AA77 true course - what does the FDR data show?

[WilliamSeger]

I know you guys have discussed the AA77 FDR data here, so I thought this would be the best place to ask: The NTSB animation shows a magnetic heading of 070 just before hitting the Pentagon. Corrected by -10.5 degrees, that would be a true heading of 59.5. On the Democratic Underground September 11 forum, I posted a graphic of that heading (the same one that my friend Roger Harris has already posted here) showing how that heading would be over the bridge where the lamp posts were knocked down. (The point of the post was that Pilotsfor911truth still has the video up even after knowing that it showed an incorrect compass orientation.) JohnDoeX showed up, and among other things claimed that the FDR data from AA77 shows the plane was on a true course of 061.5, presumably because of wind. That's not much of a difference - and that course would still be over the bridge! - but is there any way to tell from the FDR data what the true course was?

[maccy]

Welcome to the forum William!

Anti-sophist is your man on FDRs. It may be worth taking a look at these threads:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=65369
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=66047

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

I know you guys have discussed the AA77 FDR data here, so I thought this would be the best place to ask: The NTSB animation shows a magnetic heading of 070 just before hitting the Pentagon. Corrected by -10.5 degrees, that would be a true heading of 59.5. On the Democratic Underground September 11 forum, I posted a graphic of that heading (the same one that my friend Roger Harris has already posted here) showing how that heading would be over the bridge where the lamp posts were knocked down. (The point of the post was that Pilotsfor911truth still has the video up even after knowing that it showed an incorrect compass orientation.) JohnDoeX showed up, and among other things claimed that the FDR data from AA77 shows the plane was on a true course of 061.5, presumably because of wind. That's not much of a difference - and that course would still be over the bridge! - but is there any way to tell from the FDR data what the true course was?

Hi William. To answer your last question - I'm not sure but I dont think so. You'd have to look at a wind correction chart for the true track. AFAIK, the FDR doesnt record track, only heading.

Navigation jargon can be quite confusing, but what I think JDX is possibly referring to is "track", not course. The FDR would certainly record the course selector position, but that has no bearing(pun not intended) on the direction of flight. These three terms are sometimes interchanged but they mean completely differenet things:
Heading - Direction the nose is pointing
Course - Desired track along the ground
Track - Actual path along the ground

2.5 degrees of wind drift does seem a bit much for 465 kts against 10-12 kts of wind.

ETA: 2.5 degrees is too much. By plugging in wind direction, speed, airspeed and heading to this calculator - I got 1.0 degrees of wind correction angle. I used 330 degrees and 10 kts for the wind and I'm basing that on this weather report for National Airport at 0951 on 9/11/01. I used 465 kts for grounspeed and 70 degrees for the heading.

[Anti-sophist]

The heading was indeed 70 degrees plus or minus a few tenths. The resolution of the data in the FDR appears to be .3-.4 degrees, or so and the final measurement is 70 (exactly). We can probably infer that the reading was 70.0 given that precision of the data in the that column (and keeping in mind that it appears to change in increments of .3-.4).

Quote:

JohnDoeX showed up, and among other things claimed that the FDR data from AA77 shows the plane was on a true course of 061.5, presumably because of wind. That's not much of a difference - and that course would still be over the bridge! - but is there any way to tell from the FDR data what the true course was?

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 time). These values were all fairly stable so I'd assume these are reasonably precise measurements.

I don't know anything about the specifics of those instruments, however. Maybe one of the local aviators can verify that all of those terms mean what I am assuming they mean.

Quote:

the same one that my friend Roger Harris has already posted here

Those are the two I've seen. There was a third one I remember seeing that showed all three lines (the animation's, the FDR, and the "corrected" for magnetic/true north). If someone could dig that one up, I'd like to add it to my library.

[Anti-sophist]

As an aside, on the FDR data. Excel chops off alot of it when you just double-click the CSV file. The "correct" way is to go to data->import, and use the import wizard. It will import as much as it can onto the first sheet. Go to a second sheet, re-use the wizard, and deselect all the columns you already have using the wizard.

Many of the most useful data points are in the first few columns, and then it's alphabetical order. My normal excel import gets to around "mach", so you are missing from M-Z, which includes the track data, the true data, and the lat/long data.

[T.A.M.]

Interesting that John Doe X told you it was on a true course of 61.5, as that would still (I believe) have it passing on the south side of the Citgo Station. he was in here, we believe as Skeptic4Sure, along with Lytetrip, claiming they had proof that the plane passed on the North side of the Citgo Station.

TAM

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Interesting that John Doe X told you it was on a true course of 61.5, as that would still (I believe) have it passing on the south side of the Citgo Station.
TAM

It would certainly still be on the south side and not very far from Rogers red line in the pictures above.

Has anyone actually made a map with the knocked over lightpoles highlighted and drawn a swath about 125 ft wide covering all the poles - to come up with the track angle that way? I would, but I'm too lazy

Its also worth noting that the 70 degrees(61.2 true track) in the last data frame may not represent the actual track at impact. So I wouldnt be suprised if the map I proposed above wielded a track a degree or so off from the FDR.

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

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 time). These values were all fairly stable so I'd assume these are reasonably precise measurements.

Oops, I stand corrected.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

he was in here, we believe as Skeptic4Sure, along with Lytetrip, claiming they had proof that the plane passed on the North side of the Citgo Station.

That was right before the Thanksgiving holiday. S4S kept asking what we would do when they have definitive proof, implying that it would be forthcoming presently.

Whatever happened to that? Did they post their proof?

[WilliamSeger]

I have a graphic now that shows the 61.2 degree track, and also the plane (which might actually be a little small, but I wanted to be conservative) and the 5 light poles. Unfortunately I can't post links, but if someone can grab it and repost, it's at: opendb.com/images/pentagon3.jpg

JohnDoeX posted again on DU. Without even commenting on my graphic that showed the 061.5 course that he himself claimed, and the fact that it still passed over the bridge, he said:

Quote:

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..

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.

Frankly, I can't believe he's quite that stupid, so I'd say he's proved himself to be a total fraud.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by John Doe X @ his own tiny little fishbowl

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

What a classy guy...

Having read the Pentagon Building Performance Report in detail, there's room for a couple of degrees of slop based on the damage path. But given the flight data recorder, we can reconstruct the last few hundred feet with pretty good accuracy, if we're careful.

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Frankly, I can't believe he's quite that stupid, so I'd say he's proved himself to be a total fraud.

Yup. Billzilla tore him to pieces. His sock puppets Skeptic4Sure and weedwacker fared no better over here against myself and Anti-sophist.

It may be stupidity, or it may be a burning desire to sell his crappy DVD's to fellow nutballs... who can tell?

Oh, welcome, by the way.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

I have a graphic now that shows the 61.2 degree track, and also the plane (which might actually be a little small, but I wanted to be conservative) and the 5 light poles. Unfortunately I can't post links, but if someone can grab it and repost, it's at:

Great job, looks good to me.

Originally Posted by Jonny reminding us why we call him the D'oh Boy

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).

Baffling with BS may work at Loose Change, but it doesnt work on people who know their stuff Jonny.

[mcMike]

Hello, Here's new take of heading (track 61 degrees to true North). I overlaid the NIST building damage for clarity.

This is the smaller preview version:


Original 1905 x 1080 pixel version here:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1227/track61ek7.jpg

It's better for accuracy. Please let me know if you'd like to add something. (as it's easy since my source is in Photoshop with different layers). The plane is in scale (125 feet wingspan). The light poles are in correct places. Plane route seems to be South of Citgo

[W6102LA]

Originally Posted by mcMike

Hello, Here's new take of heading (track 61 degrees to true North). I overlaid the NIST building damage for clarity.

This is the smaller preview version:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/352...61smallja9.jpg

Original 1905 x 1080 pixel version here:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1227/track61ek7.jpg

It's better for accuracy. Please let me know if you'd like to add something. (as it's easy since my source is in Photoshop with different layers). The plane is in scale (125 feet wingspan). The light poles are in correct places. Plane route seems to be South of Citgo

There's a couple of pics in this thread a LC that suggest the wing tip of F77 clipped a VDOT mast, if this is correct you should be able to place the plane on a fairly accurate path. It's easy to pick out the VDOT mast in the hi-rez pic that you posted.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...topic=410&st=0

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by mcMike

Hello, Here's new take of heading (track 61 degrees to true North). I overlaid the NIST building damage for clarity.

This is the smaller preview version:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/352...61smallja9.jpg

Original 1905 x 1080 pixel version here:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1227/track61ek7.jpg

It's better for accuracy. Please let me know if you'd like to add something. (as it's easy since my source is in Photoshop with different layers). The plane is in scale (125 feet wingspan). The light poles are in correct places. Plane route seems to be South of Citgo

Very nice, you can even see the replacement poles in the hi-res image. I cant really think of anything that needs to be added.

[mcMike]

Originally Posted by W6102LA

There's a couple of pics in this thread a LC that suggest the wing tip of F77 clipped a VDOT mast, if this is correct

Thanks for the info. Here's VDOT included:


Original (hires)
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8002/track6025mo9.jpg

[Anti-sophist]

As predicted, JDX's claim will now boil down to the meta-issue of why the NTSB animation is wrong, and why we think we are better than the NTSB.

The actual facts pan out nicely. At the very least, who ever fabricated the FDR did a pretty good job of making everything match the official story.

This all goes back to their notion that you put FDR data into a magical machine that produces graphs and animations to 100% accuracy. No human input, no errors, no nothing. Just magic. If there is an error, it's an "anomaly", not a mistake. If you claim it's a mistake, you are calling the NTSB incompetent.

[mcMike]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

As predicted, JDX's claim will now boil down to the meta-issue of why the NTSB animation is wrong, and why we think we are better than the NTSB.

Yep. NTSB heading seems not corrected all the way from Dulles. Call me lazy but just a quick check pointed the same approx. 10 degrees heading-correction missing.



EDIT: I measured the very exact heading correction (aligned 302 to runaway and it is -11.3 degrees).

[Kent1]

Originally Posted by W6102LA

There's a couple of pics in this thread a LC that suggest the wing tip of F77 clipped a VDOT mast, if this is correct you should be able to place the plane on a fairly accurate path. It's easy to pick out the VDOT mast in the hi-rez pic that you posted.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...topic=410&st=0

Here's another good thread on the VDOT traffic monitoring camera that was damaged

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=15307

Another note, many suggest the tree may of been damaged buring the flight. You'll see some discussion on it in various threads.

Also see this photo. NOTE the top of the tree.
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pen...ages/1265a.jpg

[WilliamSeger]

Oh, man, this JohnDoeX character is a real piece of work. On DU, he posted a graphic to "prove" that my 61.2-degree line wasn't right. His graphic said his line was at 61.5 degrees, but it was actually a little over 59.5 -- about the same as my original graphic (showing the heading without slip and wind considered), which he said was "totally inaccurate." When I pointed that out, he posted it again with a compass superimposed on it to show that his line was right at 61.5. Slight problem: his compass had apparently been rotated to match the line! (If someone can repost opendb.com/images/jdx1.jpg, check out the 90-degree bearing compared to the map grid.)

Classy guy? You bet! Check this out:

Quote:

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?

This was in the same posting where he said I should send him my phone number and email address so we could "chat about it."

So, the guy is a fraud and conman; he will try to cheat when cornered; and he may have psychopathic tendencies.

[Anti-sophist]

Reposted.

JDX caught hilariously



He rotated his compass to match his own personal favorite orientation. That's funny.

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

So, the guy is a fraud and conman; he will try to cheat when cornered; and he may have psychopathic tendencies.

Indeed. He is pathological. I can't believe he thought he could post a rotated compass and not be caught. That takes a special kind of delusion.

There is one ingredient you (possibly) are missing though. He is _selling_ these DVDs and asking for donations. It's in his own financial interest to have as many anomalies as he can. Over time, we've debunked most of them and he doesn't have much left. What are you seeing, I believe, is him grasping as straws in desperation.


ETA: I read the DU forum and tracked down the thread, and noticed he just randomly assigned your work to me, and started attacking me. That's why he used my name in that compass. That's funny.

[Firestone]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

As predicted, JDX's claim will now boil down to the meta-issue of why the NTSB animation is wrong, and why we think we are better than the NTSB.

The actual facts pan out nicely. At the very least, who ever fabricated the FDR did a pretty good job of making everything match the official story.

This all goes back to their notion that you put FDR data into a magical machine that produces graphs and animations to 100% accuracy. No human input, no errors, no nothing. Just magic. If there is an error, it's an "anomaly", not a mistake. If you claim it's a mistake, you are calling the NTSB incompetent.

Has the NTSB commented on their mistake?

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by Firestone

Has the NTSB commented on their mistake?

As far as I know, the NTSB is unaware. I've heard no comments, at all.

I don't suspect that the NTSB keeps up to date the conspiracy theories and debunkings of conspiracy theories. I'd consider firing off an email if I had any personal relations with the people involved. I'm sure JDX and the like will eventually realize they are wrong after the truth is beaten into the heads for a few months, and then they'll start demanding new answers... they'll coldcall the NTSB front desk and record it to get an "official" comment.

[T.A.M.]

Quote:

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?

This seems like a threat to me, that if you stand in their way they might kill you. Perhaps their Server might be interested in these types of posting occuring at their site. Maybe you should tell Mr. Doe X, who at time seems rational, at other times psychotic, that that comment could be percieved as a threat on your life, and in a court of law, assault and threats are based on the victims perception of such.

TAM

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by D'oh

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?

Thats not Mr D'ohs first death threat - he offered to introduce Billzilla to the 2nd amendament if he ever met him. I wonder if Robert Balsamo(ya know - the real one) knows that he's making death threats to complete strangers over the internet? Maybe we should tell him?

Originally Posted by William Seger

Slight problem: his compass had apparently been rotated to match the line!

Oh.
My.
God.

How screwed up do you have to be in order to try something like that? And how stupid do you have to be to think that noone will notice? Those are not rhetorical questions, I'd really like to know!!

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Firestone

Has the NTSB commented on their mistake?

It was such a minor mistake that I don't expect them to. The animation was made to give someone a sense of the pre-collision maneuvers, not to be an exactly accurate recreation. I would guess that if you found the guy who put together the video, and told him about the correction, he'd just shrug.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Kent1

Here's another good thread on the VDOT traffic monitoring camera that was damaged
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=15307
Another note, many suggest the tree may of been damaged buring the flight. You'll see some discussion on it in various threads.
Also see this photo. NOTE the top of the tree.
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/pen...ages/1265a.jpg

Would the wingtip of a 757 really just leave a scuff mark on the pole, without more serious damage?

Also, the photo of the first light pole to be struck in that thread, shows it lying on the ground, with a large graceful curve to the pole. But other photos, at least of the replacement pole, show it as straight and vertical. Did the impact cause that graceful curve, or was it simply replaced by a straight one?

[Kent1]

Originally Posted by CurtC

Would the wingtip of a 757 really just leave a scuff mark on the pole, without more serious damage?

Also, the photo of the first light pole to be struck in that thread, shows it lying on the ground, with a large graceful curve to the pole. But other photos, at least of the replacement pole, show it as straight and vertical. Did the impact cause that graceful curve, or was it simply replaced by a straight one?

If it clipped it thin enough I don't see why not. It also explains the missing peg and the broken camera on top quite well.
It might also explain this.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/septem...cord.asp?ID=28

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Kent1

If it clipped it thin enough I don't see why not. It also explains the missing peg and the broken camera on top quite well.

I agree with the broken peg, but the mark on the pole? It didn't clip through the pole at all (at least from my interpretation of what I'm looking at), it just left a scuff mark that covers about half of the front aspect of the pole.

It sure looks to be in the right place, and the missing peg is intriguing, but just a scuff mark from something that hit it at 530 mph? Would there not be any piece of the outermost six inches of a 757 wingtip that would cause physical damage in that scenario?

[Kent1]

Originally Posted by CurtC

I agree with the broken peg, but the mark on the pole? It didn't clip through the pole at all (at least from my interpretation of what I'm looking at), it just left a scuff mark that covers about half of the front aspect of the pole.

It sure looks to be in the right place, and the missing peg is intriguing, but just a scuff mark from something that hit it at 530 mph? Would there not be any piece of the outermost six inches of a 757 wingtip that would cause physical damage in that scenario?

It seems possible when the tip hit the peg a piece of the plane broke off and scuffed against the pole.

But look at the shape of the wingtip and the scuff mark on the pole. Its seems to be almost a perfect match. Given the materical, I don't think it would cut into the pole either.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=15307

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/lc2/Photo-6.jpg
Let's also again compare the above link with this photo.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/septem...cord.asp?ID=28

To summarize VDOT data we have:
1. Pole damage in approx. fight path.
2. Missing clip.
3. A Scuff mark that matches the wingtip shape.
4. Broken camera. (likely from shaken pole)
5. Piece of damaged wing piece.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by mcMike

Thanks for the info. Here's VDOT included:
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/502...25smallnl4.jpg

Brilliant! It doesn't get any clearer than that.


And what a laugh I got from seeing the jdx compass twist!

[W6102LA]

I'd assume the VDOT pole would be a lot stronger than the light poles(breakaway type) and the amount of clippage by the wingtip would shake the pole violently but not enough to bend/knock over the mast hence the broken lens in the camera, well that's my guess

[Moving On]

I don't have a lot of time these days so I can't get way engaged here right now. But the true course was 61.5 degrees. It is represented as Track Angle True in the .csv file. JDX is aware of this.



The following is a accurate representation of the final flight path based on this data.



It's base is a current Google map. Right at the wall is a matched satellite image from the 7th of September, 2001. The last time this was critiqued, I adapted the last change and it hasn't been challenged since. I was slightly off in the true north orientation of the big compass.

It was only the glass protecting the VDOT camera that was damaged. I actually talked with the guy who replaced the camera in person and he took me to the yard to show me the same model of camera. He described it as shattered in tiny pieces like a windshield (except not stuck by plastic). I interpret this as from a vibration from the striking of the pole.

I know it is improbable for the very wing to touch like that, but I have personally seen MANY improbable things in EMS. There is a point where you have to accept some of them. It appears that the very tip of the composite end of the wing did hit it.

Please read this thread in detail to understand. If people have very specific questions I will try to answer based on time availability.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...howtopic=15307

Russell

[Moving On]

As far as I can tell from my laymen's understanding there is NO other source of external data to confirm the NTSB animation path. They took the raw data from the FDR including heading and altitude and made the animation based on that.

The heading is easy because the .csv has the correct track. The altitude will be debated as usual but there is an explanation for it. In my opinion FDR's are not infallible. I am looking into more data on it over the next couple of months.

Here is some information that you guys can start with. I am open to critique on it, but it seems from my understanding level that all other sources confirm the 61.5 degree path which lines up with the mechanical damage. Please challenge and test it.

Look at the whole final maneuver from the NTSB Flight Path Study rotated to approximately match the animation path. While your looking at it, imagine what that does to the whole rest of the flight from the Ohio/Kentucky border. It either changes the whole flight or adds a significant maneuver at the end that is not recorded by anything.

A couple of these graphics are approximate but more than close enough to illustrate the point.



Now look at the Flight Path Study diagram.



It does approximately match the .csv. Now the question is what is a second source of confirmation? The answer is in the Flight Path Study itself.



Radar from 3 separate reporting stations. You can read the radar study here. At the end of it are the radar paths.

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Rec_Radar_%...0_aircraft.pdf



So we have a Flight Path Study based on the .csv file (or the FDR) and 3 radar stations. The navigation data is the final confirmation of the Flight Path Study versus the animation.

Quote:

"At approximately 9:18, the left distance measuring equipment (DME) began receiving information from the AML VOR. After receiving the DME signal, the airplane remained on a constant heading towards the Washington area. At 9:32, both VOR receivers were tuned to the DCA VOR."

http://www.ntsb.gov/info/autopilot_AA77_UA93_study.pdf

This is how it all works for the alignment of the Flight Path Study which IS based on FDR data.

It is a rough alignment because of the poor quality of what the NTSB used for a map.

Start with this image.



Then line it up with this map from the NTSB (link at bottom).





Draw a line extending from the flight path to continue on beyond where the animation stops.



Take out your overlay and it puts you in the vicinity of the mechanical damage area.

The TRUE content of the FDR, 3 radar sources and the avionics triangulation put the aircraft on the mechanical damage path.

Like I said, critique this and I will read time permitting.

[Pardalis]

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Get a life.

Best regards.

[Anti-sophist]

Russell, you realize your compass is rotated, right?

It's not pointing at TRUE north.

(ETA, of course you do, you mention it in your opening paragraph. Sorry)

And why are you even using a compass to draw these lines? You don't need a protractor or a copy/pasted compass. If true north is the orientation of the map, and the orientation of the data, you just need the slope, in pixels, and the arctan() function.


ETA: Also, as a point of claarification, the CSV file says 61.2 not 61.5 for true track angle. It is recorded in the :43 frame. Unless my import goofed up.

On the animation difference, someone mentioned their hypothesis that the maker of the animation rotated the underlying map the wrong way when correcting between mag/true north. In other words, instead of -N degree rotation, they did +N degree rotation. I haven't looked in detail, but it seems like a reasonable hypothesis. At some point I'll dive back into this and convince myself. If the difference is 2*correction, that would seem to support that hypothesis.

[Anti-sophist]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Get a life.

Best regards.

As best as I can tell, Russell is trying to tell us that multiple data sources seem to confirm that the plane's flight path agrees with the mechanical damage.

Unless I am mistaken, this seems to support the official story.

[jaydeehess]

Quote:

He rotated his compass to match his own personal favorite orientation. That's funny.

Oh, my, yes that is funny.
however the comments about killing those who stand in his way are chilling. The man is a dangerous nutjob.

[Kent1]

Russell good to see your input. I have a couple questions, maybe you could help.
1. What is the wire coming out above the VDOT camera. Is this damage?
2. Do you have any more photos of the inside of the Taxi of damage?

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Anti-sophist

As best as I can tell, Russell is trying to tell us that multiple data sources seem to confirm that the plane's flight path agrees with the mechanical damage.

Unless I am mistaken, this seems to support the official story.

Why is he asking you to critique it?

-Gumboot