Final Draft: New Elevations/Calculations from the USGS (say goodbye to your 20 feet Russ.. im taking it back now.. ;))




Pole 1 - 43'MSL ground elevation + 31.5 pole impact height = 74.5 MSL Total height above sea level.
Pole 1 aircraft height - 87'+38'ground elevation of pentagon+10.38' imapct hole height = 135.38 MSL.
Aircraft was 60.88 feet above Pole #1.

(not sure of exact reported impact height so i'll use the full 40' for pole length)
Pole 2 - 43'+ 40' = 83' MSL Pole Height
Pole 2 Aircraft Height - 74' + 48.38 = 122.38 MSL
Aircraft was 39.38' above pole #2

Pole 3 - 42'+ 40 = 82' MSL pole height
Pole 3 Aircraft Height - 60' + 50.38 = 110.38 MSL
Aircraft was 28.38' above Pole #3

Pole 4 - 42' + 40 = 82' MSL
Pole 4 Aircraft Height - 50' + 50.38 = 100.38 MSL
Aircraft was 18.38' above Pole # 4

Pole 5 - 41' + 40 = 81' MSL
Pole 5 Aircraft Height - 39' + 50.38 = 89.38
Aircraft was 8.38' above Pole #5

Numbers in black bold above represent the height above impact hole at pentagon based on descent rate of 66 ft/sec and distance from impact hole at pentagon to pole with a forward speed of 784 ft/sec.

To draw your own line.. go here... USGS Seamless Data Distribution

As a reminder, the above an alternate analysis based on working back from the pentagon impact hole. For a more accurate Aircraft height, please visit here for the Flight Data Recorder analysis mid page.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

So technically, the plane would have been 8 ft over "pole 5", and still would have been able to pull up and over the building.

Since the Citgo witness places it over the on ramp, to the left of the bridge it would be roughly 50 ft (8.38' + 40 ft light pole)above the lawn instead right?

i'd sure like you to explain what produced the broken off light poles that we see in numerous pictures on the lawn/

Do a search, its in this section.

What is the roadway right next to the underpass?

The 43 feet most likely represents that ground which I had at 46. Then your new data is 2 feet lower at the Pentagon. The survey marker and the heliport say 40 feet. Why would they have the 40 feet listed in air navigation charts if it wasn't accurate?

The following photo is hard data. 2 buses or 2 fire engines on top of each other fit under there. You can see it right in the photo. That is at least 20 feet of difference between the underpass road surface and the upper road surface no matter what anything else says. So determine what the lower road surface elevation is and add 20 feet. There it is in a photo. What is the elevation of the lower road surface according to the USGS? We need to find that and add 20 feet. Period.



So if according to your calculations the aircraft was 8 feet above pole 1 making it 48 feet AGL and the Pentagon is 77 AGL then in 477 feet or .61 of a second is it physically possible for an aircraft to reverse a 66 feet per second descent rate and go into an approximately 50 foot per second ascent in that time or distance at 530 mph?

I sure would like the govt to explain what hit the light poles since the Flight Data Recorder provided by the govt shows the aircraft was too high.

Its not my new data... its from the US Geological Survey. Complain to them.

[cheers]


(but if you still want your 20 feet so bad.. as you can see you're still short by 40)


Also.. Flight 77 wasnt reported to have hit the heliport.. it hit the Pentagon.. I dont know why you keep referencing the heliport. You also dont know exactly where the aviation charts took their measurements from on the heliport.

We dont have the last second of data. The Flight Data Recorder stops over the highway. It is entirely possible for the aircraft to have pulled up at 135MSL and passed over the pentagon leaving a fireball in its wake.

We have no data past the highway... My analysis above is hypothetical of what the aircraft would have done when flying over poles 3-5 if the data continued its trend and descent rate.

Its possible the aircraft increased its descent rate in that last second and hit poles 3-5 while continuing on to hit the pentagon. But we have hard data that it didnt hit poles 1 and 2.

And if we go by actual aircraft altitude as provided by the NTSB in the FDR, the aircraft was at 480 MSL over the highway and is highly unlikely it hit poles 3-5.. let alone the pentagon.

Just the facts based on the FDR.

I just found this,

"The PenRen monument point is a National Geodetic Survey (NGS) brass disk benchmark set by the US COAST & GEODETIC SURVEY stamped “PENTAGON 1942” having a published NGVD 1929 elevation of 38.62 feet. The benchmark is located near the center of the south loading dock inside the building near the first column at an elevation of 38’-7.5”"

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/REFDATA/Mem...ey%201942%20%22

So that would correspond to the USGS within 7.5". Obviously acceptable. So now I will use the that figure. So we have found a 1 foot 4.5" discrepancy in the heliport information which they must have rounded up.

Now what was real interesting is the slab heights the survey in the above link provided. Totally new to me.



On the Pentagon website it says 77 feet 3.5 inches. What do we make of that? The link above is the official survey information for the renovation???? I will have to do some claculations on a photo to see if the new height is the correct one. I assume it would be since it is physically measured data. That would throw of a lot of perspective graphics about the height of the tail etc. in relation to the building.

The 43 feet that is indicated in the USGS has to be the lower road surface. Since the USGS data was within 7.5 inches at the Pentagon to the survey marker then I will assume 43 feet 7.5 inches or 43.62 feet as the surface of the underpass roadway according to the USGS.

So for Google we can say it shows the Pentagon grounds as 33 feet and the USGS shows it at 38 and the survey data at 38.62. I am using the survey data. Google needs to be corrected by adding 5.62 feet. Since Google shows the underpass roadway at 39 feet it would be corrected to 44.62 feet.

That makes a 1 foot difference between the two. The average of those is 44 feet. That is the combination number from all three sources and the number I will use.

Then add 20 feet for the upper roadway since you can physically see with your own eyes that 2 stacked buses or fire engines fit under there. 20 feet is a fair minimum estimate.

That gives us 44 + 20 feet = 64 feet for the base of pole number 1. Add forty feet for the lamp height and the very top of the light was 104 feet MSL. Subtract the 3.5 foot rise for the truss arm and the estimated 5 feet of pole clipped off and add the 18 inch base and you have the impact of the leading edge occurring at 97 feet MSL.

Those are the numbers I am using and I feel they were arrived at fairly and accurately.

You can easily see the mound in the profile view for the USGS elevations. The lower roadway dips down.

However, i took the elevation picture and scaled it to construct this for a visual.

The ground elevation is drawn directly over the USGS Profile shown in the first post, then stretched/skewed to match distance based on GE measuring tool for the specified length of flight path.







As for your 20 feet you're still trying to grab at Russ...? be my guest.. you're still short.

"assume" ... :rolleyes:

I said GE had a +/-5 foot error when i compared to my Jepps. We already know this.

...and you have the airplane at 135' MSL. 480' MSL if you use the actual altitude from the altimeter (corrected for pressure).

Russell are you going to accept the FDR data/animation as fact or do you have an explanation as to why this precedence took place?

Well.. i wouldnt say i accept the FDR as "fact" while ignoring everything else. I accept it as fact that it came from the NTSB and the fact it says AA77 was too high to hit the light poles. I accept the fact that the FDR conflicts with the official story.

Now we need to get the govt to explain the conflict with the official story. Im thinking it may open a whole can of worms. I've looked at every possible scenario i could think of in which they could use for an explaination... the only two i have come up with so far are...

1. The FDR is completely fabricated.. in which case is as alarming if it were 100% accurate.

or..

2. The NTSB apologizes and tells us they gave us the wrong FDR data from a different airplane. Then gives us the real data. In which case i'll be waiving many BS Flags very high. There are only so many times our govt can use the "incompetence" card.

Here is more confirmation on the height of the overpass. The average "school bus" type vehicle is 10 feet. And the new "low profile" metro buses are advertised as 8.75 feet. The average of those is 9.375 feet. With the extra room at the top of the two buses even on a low estimate for the bus height you are looking at 20 feet difference between the lower surface and the upper surface.



Since the photo was crooked I rotated it in Photoshop to create a straight line at the upper edge of the wall. I measured how much of that sign is above it. In the following photo you can double check this as establishing an accurate height for the road surface.

You're still short Russ.. keep trying.

The animation is on a flight path that does not match the flight path map the NTSB also released.

JDX,

Was that map created from magnetic heading data? What is the magnetic heading data?

Then I will be able to answer the other questions.

Russell

The pentagon is also a square in the animation. I dont expect the NTSB to be graphic artists. This thread isnt about the flight path with relation to heading. This is about altitude which is hard data. Please stick to topic.

If you want to discuss the flight path with relation to heading that we have already discussed ad naseum on the phone... please start a new thread..

I asked that question about the FDR to answer Merc's question, "Russell are you going to accept the FDR data/animation as fact or do you have an explanation as to why this precedence took place?"

Do you agree that there is 20 feet of elevation difference between the lower and upper road surfaces in regards to the underpass? This is based on a very clear photo and graphically demonstrated.

If so, then what do you say the elevation of the lower road surface is?

Russell.. as i said... if you want to believe the upper roadway adds 20 feet.. be my guest... you're still ~40 feet short.


As for poles 3-5... sorry bud.. but you dont have an "over-pass" for those.

That above picture/profile sure looks like a "mound" to me...

Perhaps both the upper and lower roadways were "mounds"?



ummm... nope. Looks like those cars are climbing out of that underpass.

[cheers] [salute]

Are you saying that the photo and the diagram with the two busses is a belief?
What is the error allowence for the pressure altiude plus/minus in feet?

I lost my FDR forum passwrod again if you want to PM it to me.

In the Bus picture I think you can notice that the camerman is pointing down towards the underpass.

Much information has been posted about the pressure/baro definitions. I could quote sources for .5%, 20-25ft, 75ft, while some people have actually suggested 300ft. Which is really out of this world.

What is the point of the Mounds exact topology?

Im saying you have a belief that AA77 hit the light poles. I can care less about your Bus, cars.. whatever. It still comes up short (i think i have said this phrase like 30 times by now..lol..)


Error allowance is +/- 75 feet. But that doesnt effect descent rate. It wont be +75 feet at one second and then -75 at the other.

If its -75 feet.. its minus 75 feet throughout, but will still reflect a proper descent rate.

The +/- 75 feet only applies to the 480MSL. Not this alternate analysis.


edit: and now that i read UT's post.. i think i recall that the FDR has more strict tolerances.

The cockpit altimeters can be +/- 75 feet and they cannot be more than 20' difference between Capt/FO.

From Merc's witness interview:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=12972

Your point?

Does the FDR have a separate altimeter?

Doesn't it just record the same data that is indicated in the cockpit?

That is why in the animation we get to see the gauges?

If i recall correctly.. some FDR's are manufactured with their own altimeter. Either way.. here are the requirements as per FAR Part 121.344

§ 121.344 Digital flight data recorders for transport category airplanes.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section, no person may operate under this part a turbine-engine-powered transport category airplane unless it is equipped with one or more approved flight recorders that use a digital method of recording and storing data and a method of readily retrieving that data from the storage medium. The operational parameters required to be recorded by digital flight data recorders required by this section are as follows:

Click for full parameters
(we covered this many times in the past as well Russ)

From the FAR's
"Data should be obtained from the Air Data Computer where practicable"

The 757 has an Air Data Computer.

Also, we know that the altimeter was well within the +/-75 foot error requirements when checked on taxi out of Dulles. (it was within 10 feet IIRC).

~~~~~~
THE TESTIMONY OF JAMES W. ANGUS BEFORE THE NTSB
examination of altimeters and air data computers recovered from the Boeing 737, United Airlines Flight 553

Q. Mr. Angus, I would like for you to start by describing the altimetry system that is install in Boeing 737, and you may use Exhibit 9E for referral. I would like you to point out those components furnished by Kollsman.

A. Our involvement with the 737 air data computer and the servo-automatic computers for this particular aircraft. The central air data computer is a device which accepts inputs of static pressure, total pressure, temperature and electrical power. We sense the pressure functions and by means of servo systems, compute associated outputs that are used in various positions around the airplane. The sensors, sender portion of the air data computer ,consist essentially of mechanisms somewhat similar to what is contained in altimeters and airspeed indicators. That is, capsules which are responsive to the particular air pressures being supplied. And this particular information is converted into angular motion which ultimately becomes part of a synchotel system and combined with a servo, it positions all of the necessary output devices in accordance with program established by the specification for the air data computer, the output devices are in the forms of syncros, potentiometers, decoders, and reliability signals.

Included with the air data computer is a monitor system for each loop. This monitor determines that the servo system is properly following up each of the sensed values. If, as in the case of the altimeter, the servo system were to get out of track by as much as 100 feet, it would automatically disconnect the system. The way it does this, it cuts off the reliability signals that are sent to each of the using devices. So that any device in the airplane receives not only data from the air data computer, but it receives a validity signal which indicates whether or not the information should be used. The functions that are sent out are sent to indicators on the panel, auto-pilot, the flight recorder, the cabin pressurization system, and the transponder for reporting altitude. The altimeters are what are sometimes referred to as servo pneumatic altimeters. These altimeters have two modes of operation which are selectable by the pilot. In the standby mode of operation, the instrument will operate as a normal pressure sensitive device in accordance with the requirements of FAA/T on C10 Beacon. If it is elected, the indicator my also operate as a servo-repeater from the altitude data transmitted by the central air data computer. In order to operate in this mode, the pilot must actuate a switch knob on the face of the altimeter, which puts it in corrected mode of operation. In this mode of operation, the overall accuracy is improved from approximately ½ a percent system to about 2/10 of a percent accuracy.
~~~~~
Just pasting :)

Until September 11, 2001 the senior military POC for the last project I worked on for the DoD was General Maude. I didn't start on that project until about two weeks after 9/11, so I never met General Maude. Nonetheless, I never heard anybody in my office suggest that they believed a 757 had not hit the Pentagon. Trust me, I am not shilling for the traitors who murdered General Maude.

The description of the 737 FDR altimeter convinces me that it would not be sensitive enough to confidently determine the altitude of the plane as it crossed the overpass with enough precision to determine whether the plane could have hit the light posts. The quote as much as says the tolerance is on the order of 100ft. The .2% appears to be of a much greater altitude.

I spent 5 years as a guided missile electronics specialist, and can say with confidence that the evidence strongly suggests that a 757 was electronically hijacked and turned into a guided missile.

The star in this image show where my home office was for several years.


The flight path shown for the plane coming in along Columbia Pike and clipping the light posts makes perfect sense to me. I don't trust the eye-witness at the gas station. There could be any number of reasons for his not reporting events correctly.

The aircraft was at 480MSL. The poles didnt get above 100'MSL.

A .2% error is .96 feet.

100 foot error brings you down to 380MSL.

Still too high to hit the light poles.

(its funny to watch people having to use an "error" to try and fit it into their govt story)

480 feet makes ALL eyewitnesses wrong no matter what.

You cannot say the poles didn't go over 100 feet until you provide the base elevation of the lower underpass roadway and add 20 feet for the overpass.



I spoke with the photographer who took this and some he took from further back with a telephoto lens where the elevation was a little higher.



This is a still from the video he took closer up and you can see the grade is less than the distortion from the telephoto still. I have 3 minutes of video from this area and about 50 photos. This area was slightly higher than the Pentagon elevation of 38.62 feet.

You need to tell us what you believe the elevation of the lower roadway is. It is not a 2 foot difference as Google would have you believe.



The FDR pressure altitude has +/- room for error and your adding 300 feet to it is your own calculation. I am looking into it further.

You take one small portion of the Pentagon investigation and repeat it over and over telling everybody their wrong because of what you "know". Deal with the photo of the height of the overpass. It is hard data that can be analyzed and MUST be addressed.

Tell us what the USGS says about the elevation of the lower road so we can figure out what the pole height may have been before you tell people what it was. The destruction of conversations in here by you is making me very sad.

Name one time i have told someone their theory was wrong. I will point out facts in their theory which are inaccurate and correct them.. as i do for you all the time.

I have lots of faith in an FDR because i have seen many reports from FDR analysis. Airline pilots sit through them during class every 6 months.

As for your eyewitnesses, most of them are further from the pentagon where the ground is much higher... Many of them also say AA77 was a "treetop" level which we know is impossible.. even according to the official story.

Find me a pilot eyewitness who gives an accurate account of altitude. Oh.. .thats right.. Terry Morin.. who thought he saw a 737. Of which.. his altitude account is pretty accurate based on the FDR and the Navy Annex elevation (something we also went over ad naseum).

But.. keep trying to fit it to your theory.

Photo of the "overpass"...




Looks pretty level to that heli-port. Perhaps 6 feet higher.. no?

(something Russ ignores on the other thread.. so i'll bring it here)

My 300 foot calculation addition is concrete.. i have already addressed this ad naseum as well quoting the FAA Flight Training Handbook formulas. Go find it Russ.


Russ.. why do you keep making me repeat this stuff?

Again Russ.. if you want to believe the over pass adds 20 feet thats fine.. you're still 40 feet short for poles 1 and 2.

For poles 3-5, you dont have an "overpass". You only have USGS. I refer you to the first post that shows AA77 still too high working back from the impact hole according to descent rate.

Again Russ.. hard data dont lie.. humans do. I prefer to look at the hard data. Feel free to correct my math and tell me im lying or something. Its all accurate.

I am trying to evaluate all the available evidence. I do not have detailed information about the workings of the altimeter, but I assume it was designed to determine altitude based on ambient air pressure. The only other option I can imagine would be some kind of ground reflected radar. At the altitude in question traveling at 500+ mph, I suspect either approach would not provide a very reliable measure.

I fully agree that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out by elements within the US government. I believe Wall Street connected elements within the CIA and the FBI had a hand in the planning and execution. I also believe that Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Rumsfeld and Cheney were directly involved. This was a PNAC Pearl Harbor. The original Pearl Harbor attack was LIHOP, 9/11 was MIHOP. As for implications of guilt, it really doesn't matter whether an actual cruise missile or an airplane turned into a cruise missile was used. In either case, it was an inside job.

People really need to get the idea that "the government did it" out of their heads. General Maude was in "the government" and he was murdered. I belive he was murdered because he was onto the perps, and wasn't part of their cabal. General Maude was head of Army Personnel. The other office that was taken out in the attack was army finance. 2+2=?

[box]

If you think the aircraft was lower due to errors caused by velocity.. then the aircraft is in further conflict with the DOD video showing an object level across the lawn. That scenario you suggest is impossible based on the the increased descent rate you are proposing.

However, the increased velocity does not effect static pressures as the instrument and Air Data computer is calibrated and tested during certification for these such scenarios.

Otherwise, if the FDR did present these errors. .what good is an FDR if it only records data in "normal" conditions? In "normal" conditions.. you're less likely to crash. FDR's are designed to record accurate data outside the design envelope of the aircraft.

Think about it...

also.. please stay on topic.. i didnt create this thread to talk about General Maude or if "the govt did it"

Thanks.

i shot some video of the poles while driving by at night, hoping that it might help figure things out:

this is the route lloyde was on (the pentagon on the left):

longer version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWl1pJamZy8

shorter version with pauses at the 2 posts that fell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdiGGT_7w88


these two below are coming from the other direction, pentagon on the right (note: i could not pinpoint which of these poles fell, but they should be two of the three after passing under the first sign, please feel free to correct me if im wrong):

without pauses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J9Nkw7bLF8
with pauses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMaPWMy3KWQ


EDIT: i was doing about 43-48 miles per hour in the above clips.

yes it was at night so it may not be of much help, sorry. i will attempt a daytime drive-by video, but im not making any promises as to how soon that will be.
[dunno]

***


and while on the topic of "alternate analysis", i found this report that was a bit too much on the scientific/engineering tip (for me), so maybe some of you guys could look it over and see if there is any relevant data within it:

"Fatigue Behavior of Highway Welded Aluminum Light Pole Support Structures":
http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgi?a...akron1146490346

(170+ pages of exhaustive analysis in pdf format, so be warned! its a long read)

Elevation determination from USGS.

You can go here and do it yourself. Use the "XY" button.
http://seamless.usgs.gov/

The decimal numbers to enter for the impact spot are -77.058136, 38.870933

Then click the "Elevation Enquiry" button and click on the cross in the map. It will tell you 35.98 feet for 77 03 29.29, 38 52 15.36.

We know that disagrees with the survey of 38.62 feet meaning the USGS data is 2.64 feet low.

The decimal numbers to enter for the underpass roadway are -77.061306, 38.86975

It will tell you 36.5 feet. Add the 2.64 foot correction and you get 39.14 feet.

That means the lower roadway is only 6 inches higher than the ground the Pentagon slab rests on.

39 feet underpass roadway + 20 feet overpass roadway + 40 foot lamp head height = 99 feet for the top of pole number one.

What I have found is that "pressure altitude" is actually density altitude. That factors in temperature and humidity. I found a density altitude calculator.

If you take all the information from Dulles that morning and enter it in,

DULLES:

The actual elevation at Dulles is 312 feet MSL.
The actual barometric pressure that day/time was 30.21.
The temperature was 63 degrees.
The dew point was 57 degrees.

The FDR says the pressure altimeter was set at 30.21
The FDR says the recorded altitude was 40 feet or 272 feet below runway level.

ENTER:

Altitude 312 feet
Air Temperature 63 degrees F
Altimeter Setting 30.21 inches Hg
Dew Point 57 degrees F

RESULTS:

Density Altitude 522 feet
Absolute Pressure 29.872 inches Hg
Relative Density 98.48 %

The way I read that as a non-pilot is the density altitude is 210 feet above runway altitude.

If the FDR says the pressure altitude was 40 feet that is 272 feet below runway level. Add the difference of 210 feet for actual density altitude and now you are only 62 feet below runway level and within the 75 +/- feet tolerance of the pressure altimeter?

You can check out the detailed formulas and the various calculators here.
http://wahiduddin.net/calc/density_altitude.htm

Dulles Historical Info

If this is wrong please explain why.

EDIT: This is the part I don't understand, "The altimeter setting is the value in the altimeter's Kollsman window when the altimeter is set to correctly read a known elevation. The altimeter setting is generally included in NWS reports. The altimeter setting is not the same as the sea level corrected barometric pressure." Did the FDR show what they actually set it at? Why didn't they set it to reflect the known altitude of Dulles?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am saying the plane came in almost horizontally just clearing the overpass. That azimuth is the most level approach available in the terrain surrounding the target. An approach from any other azimuth which terminated in the horizontal trajectory observed would have required a greater final correction in the elevation angle. That can be seen from this picture. If you are suggesting that the descent prior to that final approach would have to have been steeper than your reading of the data suggests, then I don't see much of a conflict.



This animation is fairly consistent with what I believe happened.

http://vehme.blogspot.com/2006/09/boeing-7...t-pentagon.html

Nothing is static under the conditions in question. I would need the physical details of the altimeter, as well as its placement in the aircraft before I accept what you are suggesting. I note that you also used a different pressure than the NTSB. Since I do not know the origin of either value, I don't have any reason to accept one over the other.

The physical evidence is persuasive to me.

You brought it up, not me.

Do you understand the distinction between precision and accuracy?