Pilots For 911 Truth RO2 Flight Path Verified

[BCR]

I have been working with the NTSB data releases for American Airlines Flight 77 since mid-2006. By early 2007, I had developed a hypothesis that a Read-Out2 (RO2) of the raw flight data recorder file done by Undertow of the Pilots for 911 Truth was the best representation of the flight path; however the data stream had stopped 6-8 seconds prior to impact. The 84 RADES data supported that hypothesis, but with recent releases of the FAA radar data, that hypothesis has been confirmed.

I developed an Excel model in 2007 based on the data available at the time to align the available data sets (RADES, CSV, RO2). Data was aligned by the altitude values in the CSV and RO2 files, and by the MC values in the 84 RADES data from the first segment of the flight. There are distinct time differences in the various data sets (including FAA data) which I am awaiting the TRACON data from the NYC area to determine a little more precisely. At this point, the 84 RADES data is ~23 seconds slower than the broadcast time for the second WTC event.

For this model, I estimated the DME values (distance from VOR's) based on the RO2 positional data, and compared it with the values recorded in the RO2.





As can be seen, the value trends agree with one another for the entire flight path segment. With the release of the FAA radar data, data for an additional ARSR site (QRE) located near Bedford, Virginia was located, and ASR sites at IAD, DCA, ADW and BWI. This additional radar data is summarized in the images below. The kmz file used for the images is available for download and import into Google Earth.





An Excel workbook with the FAA primary data can be downloaded here. The raw data files can be located at AAL77.COM.

The final segment of flight terminated at the Pentagon as evidenced by the radar data, written IAD ATC statements, NEADS audio and all available ATC audio records. There is continuous radar data available for the entire RO2 flight path.

I will be completing a written project report to cover methodology and findings, however this will take several months to complete. In the meantime, I will be happy to answer any questions regarding the verified flight path.

Note:

The ASR data is in text format and the azimuth values are in whole degrees. When converting from polar (azimuth and range) to spherical (latitude and longitude) coordinates, this generates an error range which at 54 nautical miles range equals around 0.94 nautical miles. The plots for these in GE show up as slanted linear swaths at extreme distances, but at closer range (> 10 nautical miles) the error appears to be less than the inherent system error.

[CHF]

Give it up, kids.

Even much of the Twoof Movement has come to terms with the Pentagon crash.

[BCR]

Thanks, at my age it is wonderful to be called a kid

[Bobert]

Excellent job!
If 9-11 was in fact an inside job I look forward to the CIT/PFT finally getting the ball rolling on court action like they have been promising for 2 years now.
Oh wait a second they will probably take another year putting this latest info together in a super duper cool video with illegally used music.

[bje]

Originally Posted by 911files

Note:

The ASR data is in text format and the azimuth values are in whole degrees. When converting from polar (azimuth and range) to spherical (latitude and longitude) coordinates, this generates an error range which at 54 nautical miles range equals around 0.94 nautical miles. The plots for these in GE show up as slanted linear swaths at extreme distances, but at closer range (> 10 nautical miles) the error appears to be less than the inherent system error.

911 Files,

Just to check, are the data files in conformity with the projection datum used by Google Earth, i.e., are they both based on WGS84 or NAD83, for instance?

[CYiNCE]

Originally Posted by Bobert

Excellent job!
If 9-11 was in fact an inside job I look forward to the CIT/PFT finally getting the ball rolling on court action like they have been promising for 2 years now.
Oh wait a second they will probably take another year putting this latest info together in a super duper cool video with illegally used music.

People have been crucifying CIT and PFT all over this board for failing to provide math, evidence etc. Some one actually posts data to the community and we get a flippant dismissal, and bad attitude. As a community of skeptics we should look at this on the basis of its individual merits, and discuss those, not our general distain of the truther community.

I've watched the discourse of this sub foum deteriorate over the past year, and I would just like to see people exercise some civility to those with differing opinions, especially when the come to the lions den with those opinions.

[twinstead]

This isn't about two different opinions; this is about people accusing innocent people of mass murder, and those asking them to put up or shut up.

[jaydeehess]

Correct me if I am wrong but this does not in fact corroborate a NoC flight path but does have the flight ending at the Pentagon.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Correct me if I am wrong but this does not in fact corroborate a NoC flight path but does have the flight ending at the Pentagon.

You are quite correct.

I understand that it is widely believed that the final data point is the smoke, debris from the explosion at the Pentagon being picked up by the radar, is that correct?

[beachnut]

Doubt terrorist loyalist Balsamo will understand this work. Forget CIT, and the rest of the peanut gallery at p4tf. Poor Turbofan is such a Balsamo clone he will not understand this, he thinks 34 Gs is a great pullout path. Too bad p4t never had a FDR expert. They should have talked to some engineers from AFWAL, NTSB, or Boeing; I did.
Good Job gathering the data! Real research beats p4t and CIT who only have talk and opinions of fantasy instead of facts and evidence.

[jaydeehess]

IMO it would have to be since the aircraft is by that time at ground level and likely not being picked up on radar. It is just possible that radar could pick up a plane that low depending on the location of the radar site but the Pentagon sits at the bottom of a valley so that is not likely. It is also possible that the radar position is off slightly due to inherent system error and that the last return is from the aircraft when it was a few hundred feet from the Pentagon.

Hopefully Farmer will include the error ranges in the final illustration of the points along the paths indicated by the FDR and the RADES data.

As for the last return being the smoke and debris. If it is such then it neither corroborates or refutes either theory since if (IF IF IF) the CiT were correct and the fireball was an explosive device then smoke and debris would be thrown up. No one doubts that a large fireball and a fair amount of debris in the air existed.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Correct me if I am wrong but this does not in fact corroborate a
NoC flight path but does have the flight ending at the Pentagon.

He took RADAR data, studied the FDR DME, and confirms there are seconds missing for unknown reasons in the FDR as 77 hits the Pentagon on a course near the true track course recorded in the FDR blowing the NoC out of the water as do all the witnesses if rational people did the interpretation CIT messed up and Balsamo rubber stamps.

Facts and evidence vs. failed opinions and doltish ideas of p4t!
911files wins!

[bje]

I have a few observations using the DCA positions above.

1. The first four data points are separated by 5 seconds each. The last, at
13:37:56 occurs 9 seconds over the previous one. Are we missing a data point at 13:57:52?

2. Using the data points provided, the speed changes between each point to the next point varies approximately as follows in MPH:

437.32
487.50
499.91
362.42

We see that AA77 is accelerating but at the last measurement, at the face of Pentagon, shows it traversed the distance from the previous data point at 137 MPH slower. And that's assuming a straight path between the two data points.

So something does not add up.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

IMO it would have to be since the aircraft is by that time at ground level and likely not being picked up on radar. It is just possible that radar could pick up a plane that low depending on the location of the radar site but the Pentagon sits at the bottom of a valley so that is not likely. It is also possible that the radar position is off slightly due to inherent system error and that the last return is from the aircraft when it was a few hundred feet from the Pentagon.

Hopefully Farmer will include the error ranges in the final illustration of the points along the paths indicated by the FDR and the RADES data.

As for the last return being the smoke and debris. If it is such then it neither corroborates or refutes either theory since if (IF IF IF) the CiT were correct and the fireball was an explosive device then smoke and debris would be thrown up. No one doubts that a large fireball and a fair amount of debris in the air existed.

Wouldn't the lack of return of the fly over plane refute their BS? (Unless of course it was altered by the NWO....Bwaaaaa....)

[dtugg]

You must understand that this information is all fake. The FBI/NTSB/FAA, they are all in on it.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by bje

I have a few observations using the DCA positions above.

1. The first four data points are separated by 5 seconds each. The last, at
13:37:56 occurs 9 seconds over the previous one. Are we missing a data point at 13:57:52?

2. Using the data points provided, the speed changes between each point to the next point varies approximately as follows in MPH:

437.32
487.50
499.91
362.42

We see that AA77 is accelerating but at the last measurement, at the face of Pentagon, shows it traversed the distance from the previous data point at 137 MPH slower. And that's assuming a straight path between the two data points.

So something does not add up.

The last data point is not 77's airframe.

[bje]

Originally Posted by beachnut

The last data point is not 77's airframe.

I know. It couldn't be.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by bje

Just to check, are the data files in conformity with the projection datum used by Google Earth, i.e., are they both based on WGS84 or NAD83, for instance?

Polar to spherical requires only the site lat/long. That was obtained from GE since that is where the data was to be plotted. Both use the same projection datum.

Originally Posted by CYiNCE

People have been crucifying CIT and PFT all over this board for failing to provide math, evidence etc. Some one actually posts data to the community and we get a flippant dismissal, and bad attitude. As a community of skeptics we should look at this on the basis of its individual merits, and discuss those, not our general distain of the truther community.

Agreed, and that is why the Excel workbooks which include the math and logic are linked for download and examination.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Correct me if I am wrong but this does not in fact corroborate a NoC flight path but does have the flight ending at the Pentagon.

Perhaps you need glasses. The NoC path promoted by some comes down the east of the Potomac and crosses over Steve Chaconas's head south of DCA. This one matches the written IAD ATC statements and ends with a final heading of ~60 degrees; a heading which extended intersects the Pentagon and light poles.

Originally Posted by bje

I have a few observations using the DCA positions above.

1. The first four data points are separated by 5 seconds each. The last, at
13:37:56 occurs 9 seconds over the previous one. Are we missing a data point at 13:57:52?

2. Using the data points provided, the speed changes between each point to the next point varies approximately as follows in MPH:

437.32
487.50
499.91
362.42

We see that AA77 is accelerating but at the last measurement, at the face of Pentagon, shows it traversed the distance from the previous data point at 137 MPH slower. And that's assuming a straight path between the two data points.

So something does not add up.

I thought it would be self-explanatory, but perhaps not. After impact on all of the ASR's, returns over the Pentagon area are clustered for quite a few minutes. They correspond to the fireball and smoke column location. The final DCA return is the first of these, which should be clear from your observations bje. The ASR sweep intervals are 4.7 seconds, while ARSR sweeps are ~12 seconds. Using the Doubletree video as reference (noting flight path of the helicopter passing 10 minutes earlier to set time frame to DCA), impact was at 13:37:51 - 13:37:52 DCA.

[bje]

Originally Posted by 911files

I thought it would be self-explanatory, but perhaps not. After impact on all of the ASR's, returns over the Pentagon area are clustered for quite a few minutes. They correspond to the fireball and smoke column location. The final DCA return is the first of these, which should be clear from your observations bje. The ASR sweep intervals are 4.7 seconds, while ARSR sweeps are ~12 seconds. Using the Doubletree video as reference (noting flight path of the helicopter passing 10 minutes earlier to set time frame to DCA), impact was at 13:37:51 - 13:37:52 DCA.

I understand now. Thanks.

[T.A.M.]

So for those of us who do not speak fluent "aviation", someone care to summarize what the math concludes?

1. Do we have verification by others here that 911files math is correct, and that he has not used any corrupted factors or variables (such as using the wrong compass lines etc...)?
2. If all of his variables and math is correct, does it prove (A) North of Citgo, or (B) Flyover, or (C) that the Light Poles could not have been struck?

TAM

[Brainster]

Can you give it to me in simple English? What was the PFT R02 Flight path? You said that it lines up with the light poles and Pentagon damage; does this rule out the North of Citgo claims?

I appreciate your work and would be happy to highlight it at SLC if I can make it intelligible to my readers.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Can you give it to me in simple English? What was the PFT R02 Flight path? You said that it lines up with the light poles and Pentagon damage; does this rule out the North of Citgo claims?

I appreciate your work and would be happy to highlight it at SLC if I can make it intelligible to my readers.

The P4T RO2 is the flight data recorder decoded, not a theory. The short of it, the distance from navigation aids (VOR's) has been confirmed as recorded in the RO2 (fdr). The positional data has been confirmed using multiple radar sites along the flight path to verify that data as well. There are no holes in the data, so contrary to some theories, the plane did not land in KY/Ohio/WV and get replaced by a drone of some kind. The radar and RO2 data ends at the Sheraton Hotel area (to the south). Projected forward, it corresponds to the downed light poles and impact area (south of the Citgo). There is no evidence of a "fly-over" or other such hypothetical outcome. The data ends at the Pentagon area.

[Bobert]

Ok so are saying that the NWO didnt simply replace flight 77 with a tunnel digging plance that then burrowed under the Pentagin?

Very nice work.
It will be comedy gold to see how CIT/PFT spins this.
I am sure they are are huddled together at the treefort.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Bobert

Ok so are saying that the NWO didnt simply replace flight 77 with a tunnel digging plance that then burrowed under the Pentagin?

Very nice work.
It will be comedy gold to see how CIT/PFT spins this.
I am sure they are are huddled together at the treefort.

PFT did the Read-Out2. It is their flight path. How could they possibly disagree?

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by 911files

Polar to spherical requires only the site lat/long. That was obtained from GE since that is where the data was to be plotted. Both use the same projection datum.

What do you mean by polar coordinates? It is a distance/direction type of notation? If so, it is a planar system, and it will need a slightly different conversion than spherical to spherical coordinates (datum matching), which could potentially skew things by a couple of meters (depending on the area covered).

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by 911files

PFT did the Read-Out2. It is their flight path. How could they possibly disagree?

They believe that the Secret Service planted plane debris and that frozen cadavers were wheeled into the Pentagon.
Believe me they will find someithing and say that your math is flawed.
I take your word that your math is accurate, I am not doubting you.
Are you sure your not a government operative?

[Bobert]

oops sorry double post

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

So for those of us who do not speak fluent "aviation", someone care to summarize what the math concludes?

1. Do we have verification by others here that 911files math is correct, and that he has not used any corrupted factors or variables (such as using the wrong compass lines etc...)?
2. If all of his variables and math is correct, does it prove (A) North of Citgo, or (B) Flyover, or (C) that the Light Poles could not have been struck?

TAM

His data looks good. I have used his data to try to explain to Turbofan why the 1.5 DME recorded in the FDR can be an actual position of 1.725 NM or more and not an actual 1.5 DME.

His data confirms what most people here know. 77 impacted the Pentagon after it knocked down lampposts as seen on 9/11.

Of course JREF skeptics cheated 9/11 truth by using the facts and evidence to know 77 impacted the Pentagon.

His data shows 77 all lined up to impact the Pentagon and knock down lampposts!

His data proves 77 did not fly NoC (north of CITGO)! NoC has always been the super nut case idea; it confirms terrorist loyalist Balsamo's lack of knowledge on flying, physics, math, and the events of 9/11.

This information fills in the big picture. It refutes NoC.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

What do you mean by polar coordinates? It is a distance/direction type of notation? If so, it is a planar system, and it will need a slightly different conversion than spherical to spherical coordinates (datum matching), which could potentially skew things by a couple of meters (depending on the area covered).

I would suggest reading up on the subject. Polar = range/azimuth. Degrees are degrees (or radians) and range in this case is nautical miles. I am sure Beachnut or some of the aviation guys can explain further, but there is nothing complicated about it. Since the lat/long used for conversion is from the same reference system it is plotted in, I'm not sure that would be much of an error factor. Please review the Excel workbooks for the conversion algorithm's.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by 911files

I would suggest reading up on the subject. Polar = range/azimuth. Degrees are degrees (or radians) and range in this case is nautical miles. I am sure Beachnut or some of the aviation guys can explain further, but there is nothing complicated about it. Since the lat/long used for conversion is from the same reference system it is plotted in, I'm not sure that would be much of an error factor. Please review the Excel workbooks for the conversion algorithm's.

Thanks. I will check the Excel sheet for your conversions.

As an FYI, I do GIS and large scale surveying for a living, so I am quite aware of the errors that exist when someone simply swaps lat/long (spherical coordinates) for azimuth/distance (inverses), particularly over distances of several miles. For example, if you take any two points separated by several miles on the globe and measure the angle from point A to point B, and the angle from point B to point A, they are not simply 180 degrees off of each other.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by 911files

PFT did the Read-Out2. It is their flight path. How could they possibly disagree?

RO2 only has the accuracy of an INS (with VOR/DME updates); are you weighting the DCA point at the same time as the more accurate position?

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by 911files

I would suggest reading up on the subject. Polar = range/azimuth. Degrees are degrees (or radians) and range in this case is nautical miles. I am sure Beachnut or some of the aviation guys can explain further, but there is nothing complicated about it. Since the lat/long used for conversion is from the same reference system it is plotted in, I'm not sure that would be much of an error factor. Please review the Excel workbooks for the conversion algorithm's.

OK, I took a look, and it appears that you are using a Cartesian to spherical conversion using basic trigonometry. That works fine for shorter distances or "perfect" situations, but it isn't very accurate for mapping purposes. For example, it doesn't take scale or convergence factors into account. Since you probably don't want to invest in 3500 USD worth of mapping software, you may want to check out a simple converter such as this one, or simply list this as a potential source of error. Like I said, it probably won't be off more than a couple of meters, but when dealing with people who love to argue about minutiae (), it doesn't hurt to ackowledge the difference.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

Like I said, it probably won't be off more than a couple of meters, but when dealing with people who love to argue about minutiae (), it doesn't hurt to ackowledge the difference.

When the noise band is at 0.94 nautical miles at 54 nautical miles, I am really not worried about a few meters. And no, I'm not converting from cartesian (x,y), but polar (azimuth, range). I did convert to cartesian from polar to plot in Excel, but you are talking about two different conversions. Please refrain from arguing about stuff you cannot even get right.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by DGM

Wouldn't the lack of return of the fly over plane refute their BS?

I was going solely on the data points supplied. You point out that there are no more and if in fact that is because the RADES no longer was receiving any return from an object along this path then, yes, it refutes their B$

ETA: I see that 911files has dealt with this.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by 911files

Perhaps you need glasses. The NoC path promoted by some comes down the east of the Potomac and crosses over Steve Chaconas's head south of DCA. This one matches the written IAD ATC statements and ends with a final heading of ~60 degrees; a heading which extended intersects the Pentagon and light poles.

I do have glasses in fact. A lot of us 50+ guys do.

I was being characteristically Canadian in my somewhat apologetically styled post above. Yes, I believed that what I was looking at was a so-called SoC flight path consistent with the path described by the downed lamp posts. I was looking for confirmation of my observation from you and others.

[BCR]

Yes, we 50+ guys do I am ready for a new pair of bifocals myself.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by 911files

When the noise band is at 0.94 nautical miles at 54 nautical miles, I am really not worried about a few meters. And no, I'm not converting from cartesian (x,y), but polar (azimuth, range). I did convert to cartesian from polar to plot in Excel, but you are talking about two different conversions. Please refrain from arguing about stuff you cannot even get right.

Right, I was talking about the plotted points. Since coordinate conversion and point plotting is something I deal with on a regular basis, I thought this would be an interesting diversion.

But no worries, if you do not want any critique of your analysis or methods, there are plenty of other threads to peruse. *Shrug*

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Hokulele

But no worries, if you do not want any critique of your analysis or methods, there are plenty of other threads to peruse. *Shrug*

No problem with critique of my analysis, but get what my analysis is right first and don't go spouting off "critique" of something that is NOT my method. There are NO conversions from cartesian to spherical.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by 911files

Please refrain from arguing about stuff you cannot even get right.

In all due respect, that was unnecessary. She was trying to help by providing her own expertise. For someone who openly courted responses in your original post, that was a poor response. You could have written the exact same response except left out the above sentence, and still gotten your point across.

[BCR]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

In all due respect, that was unnecessary. She was trying to help by providing her own expertise. For someone who openly courted responses in your original post, that was a poor response. You could have written the exact same response except left out the above sentence, and still gotten your point across.

Your are correct, but I take offense at people who critique and argue when they have not taken the time to even review the algorithm's first, and then show they have not when they invoke methods that were not used. I get enough of that from P4T and CIT.