001 GE map, by me, based on the known last FDR Lat/Long position and the tree trunk impact point under the column 14 double window spanning impact hole as seen in the Riskus photos.

Note that the Lat/Long values at the center bottom of this last Dutch GE map I used, are the last known FDR its latitude and longitude values of Lat 38°52'8.77" N, and Long 77°3'45.82" W.




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Hay Labtop....

You are subtracting WEST magnet variation when it should be added to true to achieve magnetic. Start over, the ants are horney!
edit on 29-6-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Maybe this will help you satisfy those horny ants.

From the FDR: The track angle (mag) was 71.4 and the track angle (true) was 61.2. The true heading was 59.8. Those were all recorded by the FDR in the final full frame (except track angle true, which was recorded in the previous frame).

I'm not helping you any more with this useless pursuit of minutia so don't ask....



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Maybe this will help you satisfy those horny ants.

From the FDR: The track angle (mag) was 71.4 and the track angle (true) was 61.2. The true heading was 59.8. Those were all recorded by the FDR in the final full frame (except track angle true, which was recorded in the previous frame).

I'm not helping you any more with this useless pursuit of minutia so don't ask....


I was even going to point out earlier that he is dealing with the RO position as an absolute. It is not. It is the mean of some value = mean +/- some error. But, then again he would have to estimate that "error" by correlation of it and the other data sets (radar, physical impact point, etc). Which of course would defeat the entire purpose of his analysis. That is why amateurs should not try this at home.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reheat
Maybe this will help you satisfy those horny ants.

From the FDR: The track angle (mag) was 71.4 and the track angle (true) was 61.2. The true heading was 59.8. Those were all recorded by the FDR in the final full frame (except track angle true, which was recorded in the previous frame).

I'm not helping you any more with this useless pursuit of minutia so don't ask....


To put this in an sentence Labtop can understand: The path the airplane was traveling through the air was 1.4 deg left of the path it was traveling across the ground. This is due to the crosswind component.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 911files
 


I know, John. He's been doing this same type of thing since I first encountered him several years ago and each venture into minutia has all had the same result = failure. He simply does not know what he's doing and any difference in what he's trying to prove versus what is in the Historical Record are his errors or misunderstanding of the issues involved.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


If the plane hit lampposts, then show the top of the lamppost that is dented and smashed to prove it was hit. The govt. should have done this to prove to the audience, but they didn't, so guess it didn't!?



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Reheat
 


Wonder why the Pentagon refuses to release the real video footage? Is it the smokng gun that they are afraid of! Does it take 12 years to put together a promising video that the public may believe or what? Why did the feds confiscate every bit of video too, that could be shown to prove that a plane hit the Pentagon, but still we get nothing. There are too many lies and inconsistancies with this whole #ing case and those involved and those that were murdered for what they knew. This is #ing horse# to the highest!





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join