IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

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

Rating 5 V
 
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 27 2010, 03:31 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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
dlaliberte
post Jan 28 2010, 01:48 AM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 24
Joined: 20-December 08
From: Acton MA
Member No.: 4,035



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 27 2010, 04:31 PM) *
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, 01:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 28 2010, 10:43 AM
Post #3





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (dlaliberte @ Jan 28 2010, 07:48 AM) *
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



There is much more damage requiring a south side approach than just the light poles.

That would be the generator trailer, the retaining wall, and low and level damage to the outer facade of the building, as well as the damage to the C-ring hole.

ALL of it requires as southern approach and we do not have to rely on a single govt report to know the location of ANY of this damage.






The fact that there are no downed light poles on the north side also proves the plane did not hit the building on the first floor from this trajectory.

It is not logical to suggest that the light poles, cab, generator trailer, retaining wall, C-ring hole, security video, AND the ASCE report were all completely falsified while the plane hit. Not to mention you are forced to dismiss the evidence we have proving people saw the plane flying away.

NoC 100% proves a flyover. There is no way around it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dlaliberte
post Jan 28 2010, 11:25 AM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 24
Joined: 20-December 08
From: Acton MA
Member No.: 4,035



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 28 2010, 11:43 AM) *
There is much more damage requiring a south side approach than just the light poles.

That would be the generator trailer, the retaining wall, and low and level damage to the outer facade of the building, as well as the damage to the C-ring hole.


This is your claim, but I think the paper only shows that the flight path that INCLUDES the light pole collisions is not feasible. I am just asking for the further analysis that shows there is no flight path that DOES NOT include the light pole collisions but DOES include the other damage to the exterior. The angle of entry might be wrong for explaining the damage to the C-ring that is visible from the outside, but for that we might suppose that damage was caused by pre-placed explosives. After all, if you are going to suggest that the whole explosion was due to pre-placed explosives, it would not be as difficult to only explode the holes (3 of them) on the C-ring.

I am persuaded by the several eyewitnesses who saw the plane on the north of Citgo, but I am not persuaded by the one witness who saw a plane fly away. Are there more who claimed to see it fly away?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Jan 28 2010, 01:41 PM
Post #5





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (dlaliberte @ Jan 28 2010, 05:25 PM) *
This is your claim, but I think the paper only shows that the flight path that INCLUDES the light pole collisions is not feasible. I am just asking for the further analysis that shows there is no flight path that DOES NOT include the light pole collisions but DOES include the other damage to the exterior. The angle of entry might be wrong for explaining the damage to the C-ring that is visible from the outside, but for that we might suppose that damage was caused by pre-placed explosives. After all, if you are going to suggest that the whole explosion was due to pre-placed explosives, it would not be as difficult to only explode the holes (3 of them) on the C-ring.

I am persuaded by the several eyewitnesses who saw the plane on the north of Citgo, but I am not persuaded by the one witness who saw a plane fly away. Are there more who claimed to see it fly away?


There are many data points of damage that delineate a very specific trajectory leading all the way to the C-ring hole.

This is a fact that is not contestable and not reliant upon a single official report. It is not merely my "claim".

You need at least 2 data points to delineate a damage trajectory north of the Citgo and these do not exist.

In absence of this evidence, particularly ZERO downed light poles on the north side approach, it is not remotely logical to dismiss out of hand the direct evidence for a flyover in favor of a wild purely speculative based theory that requires a relatively slow moving, right banking, large aircraft to completely disintegrate low and level into the first floor of the building without damaging the lawn or the foundation.

You can refuse to accept the implications of the evidence (while flat out dismissing direct evidence) all you want but doing so based on an unsupported illogical theory that requires even more staging than the plane NOT hitting defies Occam's razor and serves to diminish the significance of what we do have and is therefore counter-productive to the campaign to expose 9/11 truth.

Whether or not you accept the obvious implications we have enough evidence to prove a deception dlaliberte .

Please contribute productively by focusing on seeking justice.

This post has been edited by Craig Ranke CIT: Jan 28 2010, 01:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Craig Ranke CIT   North Approach Impact Analysis   Jan 27 2010, 03:31 PM
- - datars   Nice Rob   Jan 27 2010, 03:58 PM
- - Craig Ranke CIT   PDF version available here: http://www.citizen...   Jan 27 2010, 09:01 PM
|- - rob balsamo   QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 27 2010, 09...   Jan 27 2010, 09:10 PM
- - dlaliberte   QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 27 2010, 04...   Jan 28 2010, 01:48 AM
|- - Craig Ranke CIT   QUOTE (dlaliberte @ Jan 28 2010, 07:48 AM...   Jan 28 2010, 10:43 AM
|- - dlaliberte   QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 28 2010, 11...   Jan 28 2010, 11:25 AM
||- - Craig Ranke CIT   QUOTE (dlaliberte @ Jan 28 2010, 05:25 PM...   Jan 28 2010, 01:41 PM
|- - EJT   QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Jan 26 2010, 01...   Jan 30 2010, 05:48 AM
- - Westgate   Great job craig and rob - as always. many thanks ...   Jan 28 2010, 07:25 AM
- - onesliceshort   Have detractors actually started to claim that the...   Jan 28 2010, 10:02 AM
- - IRIQUOIS227   I'm curious. I thought the decision about thi...   Jan 28 2010, 10:27 AM
|- - carlos furlong   QUOTE (IRIQUOIS227 @ Jan 28 2010, 11:27 A...   Feb 24 2010, 10:25 AM
|- - carlos furlong   i totally agree with everything you said,period...   Feb 24 2010, 10:35 AM
|- - Nicole   On PTSD which is quite a huge problem : http://mi...   Feb 24 2010, 10:57 AM
- - onesliceshort   Sorry, I donīt follow the logic of requesting math...   Jan 28 2010, 10:18 PM
- - bethpage   You don't give the boys credit for their Jihad...   Jan 29 2010, 06:25 AM
- - Jupiter   Hi everyone. Considering the generetor in fire, s...   Jan 29 2010, 10:48 AM
|- - bobcat46   QUOTE (Jupiter @ Jan 27 2010, 02:48 PM) H...   Feb 1 2010, 08:24 PM
|- - Jupiter   QUOTE (bobcat46 @ Feb 1 2010, 08:24 PM) J...   Feb 7 2010, 02:12 PM
- - tnemelckram   Hi Craig! Great work! I'd never give...   Jan 31 2010, 02:28 AM
- - albertchampion   there were no hijackers. and atta and shehi were ...   Jan 31 2010, 02:42 AM
- - bethpage   QUOTE (albertchampion @ Jan 31 2010, 03:4...   Feb 1 2010, 02:23 PM
- - bobcat46   QUOTE (bethpage @ Jan 30 2010, 06:23 PM) ...   Feb 1 2010, 08:19 PM


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th December 2017 - 08:36 PM