Reply #62: It's not THAT hard to figure out, is it?

[William Seger]

> Maybe the NTSB made a bad animation from the raw FDR data. OK. Maybe.

No, there isn't any "maybe" about it. The flight path shown in the animated model doesn't agree with the heading and track from the FDR, period; and not even JohnDoeX's own inaccurate attempts at alignment put it anywhere near the path shown in the animation. It was just a simple mistake in aligning a graphic in a computer model, and as I already pointed out, if the NTSB was deliberately faking stuff, it seems to me they would have been more careful about that, so the mistake itself argues against the case pilotsfor911truth is trying to make.

> The larger point is what a 100% "corrected" animation of the raw FDR data would show. This is something I am curious about, but not curious enough to learn how to program it myself. Nor do you seem to be curious enough about this larger point to lend your expertise to it.

There's no need to reprogram the animation to show that "larger point." The graphic I posted above shows what a correct animation should look like: According to the FDR, the plane flew right over the bridge, just as at least 20 witnesses said publicly (and many more would have witnessed), and just as the physical damage to the poles proves.

> Your curiosity and that of William Seger seem to begin and end with "debunking" those attempting to use a government produced animation (that you yourselves argue is flawed) to cast doubt on a government produced narrative of Flight 77 (that seems to be sacrosanct to you). Curious, isn't it?

Sorry; that doesn't even make enough sense to comment on. WHAT "government produced narrative?" The "narrative" that AA77 flew over the bridge, hit the light poles, then plowed into the Pentagon comes directly from the people who actually saw it happen, and it's proved well beyond reasonable doubt by the physical evidence, all of which a bunch of jackasses are claiming must have been faked because it doesn't agree with their imaginary "narrative." What's "sacrosanct" to me is how rational people deal with the real world. I'll tell you what I find curious: people who pretend to be oh-so concerned about finding the "truth" about 9/11, but then continually demonstrate no respect for the truth. Here's a thought that I doubt you'll appreciate, but I'll share it with you anyway: The people who are "debunking" all the 9/11 bullshit are doing so because they believe it really is important to know what really happened on 9/11, while the 9/11 "truth movement" certainly seems to have a totally different agenda.

Now, JohnDoeX knows what the FDR flight path shows, but continues to use that incorrect animation to hawk a for-sale DVD that will claim that the plane missed the poles, so the pole damage "must" have been faked, and all the witnesses "must" be mistaken or accessories to mass murder. What do you make of that? Do you condone "casting doubt" (and making a profit at it) with bullshit?