The North Approach, Technical Supplement to "9/11: The North Flight Path" Options

[rob balsamo]

THE NORTH APPROACH

TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT TO:

9/11: THE NORTH FLIGHT PATH

AERODYNAMICALLY POSSIBLE – WITNESS COMPATIBLE

January 4, 2009

By Rob Balsamo and Tino Desideri

Contact: pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org

(rev 1.0)

This technical paper is a supplement to the video presentation "The North Flight Path: Aerodynamically Possible – Witness Compatible" and will serve to prove that a North Approach over the Naval Annex and north of the Citgo gas station is aerodynamically possible and consistent with witness statements. The analysis is based on USGS survey of the Arlington area using scale modeling of buildings, obstacles, elevation and overall witness statements who independently corroborate placement of an aircraft opposite the physical damage observed at the Pentagon on the 11^th of September 2001.

More than one flight path will be evaluated to show best and worst case scenarios taking witness statements into consideration.

Considerations for Calculations;

- Aircraft type is unknown

- Stall Speed impossible to determine as outlined in the film.

- "Bank Angle" analysis based on level flight.

- "Pull Out" analysis based on Bank Angle and vertical acceleration required in the vertical plane to clear all obstacles and be consistent with witness statements.

- Speed: Flight Data Recorder (FDR) information not available for airborne vehicle witnessed on North Approach. Exact speed is impossible to determine based on witness statements. Several speeds are offered in this analysis including that of the Flight Data Recorder information plotted by the NTSB for this segment of flight in which many parameters conflict with a Pentagon "Impact". When using FDR information as plotted by the NTSB it would be technically inaccurate to focus on one parameter and ignore the rest for such a segment. Therefore, the reader must also understand FDR altitude as plotted by the NTSB for this segment has to be taken into consideration which shows too high to hit the Pentagon^*. With that said, we will still demonstrate how even the highest and final FDR speed plotted by the NTSB at less than 1 second west of the pentagon wall, is still aerodynamically possible for the North Approach based on bank and G loading for conventional aircraft, as witnessed. All other speed data as plotted by the NTSB for this segment will lower aerodynamic requirements than those demonstrated in this paper utilizing final FDR speed.



* See "Pandora's Black Box – Chapter Two – Flight Of American 77"

Download attached pdf for full paper. Thank you.

Attached File(s)

 NoC_TechPaperPDF.pdf ( 383.19K ) Number of downloads: 982

 

[painter]

Was able to DL the .pdf -- LOOKS REALLY GOOD!! Of course that is only an aesthetic opinion. I haven't the math skills to say anything about its accuracy. But just LOOKING at it makes me smile!


to all involved

[rob balsamo]

Thanks Michael....

[tnemelckram]

This is a great addition Rob! I was unable to download it and would like to have a look. Probably a technical issue.

- Aircraft type is unknown

A wise parameter. This has become quite interesting to me. It seems like any type of plane could have been involved - maybe some kind of souped-up airliner or pseudo airliner or other military craft. Maybe with remote guidance assist.

[rob balsamo]

This is a great addition Rob! I was unable to download it and would like to have a look. Probably a technical issue.

Should be fixed now... try it again. Sorry about that..

[SPreston]

I'M posting the tech paper to ATS. Is that OK with everybody?

SP

[rob balsamo]

Post it anywhere you wish. Its in the public domain now... also sent to more than over 100 media, govt and aviation organizations...

[SPreston]

Post it anywhere you wish. Its in the public domain now... also sent to more than over 100 media, govt and aviation organizations...

OK Rob. Posted to ATF in the original Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible thread. Maybe Craig can post it again in its own thread.

SP

[rob balsamo]

I had to re-upload the file. So anyone who has linked directly to the download, please check your links as they may now be broken. Our apologies for the inconvenience.

[Janusaur]

Cool!

I noticed professor Dewdney was listed as a "consultant" in the paper. Since he had hypothesized that either a missle or a smaller plane impacted the Pentagon, has he changed his hypothesis in light of CIT and PFT's work?

[Janusaur]

[mod snip- I apologize for my inconsiderate comments Janusaur - d]

dMole, check your messages.

Just to clarify, I was asking what Dewdney's response to CIT/PFT's work was. I don't agree with his 2003 paper, and I don't think it's unjustified to change his position in light of CIT's and PFT's newly discovered evidence. Of course, if he didn't change his position, that has no bearing on the merit of PFT's paper.

So lighten up man.

This post has been edited by dMole: Feb 6 2009, 01:42 PM

[Craig Ranke CIT]

It's a fair question but I think it should be asked to him directly.

I would hope so.

[rob balsamo]

I had to do another upload... we had the date set as 2008 instead of 2009. Fixed.

Janusaur,

I spoke with Dewdney regarding the fact we do not endorse the A-3 or missile "theories", mainly due to the fact P4T does not offer theory, but for other reasons as well, such as no one saw a missile or aircraft on the south approach. Kee mentioned he will be taking another look at past theories/papers.

And yeah dMole... lighten up bud..

(sorry Janusaur, sometimes trolls get under the skin so much that its hard to tell a troll from a legit poster)

[SPreston]

dMole, check your messages.

Just to clarify, I was asking what Dewdney's response to CIT/PFT's work was. I don't agree with his 2003 paper, and I don't think it's unjustified to change his position in light of CIT's and PFT's newly discovered evidence. Of course, if he didn't change his position, that has no bearing on the merit of PFT's paper.

Here is Professor AK Dewdney's 2008 update on Operation Pearl in pdf form. He is a fellow 9/11 Truther and his opinion of the Pentagon vehicle has no bearing on his loyalty as a 9/11 Truther.

Operation Pearl by Professor AK Dewdney

Professor Dewdney and other important scientists have some other excellent work at SPINE.

SPINE

Edit: Just in time Rob; I got it corrected at ATS

This post has been edited by SPreston: Jan 6 2009, 11:49 AM

[wstutt]

Hi Rob,

I tried clicking on the link to the paper in your original post, but got the following error message.

Sorry, but you do not have permission to use this feature. If you are not logged in, you may do so using the form below if available.

I was already logged in when I got the error message.

Thanks,
Warren.

[dMz]

I just got a right click "save as" to work and download Warren using this link from Rob's post:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....post&id=122

I haven't seen a "debunker" poke any holes there yet (I think they are hoping it will quietly go away).

[rob balsamo]

Hi Rob,

I tried clicking on the link to the paper in your original post, but got the following error message.

I fixed it. Should work now. My apologies Warren.

[wstutt]

I fixed it. Should work now. My apologies Warren.

Thanks Rob,

It works for me now.

Warren.