The NTSB animation of Flight AA77

[William Seger]

For several weeks now, pilotsfor911truth.org has had a version of the NTSB Flight AA77 animation on their website that they claim "proves" that AA77 didn't hit the light poles on Washington Blvd. Here are three frames from that video:



Notice the guage in the lower righthand corner; it's the compass, showing a "magnetic" heading of "070" (i.e. relative to magnetic north). In the DC area, magnetic north is 10.5^o west of true north.

It appears that whoever prepared the NTSB animation tried to adjust the magnetic heading to be a true heading in order to orient the map on which the flight path is superimposed. However, it appears that they simply made a mistake by adjusting the wrong way, 10.5^o east instead of west, making the 70^o magnetic heading to be 80.5^o instead of the correct 59.5^o. The following shows the correct heading passing directly over the Washington Blvd. bridge where the light poles were hit, compared to the incorrect heading as seen in the NTSB animation:



With the correct heading adjustment, the flight data recorder confirms what about a dozen withnesses said they saw: Flight AA77 hit the light poles.

[LARED]

1. Shocking

pilotsfor911truth.org gets it wrong again

[KJF]

2. I don't get it

You're saying the NTSB made a mistake with an animation and then when pilots for truth used the NTSB data it gave a "false" result, but now the data has been corrected? Or something else?

[William Seger]

3. The animation was done by NTSB

Pilotsfor911truth has simply added notes on the NTSB animation, such as the notes to show where the light poles would be. Without verifying that the flight path had been correctly oriented on the map, pilotsfor911truth claimed that the flight data recorder "proves" that AA77 couldn't have hit the light poles. With the correct orientation, however, the FDR heading proves that it certainly could have, so it confirms the physical evidence -- the poles were certainly knocked down! -- and the eyewitnesses who say that's what they saw.

[KJF]

4. That's pretty wierd

Do you have a link to the NTSB video? Where did the NTSB get the data for the animation? Was it published in raw form?

[William Seger]

11. Try Google

The end of the NTSB animation is what pilotsfor911truth used for their video -- they just added the notes -- but I'm sure you can find the full thing somewhere. I saw the CSV data (which is just an extract of the raw FDR data) on another site, but I don't feel like searching for it again. Anyway, the only thing of issue here is the 070 heading shown in the animation, which I know is the same as the last few lines of the CSV file.

[canetoad]

5. Two quick questions

Are you certain the compass is showing magnetic north? Is it possible that compensation for magnetic variation has already been achieved by using a gyrocompass?

[William Seger]

6. In the flight data recorder CSV file

... that column is labeled "MAG" and pilots on another board have confirmed that it is a magnetic compass reading. Also, the orientation in the animation is not at 70^o, it is at about 80.5 (more or less), indicating that the person who prepared the animation tried to make the adjustment when orienting the map, but simply went the wrong way.

[Nozebro]

7. Have you taken your concerns to 9/11pilotsfortruth? EOM

nt

[William Seger]

8. JDX knows about it now

Maybe he just hasn't had time to remove it from his site; we'll see, but I predict he will ignore it. Why? Because he's also thumping on several other boards about having two witnesses who will say that the plane passed north of the Citgo, as shown in the animation. He's making another for-sale DVD about that, so admitting that the animation is wrong would make that scam much harder to sell. To sell that scam, he already has to claim that the poles being knocked over -- not to mention the path of damage inside the Pentagon! -- was faked and (as if that wasn't ridiculous enough) that several dozen witnesses who say the plane passed over the bridge (many of which specifically saw the poles knocked over) are all either mistaken or lying. If he has to add to that a claim that the FDR heading is off by over 20 degrees, I'd say "game over."

[AlienSpaceBat]

9. Since the animation was produced by NTSB

wouldn't you say some kind of reliability is being inherently claimed for it ? (surely a govt agency wouldn't release something like this when they either knew or didn't care if it was accurate ? )

It may or may not be obvious what mistake has been made, but undoubtedly the responsibility for the error and the duty to fix it lies with NTSB, not with Joe Public ?

However pilotsfor911truth.org may have used this video, any issue of misleading information surely rests with the NTSB. Makes me wonder how much attention to detail was given to production of this animation, and what else may or may not be wrong with it...

[William Seger]

10. Spin it any way you want

> wouldn't you say some kind of reliability is being inherently claimed for it ?

If the orientation of the map is wrong, it doesn't matter what reliability is being "claimed" for it, does it? But no, I wouldn't just assume "some kind of reliability," and the point is that pilotsfor911truth didn't bother verifying something simple before using it to make outrageous inferences.

> (surely a govt agency wouldn't release something like this when they either knew or didn't care if it was accurate ? )

Accurate for what purpose? Forensic evidence? Again, no, I wouldn't just assume that it was intended to be that accurate (or that it WAS that accurate, regardless of intent), and I certainly wouldn't try to use it as pilotsfor911truth did for that purpose without at least a little basic checking -- especially if I was going to use it claim that the "official story" was a lie. The FDR data, which included the magnetic compass headings, was represented in an animated model to show the flight path. That map (or actually, that satellite image) of the area around the Pentagon is NOT part of the FDR data; it's something someone added to the animation just to give an idea of what the end of the flight path looked like. In laying the image down on the model, they made a simple mistake. People do make mistakes; in fact, the only reason I discovered that that's what probably happened is because I made the same mistake the first time I tried to align the heading data to a map.

But, surely a government agency which was involved or complicit after the fact in a conspiracy to commit mass murder, a conspiracy that involved a ridiculously elaborate plot to fake a plane hitting the Pentagon, including faking the knocked over light poles just for added realism, would be more careful to make their animated plane fly over the light poles, wouldn't they? Oddly enough, the mistake itself is a strong point against the "no planers."

> It may or may not be obvious what mistake has been made, but undoubtedly the responsibility for the error and the duty to fix it lies with NTSB, not with Joe Public ?

Responsibility for the error, sure. Responsibility for someone else irresponsibly assuming an unasserted precision to make outrageous claims, without checking for a simple error? Nope.

> However pilotsfor911truth.org may have used this video, any issue of misleading information surely rests with the NTSB. Makes me wonder how much attention to detail was given to production of this animation, and what else may or may not be wrong with it...

Any responsible attempt to use the FDR data for forensic analysis, regardless of who does the analysis, should be done with the raw FDR data, NOT with the animation OR with the CSV extract that the animation was prepared from, and in any specific issue where precision is required, every effort should be made to interpret the raw FDR data precisely.

So, does this incident also make you "wonder how much attention to detail" is present in what passes for "research" in the "9/11 truth movement?" And, by the way, I now know that JohnDoeX has been aware for at least a month now that the heading shown in the data DOES go over the bridge, yet he still hasn't taken that video off his site. Does that make you wonder how much crap you might be reading on other 9/11 sites that's already been disproved? It should make you wonder about those things, because spin it any way you want, this certainly isn't an isolated incident.

[mhatrw]

12. So you have corrected the NTSB homework for them!

Good for you! What has the NTSB said about your amazing analysis?

[William Seger]

13. I wouldn't expect them to say anything

What would you expect them to say? "Oops"? I'm more interested in what pilotsfor911truth has to say, or what they do even if they don't say anything. I'm still expecting that they will say nothing, but will leave the video on their website anyway.

[mhatrw]

14. You determined the NTSB screwed up, and you are worried about

what pilotsfor911truth.com has to say about it?

How about contacting the NTSB with this crucial information instead? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to get the NTSB's take on this before going further -- especially if you think they made an innocent mistake? Am I the only one who sees the logical disconnect here?

[William Seger]

15. What "crucial information"?

That somebody at NTSB didn't align the image properly with the flight path in a freakin' animation? What's "crucial" about that, unless you're going to try to use that alignment as a basis for claiming that dozens of witnesses are lying and that the knocked down light poles were faked?

Like virtually every other "truth movement" site, pilotsfor911truth is knowingly using false "evidence" to accuse people of mass murder and complicity in that murder. Not only do they have no respect for the truth, they apparently have no basic human decency. But so what, it's really all about the "movement" anyway, isn't it?

"Logical disconnect?" I suggest that you are suffering a serious ethical disconnect if you believe that a simple error in compiling that animation is the more serious matter.

[mhatrw]

16. So the NTSB's ostensible mistake is somebody else's fault?

And your only purpose in supposedly uncovering the NTSB's mistake is to show these others up for "purposefully" attributing accuracy to the NTSB's animation?

What is your obsession based on here? Who is accusing whom of what concerning this animation such that the accused so desperately require your animation positioning expertise to defend their honor? Even assuming that your analysis were 100% correct, wouldn't it be more purposeful to bring this to the NTSB's attention so they could set the official record straight for everyone?

Please be sure to tape your phone call to the NTSB explaining what you found out, then post it on the video forum. All of us would love to hear it.

[wildbilln864]

17. Yes...

I'd love to hear that one too!

[johndoeX]

18. Need to look closer

Reprehensor posted this thread on blogger.. I responded there.. but it seems Rep hasnt had a chance to move it here and i have some time.. Here is my reply...

When we first received the animation, i had thought perhaps the NTSB messed up on the graphical presentation as well (we went over this briefly on today's Jack Blood broadcast). However, if you look at the initial phases of flight (particularly the take off), it is lined up perfectly with the taxiways and runway as the aircraft taxi's out for take off. See trailer for upcoming documentary.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_brTPDJTs8

Also, we have further evidence which confirms the flight path.. including witnesses, which will be put together in a report. Those who believe in the official story as gospel will try to make up any excuse as to not disrupt that belief. They will accept the fact that the aircraft is lined up during initial phases of flight.. but make excuses for the end of flight. Typical. The facts are presented. The facts conflict with the official fairy tale. Considering this evidence, we would like for the US Govt to explain the flight path as well as all the other conflicts.. such as altitude, vertical speed... etc. All questions to the US Govt can be found on our pentagon page, mid-page. Hope this helps...

Cheers!
Rob

PS - Tell our friends at DU that the flight path in terms of true <b>course</b> (not heading) is 061.5 degrees according to the Flight Data Recorder. Not 059.5. Also, please remind them that the professionals at the NTSB dont make mistakes in terms of magnetic variation (as shown in the initial phases of flight). It is well known among the aviation community.. east is least.. west is best... Aviation 101. The person who prepared the information is Jim Ritter at the NTSB. Be sure to post the NTSB phone number at DU, 202-314-6000... perhaps they can get accurate answers for the flight path and other conflicts. Tell them to report their finding's.. record the call.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://forums.pilotsfor911truth.org


more added - it looks like you are assuming both flight paths hit the same spot on the pentagon. I'm not sure how you can assume that considering the NTSB animation stops prior to impact. Also, you have the mag heading as 80.5 degrees and the true 'heading' as 59.5... thats a 21 degree variation. Also remember you have to account for wind (which is obvious you did not).. The NTSB did. Your analysis is completely inaccurate. More information will be forthcoming.

[greyl]

21. That's sooo true.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68016
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68723
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68864

[William Seger]

22. Look closer? You bet

> However, if you look at the initial phases of flight (particularly the take off), it is lined up perfectly with the taxiways and runway as the aircraft taxi's out for take off.

Bullshit! That "runway" is just another graphic added to the animation! There's no logical reason to assume that if that runway graphic looks correct, then the satellite image at the Pentagon must be oriented correctly, particularly in the face of the fact that the image at the Pentagon is definitely wrong.

> Also, we have further evidence which confirms the flight path.. including witnesses, which will be put together in a report.

So, five years after the fact, you found a couple of (alleged) witnesses and used the animation to convince them that the plane must have passed north of the Citgo (BTW, what does Russel Pickering mean by "manipulated" witnesses?), then got them on tape saying, yup, that's exactly what they saw. On the basis of that and the clearly wrong orientation in an animation, you're going to claim that dozens of other witnesses were outright lying or just wrong about a plane that flew right over their head and knocked down the light posts. And of course, on the basis of this "logic," the knocked over light posts must have been faked, as was the path of damage inside the Pentagon, and the airplane parts must have been planted, and the real AA77 must have flown over the building and landed somewhere else, and all the witnesses who saw the damn thing happen are either confused or are accessories to murder. Is that your story? How much are you selling this "report" for?

> Tell our friends at DU that the flight path in terms of true <b>course</b> (not heading) is 061.5 degrees according to the Flight Data Recorder. Not 059.5. Also, please remind them that the professionals at the NTSB dont make mistakes in terms of magnetic variation...

Okay, for the moment, let's assume for the sake of argument that the true course was 061.5 (despite the fact that you haven't yet demonstrated any expertise at interpreting the FDR data, e.g. the altimeter data). It's not hard to put that course on my graphic, and to also show where the animation would appear to show the flight path if the graphic had simply been rotated the wrong way:



Okay, so what precisely is your claim about the true course? That 061.5 would be north of the Citgo?

> it looks like you are assuming both flight paths hit the same spot on the pentagon. I'm not sure how you can assume that considering the NTSB animation stops prior to impact.

Yes, I'm "assuming" that I know where the plane hit the building! I'm not assuming anything whatsoever about the image in the animation except that it's compass orientation is clearly incorrect. If it's orientation is that far off, why should I assume anything about exactly where the animated plane would hit the Pentagon?

> Also remember you have to account for wind (which is obvious you did not).. The NTSB did.

Did they? But the issue is still whether or not the path in the animation bears any resemblance to reality, isn't it. Okay, I've now taken into account your claim that the plane was pitched 2 degrees so the true course was 061.5, and that course still goes right over the bridge. What's your point?

> Your analysis is completely inaccurate.

Oh, I think it's more than accurate enough to figure out what's going on here, especially with you coming here to blow smoke instead of clearing up the matter. How much is your new "documentary" going to sell for? Will it be $9.95 like your first one, or do you figure this one is worth more with all this "explosive" new "evidence"?

[johndoeX]

28. Sigh...

Didnt have time to read your whole post but.. 061.5 degrees doesnt line up with the damage when working backwards from the impact hole based on wingspan.. etc. 2 degrees makes alot of difference when dealing with precise measurement. I dont expect you to understand.

Next.. the graphical representation (animation) has lat/long lines drawn. That is how they line up the graphical maps of the runway and pentagon sat image. If they didnt correct properly for variation at the pentagon. .the runway, Yankee and Zulu taxiways would also be off by more than 20 degrees (according to your estimates).

Basically.. what you are saying.. is that you are more competent than the professionals at the NTSB who put these types of reports/animations together on a daily basis and are given to various airlines to be used in recurrent airline safety training courses.... uhhh.. ok.. :rolleyes:

You assume too much, you make excuses for everything.. im not surprised.. The video will stay on the website until the NTSB answers for it.. not some anonymous guy on the net who thinks he knows how to produce animations and information better than the NTSB.

As i said... call them yourself. If they give the same explanation in that they incorrectly adjusted for variation, i will post it on the site... also get them to answer for vertical speed conflicts, altitude conflicts, system indication conflicts, csv/animation conflicts that show a blatant cover-up in the descent profile to make the aircraft appear lower in the animation than it actually is (the only parameter that doesnt match between the two in terms of the altimeter being set on descent)... record it the call.. thanks

202-314-6000... his name is Jim Ritter.

I dont have time to keep coming here and checking/correcting your work.. if you like.. email me your phone number and real name and we'll chat.. you can record our call too.. i sure will. [e-mail] . Make sure you tell me you are the guy from DU when emailing your name and number.

Cheers!
Rob

[William Seger]

32. Wow. Who do you think you're fooling?

Nevermind; I think we've already established that.

> 2 degrees makes alot of difference when dealing with precise measurement. I dont expect you to understand.

There ya go, Truthers: JohnDoeX really does think you're stupid. Looking right at that graphic where I've shown the path he himself claims, JohnDoeX is going to tell you plane flew on the north side of the Citgo, so it couldn't have hit the poles. If you can't see that for yourself, it must be because you don't understand "precise measurement."

Now get out your credit cards and keep checking his site.

[William Seger]

35. And....

According to Anti-sophist on the JREF board, the last few lines of the CSV file show a true course of 61.2 degrees, which is close enough to your claimed 61.5 degrees as to make no significant difference in this:



The plane is shown to scale, and the 5 light poles that you claim don't line up with the path are also shown. Game over.

[johndoeX]

36. Ugh.. A-S and Russ should really learn the compass rose...

I debunked 5 different flight paths from Russ Pickering.. and now it looks like i need ot debunk A-S as well... ughh.. such a waste of time.. if only they would look at a compass first. (psst.. william... this is why i told you 2 degrees makes a big difference.. and as i said. .you didnt understand..lol)



Thanks for playing.. game over.

Again. .the flight path can be explained by the NTSB... they just have to debunk the other evidence we have which confirms the flight path THE NTSB produced.

Next.. try working on the altitude, vertical speed, system indications, VOR/DME confirmations.. etc etc...

Full analysis will be forthcoming.. be patient William... Your spin and trying to "fit" a 757 into the pentagon isnt working out so well.. as shown above.. lol

Cheers!
Rob

[johndoeX]

37. Once again...

I also initially thought the same as William and A-S in terms of the flight path when we first got the FDR data. I had thought the NTSB screwed up in terms of graphics and software. However, since new evidence has come forward confirming the flight path (not just witnesses, however they are important as well)).. we have added it to the rest of the questions regarding the conflicts with the official story.

Altitude, vertical speed, system indications, VOR/DME confirmation, blatant cover-up regarding altimeter settings on descent profile.. have nothing to do with software and graphics.. it is hard data and fact. These parameters conflict with the official story and/or show a blatant cover-up (in terms of the descent profile). These parameters are primary in conflict and stressed. The Flight path itself is added and secondary. But, the flight path video will remain on the website until the NTSB explains it. Not some guy from the net who claims victory by cherry picking one aspect of the FDR.

The whole last paragraph William continues to ignore. Dont let him get away with it. The flight path isnt the only conflict in the data. Its added. .and secondary as compared to the other glaring, blatant conflicts.

[johndoeX]

38. Just checked one more thing..

A-S wingspan is not to scale... just checked it. It shows 10 feet too long.. 134 feet. The 757-200 has a 124' wingspan. I dont have time to make a new picture for you.. but coming from A-S, im not surprised he screwed up the compass course and the scale... its typical of him...lol

Rob

[MervinFerd]

39. HOW MUCH WILL YOUR VIDEO SELL FOR?

Huh?

[johndoeX]

42. DVD prices

Current videos are 9.95 on one DVD. All videos and analysis are free to watch on the site. The upcoming documentary will be available on google and youtube for free. We will offer a higher quality DVD for those who want their personal copy and support our research. Just think of it this way.. we get donations for just our research without handing out DVD's. Now we offer something. Do you think we have a gun to people's heads to pay us money for our DVD? It really chaps your ass that people will pay to support such a movement.. doesnt it...

Good!

Cheers!
Rob

[MervinFerd]

57. Nope. You're busted.

Will Seger has the goods on you. You make money mongering lies and fear.

Stop it.

[johndoeX]

58. The real lies and fear mongering

pilotsfor911truth.org present facts. You people present theory and excuses for those facts (errr.. well. .excuses for one fact.. you ignore the rest..lol). Irony.

Fact - The NTSB provided information based on the Flight Data Recroder of AA77 and UA93.

Fact - That information conflicts with the official story on many accounts... for both aircraft. (More in depth study on UA93 coming soon).

Fact - Some people who take the official theory as gospel will make any excuse as to not disrupt their belief in that theory. (its a defense mechanism.. we know.. its ok.. i used to do it too...)

Fact - The Govt and Corporate media make Trillions on their lies and it chaps the ass of some people that organizations who uncover their lies/spin/cover-up's are getting support and growing.

If anyone has questions regarding the spin/side-stepping that is posted here by a few.. please feel free to email us at [e-mail] to clear up anything you feel may be confusing. We are working hard on our research and dont have time to visit every message board which has one or two posters in denial of the facts. Distract, side-step, ignore, spin, accuse, ad-hom attack is a well known tactic of those in denial of the facts as seen clearly in this thread. Please email us to set the record straight if you come across these types of posters in denial.

Pandora's Black Box - Part 2 - The Flight Of American 77 will be released soon free on youtube and google (Mervin will have to pay for it though.. ). Those who support our research, please visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org . Thank you for taking the time to inform yourself and not getting distracted by obvious tactics used by those in denial.

[mhatrw]

59. Be sure to call the Department of Homeland Security and

alert them to this scam.

[William Seger]

43. Um, wrong again

You must have gotten your ruler from the same place you got your compass! According to Google Earth's ruler, my plane is within a couple pixels of being 124' -- definitely not 134' -- which confirms the original estimate I got from proportioning the Pentagon wall. (That's my graphic, by the way, and I take full responsibility for it. As I said, Anti-sophist gave me the 61.2 number from the FDR CSV. And for folks who don't know, on the JREF forum, Anti-sophist has already addressed the "other issues" with the FDR data that JDX is complaining about.)

[johndoeX]

44. Yeah. .we know you lied William

We know that was your graphic trying to play it off as A-S.

A-S hasnt addressed any of the other issues. He has said himself you 'can' have as much as a 2 second delay in the FDR. But i have told A-S time and time again.. going by current trends from below Vmo.. you need up to an 8 second margin for error in order to hold onto his theory.

Basically. A-S is holding onto "margins for error" while we are holding onto facts produced by the NTSB with inclusive possible margins for error (such as +/-75 feet.. 2 seconds. .etc).. again need that irony meter...

A-S likes to build up long convoluted threads anonymously. .behind his computer screen.. which no layman can understand. .so the fence sitters will find any excuse not to look further. Its a usual tactic used by many over at JREF. Although.. they do get upset when we actually call the govt and record it for other layman to see..lol... they make excuses for that too.. its kinda fun to watch them waste their lives on people they think are nuts and scramble for excuses... Note how much time we spend on you people..

Cheers!
Rob

[johndoeX]

45. ok.. enough play with Will today...

its been fun Will. .try not to waste your whole life behind a computer talking with people you think are frauds or nuts...

ciao
Rob

[William Seger]

48. Lied?!

So, you have a reading comprehension problem too? Or is it just the same honesty problem you've already demonstrated? What I said is still right there on this page: "According to Anti-sophist on the JREF board, the last few lines of the CSV file show a true course of 61.2 degrees, which is close enough to your claimed 61.5 degrees as to make no significant difference in this:"

> A-S likes to build up long convoluted threads anonymously. .behind his computer screen.. which no layman can understand. .so the fence sitters will find any excuse not to look further. Its a usual tactic used by many over at JREF.

Yes, the usual "tactic" at JREF is examine unsubstantiated claims closely. Regardless of whether or not a "layman can understand" the argument, the validity of the argument is the only thing that matters. You really hate that, don't you?

But you are quite right that it's time for you to move on: your fraud is busted here.

[johndoeX]

51. Sell it to yourself Will..

you're good at it... lol.. .you sound just like A-S.. ignore most.. cherry pick others.. make excuses for it.. call victory.. i hope it helps your self-esteem.. it certainly looks like you need some hanging out with "frauds" and "nuts" all day...lol


ok.. this time.. im out.. ciao.

[William Seger]

40. LMAO!

Dude! You're the one who needs to get a new compass! Your blue line is at a hair over 59.5, Mr. Precision, as anyone with a graphics program can verify. That's where I put my original heading line, which you claimed was "totally inaccurate" because it didn't take into account slip and wind drift. Then you put your "61.5" line in the same place by just sloppy measurement, while at the same time lecturing about the importance of "precise measurement." But the really hysterical part is, you keep pretending that a degree either way is going to make a difference, while actually confirming that the plane certainly flew right over the light posts, not north of the Citgo as the NTSB animation shows. And of course, with a new product on the way, you're going to leave that video on your site: you're a fraud.

[johndoeX]

41. William, William, William.. .tisk tisk..

look at the compass.. it shows the blue line going through 61.5 degrees.. just a hair over 61 degrees. When you look clockwise from 60.. it increases in numbers.. not decrease. lol.

The speed of the aircraft combined with zero heading change shows a straight line. Therefore a heading of 070 and COURSE (track is the same.. in case you were confused which you were it seems) of 061.5 does not line up with the damage (and lack of) when working backwards from the impact hole. You can 'fudge' it as much as you want... and im sure you will in order to not disrupt your belief in the official fairy tale (a defense mechanism im sure), but it doesnt line up. You can call me names or a fraud all you want.. but the fact of the matter is we are pilots and aviation professionals that see this type of information all the time. We train with this type of information. The NTSB produces this data accurately because lives depend on it. Lockheed produces Flight Data Recorders.. because lives depend on it. We want to know why it conflicts with the official story. You make excuses and theory for it. You cherry pick possible red herrings and ignore the rest while throwing insults. Where is that irony meter when you need one?

Again.. for the last time.. the flight path is confirmed by other evidence. I agree the flight path 'could' be a red herring. But the other parameters such as altitude, vertical speed.. ughh.. im tired of typing the same thing.. you'll just ignore it anyway...

William.. we know you take the official story as gospel. We know you disagree with our analysis. Get on with your life. If its so apparent and we're such frauds.. you have nothing to worry about right? You wont stop us from demanding answers from our govt. Do you think you can? If you think you can, give me your number and we'll chat why you think you can.. and with what means. Im prepared to plow down anyone that gets in my way of questioning my govt.. get it? You will not stop me or our movement till we are dead... get it? If i were you.. I certainly wouldnt be wasting so much time on a computer with people i think are fraud or nuts... Get a life William... we get the fact you dont agree. Or perhaps you dont agree with us questioning our govt? Email me your number William.. we'll chat about that...

People within our organization have sworn to defend the Constitution from ALL enemies.. foreign or domestic. We are prepared to give our lives for it. Are you prepared to give yours if you stand in our way?

Cheers!
Rob

[William Seger]

46. Spin faster; you're not keeping up

Your compass graphic is wrong; your line is not 61.5, and it's right there for anyone who cares to check it with a graphics program. And it doesn't even matter, because your plane still flies right over the light poles that you claim are faked damage. And nobody needs to be a pilot to figure out that "other parameters such as altitude, vertical speed" aren't going to put the plane north of the Citgo as you and your "witnesses" claim.

> We are prepared to give our lives for it. Are you prepared to give yours if you stand in our way?

Gee, that sounds a lot like a threat. From someone who is trying to protect his DVD scam with obfuscation and blather... And you want my phone number and email? Why not just ask for my address?

No, thanks, I think we'll "chat about it" right here on the net where everyone can see what you're up to.

[johndoeX]

49. William.. you say im a fraud?

I say you're a coward. Hide behind your computer... Its where you belong. Lets us real adults count the numbers on the compass.

William.. i dont know about you.. but 61.5 is between 60 and 70.. here.. look.



See.. thats 061.5 degrees. See the tail end? Thats the reciprocal.. 241.5 degrees. The compass is lined up with Lat/Long lines (you know.. north/south? east/west?).. look at the bottom.. look to the right... i added the numbers so its clear for you.

Why do i get the feeling im arguing with a 15 yr old?

Again William.. flight path is secondary.. Altitude is showing 400 feet OVER the light poles.. .so it doesnt really matter where the flight path is... Vertical speed is over 4000 fpm at that point.. conflicting with the DoD video 5 frames.

We have recently added the flight path to the questions because recent evidence has confirmed it. We notice the flight path back in August (of course.. it was glaring) but never added it to the questions because i thought exactly as you.. i made excuses for it. Not anymore.. its now included.. its on the DVD.. and on the website. When you see the new analysis and report which you will have to buy to see.. but will be free for everyone else on youtube (watch William get his panties in a wad over that..lol), you will see the new evidence. Including the blatant cover-up on the descent profile.. again.. you will have to buy it to see it.. all other will have free access...

Ok.. i really gotta go.. tired of playing with -snip for mods- on the other end. .work to do..

ciao

[William Seger]

52. Funnier than a thousand words....

Compare the 90-degree heading on JDX's "precise measurement" compass (the red line) to the map grid (e.g. the green line):

[johndoeX]

54. Good job William..

looks like you been busy trying to 'debunk' people you already think are frauds... Spending all your time behind a computer.. lol.

But you're right.. i put that picture/compass together rather quick this morning in about 5 mins and only lined up the edges.. im used to debunking Russell Pickering flight paths and they always line up like that.. off to the north.

But.. i took some time to look closely at yours again.. (err.. A-S').. hopefully this will satisfy you. Note.. it doesnt hit pole 1. Defintely no where near VDOT pole. Your's seems to be twisted to the other side of Russ... (no pun intended). I havent even double checked to see if it matches the impact hole. Which could throw the whole thing off. I really dont have time to be wasting debunking your flight paths.. but im sure that is your goal.. to distract us from questioning our govt. Either that or you're really freakin lonely..lol

enjoy..



That compass isnt the greatest.. and if you stop ignoring my posts.. you will notice i think the flight path may be a red herring from the NTSB, but it still doesnt change the fact they need to answer for it, that is why it stays on my site and it stays on video on youtube (aside from the new evidence that will be presented soon). I dont use the FDR as proof for anything except for the fact it conflicts on MANY data points with the official story (including blatant cover-up's to make the aircraft appear lower than it really is). We dont offer theory or point blame.. only the govt offers that.

Again.. We have the FDR from the NTSB.. it has many conflicts with the official story. We want to know why. It seems you make excuses for it. Im not surprised.

Have fun!

[William Seger]

55. Un-freakin-believable

Jeez, now you've got your line at about 62.5. That's not a hell of an improvement over your previous "precise measurement." But at least I see you've figured out which direction you need to go to miss the poles. Why don't you just go ahead and put it north of the Citgo, rotate your compass to match, and just tell the suckers that it matches the FDR data exactly?

> I really dont have time to be wasting debunking your flight paths..

Yes, I'm sure that picking just the right background music for your "documentary" is very time consuming; why waste valuable time on the facts. Your target audience doesn't seem to care about that stuff, anyway.

> but im sure that is your goal.. to distract us from questioning our govt.

Wrong again. My goal was to demonstrate that pilotsfor911truth has zero credibility; that they are a bunch of hucksters who knowingly use bullshit to peddle DVDs to "conspiracy theorists." Your personal assistance in achieving that goal beyond expectations has been appreciated.

[johndoeX]

56. Hi Will..

I see you still havent acknowledge any other issue besides the 'possible' red herring i have already addressed ad nauseum (you're pretty thick huh?). You continue to side-step, ignore and spin anything you can based on one issue to claim we dont have credibility. Once you start to address the altitude, vertical speed, system indications, the blatant cover up regarding descent profile to make the aircraft appear lower than it is.. the common strategy protocol vs. the hijack timeline and Ted Olsen report to CNN, etc etc etc... perhaps you will have some credibility. Im not surprised you havent posted the new corrected flight path at JREF... Im not surprised of your tactics. Its typical.

Enjoy spending your days with people you think are "frauds" and "nuts"... lol

[Make7]

53. Well... your "compass" is not aligned properly to the rest of the image.

Or even to your longitude and latitude grid lines.

Your 61.5° line also doesn't appear to be at 61.5° - my graphics software says it's 59.9° in relation to the orientation of the entire image and 60.07° using one of your latitude lines as a reference.

"2 degrees makes alot of difference when dealing with precise measurement." - johndoeX

But 1.5 degrees close enough? I should hope you would be more precise than that when you seem to think it matters so much.

As you may recall, this thread was started to discuss the graphic orientation inconsistencies in the NTSB animation regarding the final course of Flight 77. You have said, "the professionals at the NTSB dont make mistakes in terms of magnetic variation". Here are some frames from your presentation of the NTSB animation:



Compare that to the course of 61.5° that you seem to be advocating now (it's the yellow line):



Now maybe it's just me, but I find it difficult to believe that someone can hold both of those positions (the NTSB graphic overlay is correct, the actual course was 61.5°) and honestly think they are both true.

- Make7

[MervinFerd]

47. And, how much will that DVD sell for?

I never get an answer.

[johndoeX]

50. geeze .. i gotta go..

we havent established a price for it.. but for you.. its will be 100 dollars.. all others can see it free on youtube... you have to buy it...

[Make7]

26. Did the NTSB add zero or subtract zero during the takeoff phase?

 

johndoeX wrote:

if you look at the initial phases of flight (particularly the take off), it is lined up perfectly with the taxiways and runway as the aircraft taxi's out for take off. See trailer for upcoming documentary..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_brTPDJTs8

   -snip-

...please remind them that the professionals at the NTSB dont make mistakes in terms of magnetic variation (as shown in the initial phases of flight). It is well known among the aviation community.. east is least.. west is best... Aviation 101.

It is my understanding that runway three zero at IAD is aligned on a 301° magnetic heading. (source: FAA diagram of IAD) The NTSB takeoff animation shown in your trailer indicates that the magnetic heading of the plane is between 300° and 302° while accelerating down the runway for takeoff.

So how difficult do you think it was for the NTSB to align a runway with a magnetic heading of 301° in the animation with the data from Flight 77's FDR? Is it better to add the zero or subtract the zero?

johndoeX wrote:

...you have the mag heading as 80.5 degrees and the true 'heading' as 59.5... thats a 21 degree variation.

I think it was very clearly explained by William Seger that the image you are referring to compares the approximate flight path from the NTSB animation, which appears to be 80.5° (the 70° magnetic heading from the NTSB animation plus the 10.5° magnetic declination), to a more correct approximate flight path of 59.5° (the same 70° heading minus the 10.5° magnetic declination). That is the 21 degree variation which you seem to have misinterpreted.

You state that the FDR data gives 61.5° as the true course. Which heading do you think is closer to that: 59.5° or 80.5°?

- Make7

[mhatrw]

60. What is the purpose of all of this?

Maybe the NTSB made a bad animation from the raw FDR data. OK. Maybe. But why shouldn't they have to answer for this?

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.

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?

[William Seger]

62. It's not THAT hard to figure out, is it?

> 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?

[mhatrw]

63. So the NTSB's ostensible mistake is somebody else's fault?

And your only purpose in supposedly uncovering the NTSB's mistake is to show these others up for "purposefully" attributing accuracy to the NTSB's animation?

What is your obsession based on here? Who is accusing whom of what concerning this animation such that the accused so desperately require your animation positioning expertise to defend their honor? Even assuming that your analysis were 100% correct, wouldn't it be more purposeful to bring this to the NTSB's attention so they could set the official record straight for everyone?

Please be sure to tape your phone call to the NTSB explaining what you found out, then post it on the video forum. All of us would love to hear it.

[William Seger]

64. Guess that answers my question

[mhatrw]

65. But none of mine. n/t

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MervinFerd]

23. Troll? OK. HOW MUCH WILL YOUR VIDEO SELL FOR??????

And, BTW, its against the local rules to accuse legitimate posters of being trolls.

[wildbilln864]

24. what is the definition...

of "legitimate posters"?

[greyl]

25. I presume "genuine" is the usage in this case.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=legitimate

[mirandapriestly]

27. Poster(s) who all disappear & return at the same time,

and only post in the 911 forum (or as atheists in the religious forum, or as sheep-like believers of the corporate media in the "skeptic's" forum)

[Anarcho-Socialist]

29. You're so right

Those atheists will believe anything!

[SidDithers]

61. Snarf..

you got that right, we're the gullible ones.

Sid

[MervinFerd]

30. Disappeared at the same time? Who? They must be............

highly intelligent.

[salvorhardin]

31. But... but.. but...

I post in GD too!

[greyl]

33. No, he meant "genuine". nt

[Make7]

34. If that is your definition of "legitimate posters", ...

... does that mean you should not be considered a "legitimate poster"?

I'm not really sure if you answered wildbilln864's question as you intended. Perhaps I misunderstood your response, but it sounds like you are defining "legitimate posters" as a group that doesn't include yourself.

- Make7

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bushatbooker]

66. How did we get an FDR from a flight that didn't exist?

Until it was later forged into the BTS statistics that is.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

BOTH FDR and voice recorder were "found" at 4am in the morning and "given to the FBI".
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09142001_20010...

Officials claim the voice recorder was "blank or erased".
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/12/archive/main3...

But the FDR supposedly had info on it.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/investigation.terroris... /


These recorders were planted, or just said they were found there IMO:

"They cordoned off the area and called for an FBI agent, who in turn called for someone from the National Transportation Safety Board who confirmed the find: the black boxes from American Airlines Flight 77."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069699 /


IMO, this FDR is pure fabrication whether it proves the flight path hits or doesn't hit the poles.

[Make7]

67. Hmmmm....

So is the theory that they planted aircraft parts, fabricated FDR data, planted and/or forged DNA results plus passenger lists, manufactured RADAR data, and also fabricated ATC to N644AA communications - yet they somehow couldn't manage to update four fields in the BTS database in a timely fashion?

So I guess based on the BTS data Flights 175 and 93 were real enough. I wonder if there is any plausible explanation for why they would use two flights that were actual flights for part of the attacks, yet still use two flights that did not exist for the remainder.

Just curious.

- Make7

[bushatbooker]

68. Ask them

I wasn't part of their conspiracy.

[Make7]

69. Do you have their contact information?

Could you please share it? You can PM me if you want. Thanks.

- Make7