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: 936

 

[dMz]

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?

Hi "Janusaur," on your "Welcome" pass, my friend, I'm glad that you payed attenoin to Professor Dewdney's paper. WTF with your "missile," and just-WHAT-the-f*ck "hypothesis" there "cowboy"/"douchebag..."

[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. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

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

[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