North Approach Impact Analysis, new tech paper by Pilots For 9/11 Truth |

Jan 27 2010, 04:31 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Contributor Posts: 1,072 Joined: 15-October 06 Member No.: 75 |
This new tech paper from Pilots for 9/11 Truth complete with calculations and animations is a formal breakdown scientifically demonstrating that a plane on the north side of the gas station can not cause the physical damage at the Pentagon starting with the light poles.
Although it's usually pretty obvious to the layman simply by looking at the location of the physical damage in relation to the witness flight path illustrations this paper makes it 100% clear and is backed by experts and professionals. This puts any possible doubts to rest regarding the non-controversial scientific fact that a flight path directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station as reported by the witnesses presented in National Security Alert unequivocally and scientifically proves a flyover. NORTH APPROACH IMPACT ANALYSIS Thanks again Rob! |
|
|
|
![]() |
Jan 28 2010, 02:48 AM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Group: Student Forum Pilot Posts: 24 Joined: 20-December 08 From: Acton MA Member No.: 4,035 |
This puts any possible doubts to rest regarding the non-controversial scientific fact that a flight path directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station as reported by the witnesses presented in National Security Alert unequivocally and scientifically proves a flyover. Getting closer anyway. Nicely done paper that appears compelling for making the case that the flight path north of Citgo could not include the light pole collisions. But to complete the case, you need to also consider alternative flight paths that do not collide with the light poles, assuming the toppled poles were staged. And since we can't trust that the interior destruction was reported accurately, are there any flight paths that are only consistent with the exterior damage of the Pentagon wall and the immediately nearby structures? Looking forward to seeing that analysis. dan This post has been edited by dlaliberte: Jan 28 2010, 02:49 AM |
|
|
|
Craig Ranke CIT North Approach Impact Analysis Jan 27 2010, 04:31 PM
datars Nice Rob Jan 27 2010, 04:58 PM
Craig Ranke CIT PDF version available here:
http://www.citizen... Jan 27 2010, 10:01 PM
rob balsamo QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 27 2010, 09... Jan 27 2010, 10:10 PM
Craig Ranke CIT QUOTE (dlaliberte @ Jan 28 2010, 07:48 AM... Jan 28 2010, 11:43 AM
dlaliberte QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 28 2010, 11... Jan 28 2010, 12:25 PM

Craig Ranke CIT QUOTE (dlaliberte @ Jan 28 2010, 05:25 PM... Jan 28 2010, 02:41 PM
EJT QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 26 2010, 01... Jan 30 2010, 06:48 AM
Westgate Great job craig and rob - as always. many thanks ... Jan 28 2010, 08:25 AM
onesliceshort Have detractors actually started to claim that the... Jan 28 2010, 11:02 AM
IRIQUOIS227 I'm curious. I thought the decision about thi... Jan 28 2010, 11:27 AM
carlos furlong QUOTE (IRIQUOIS227 @ Jan 28 2010, 11:27 A... Feb 24 2010, 11:25 AM
carlos furlong i totally agree with everything you said,period... Feb 24 2010, 11:35 AM
Nicole On PTSD which is quite a huge problem :
http://mi... Feb 24 2010, 11:57 AM
onesliceshort Sorry, I donīt follow the logic of requesting math... Jan 28 2010, 11:18 PM
bethpage You don't give the boys credit for their Jihad... Jan 29 2010, 07:25 AM
Jupiter Hi everyone.
Considering the generetor in fire, s... Jan 29 2010, 11:48 AM
bobcat46 QUOTE (Jupiter @ Jan 27 2010, 02:48 PM) H... Feb 1 2010, 09:24 PM
Jupiter QUOTE (bobcat46 @ Feb 1 2010, 08:24 PM) J... Feb 7 2010, 03:12 PM
tnemelckram Hi Craig!
Great work! I'd never give... Jan 31 2010, 03:28 AM
albertchampion there were no hijackers.
and atta and shehi were ... Jan 31 2010, 03:42 AM
bethpage QUOTE (albertchampion @ Jan 31 2010, 03:4... Feb 1 2010, 03:23 PM
bobcat46 QUOTE (bethpage @ Jan 30 2010, 06:23 PM) ... Feb 1 2010, 09:19 PM
![]() ![]() |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th June 2013 - 03:01 AM |