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
tnemelckram
post Jan 31 2010, 02:28 AM
Post #2





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Craig!

Great work! I'd never given much thought to this aspect because: (1) all the other evidence collected and discussed on this Forum subsumes it, and (2) planes obviously have to roll to turn and the amount of roll required increases with speed. Unfortunately, there's nothing to prevent any old person who wants to defend part of the "conventional wisdom" from getting a crayon and scribbling any final path they wish. So this is important because it points out that science severely restricts their path choices.

It's ironic that in an effort to save the building damage, this attempt tosses the South Path approach out the window and accepts your NOC witness Path. That's progress - you've forced them to realize that they have to lighten ship, so now they are forced to toss stuff overboard! You have the intellectual and rhetorical initiative.

1. You seem to have established these rules:

( a ) Only one turn can be included in any hypothetical final path. Time, space and
aerodynamics preclude two or more turns.

( b ) The roll from even one turn at 200-400 knots will take the face of the plane off of a
horizontal axis (parallel to the ground) and instead put it on an axis that is angled in
relation to the ground. This will dramatically reduce the width of the ground area in
which the plane can strike objects such as light poles.

( c ) Reconciling even one turn with the unscathed lawn and building damage is
problematic.


(i) The unscathed lawn requires the plane's wings to be on a
horizontal axis parallel to the ground for a substantial amount of time and
distance prior to impact. Otherwise the wings would dig in. The only way to
have both is for the plane finish the turn further away from the building.

(ii) The photos and other assessments of the building damage purport to show
or explain damage that was caused by a plane that had its whole wing span
parallel to the ground and on a horizontal axis when it hit. Same problem as
the lawn if you can get there by somehow overcoming the problems with
getting the plane flat to cross the lawn in the first place.


( d ) On the other hand, it's very easy to reconcile a turn or turns with a flyover
or flyby because the plane does not have to clear the lawn or strike
anything. Thus it does not require any particular flat orientation with the
ground at these specific times and places; instead, the plane can be in the
process of making one or more turns.


2. Here's something new. If the plane is in a turn as it passes NOC doing a flyby (not over) that ends with Roosevelt seeing it over the South Lot, then it might also be consistent with it striking some of the light poles in the process.

( a ) The seven lines drawn by your witnesses show various paths that first turn
and then converge into straight traverses over one of the clover leafs. It's the
second leaf on the north side of the highway after passing over the Citgo going
straight northeast.

( b ) If the plane turns right out of that course while crossing the highway, to head past
the southwest corner of Pentagon and then over the South Lot, it seems that
poles 3, 4 and 5 might lie along that path. They are very close together and this
angle of approach would not increase their separation. They are so close that
even a plane with its width reduced by turn roll still might catch them all.

( c ) The plane only has to be high enough to fly past the Pentagon, not high enough to
fly over it. It can be both high enough to fly past and low enough to hit the three
poles.

( d ) However, it does not seem possible to include Poles 1 and 2. The plane is already
past them, they lie off the path of any credible turn toward the South Lot, and this
angle of approach increases separation from the other three to the point that they
could not also be hit even before you add a turn and roll.


3. Interestingly, if you assume the validity of Warren's FDR decode along with accuracy to the eighth decimal, then the final INS position corroborates a significant part of the eyewitness accounts and shows that a flyover/by remains the best and probably only plausible explanation. However, a straight line through the 4 or 5 preceding positions results in an approach path that adds nuance while confirming the critical elements of a flyover/by, as follows.

( a ) The INS path would be nowhere near and conclusively rule out the "South
Path".

( b ) The point where it would cross Columbia Pike is at Paik's Garage. Watching the
sweeping overhead arm gesture that Paik used to illustrate the path again, that
crossing point is also as far as the argument interpreting "where Paik is pointing"
can be stretched. I see him indicating the plane's path was already centered on
the north side of Columbia Pike as it approached and then flew over me - the
only, and less likely, alternative is the center of the plane crossed the road while
it was flying over me. Either way, both Paik and INS get the plane on the north
side on a path consistent with NOC.

( c ) Next, when Morin saw the plane, the INS does not have its center over the
Annex structure, but slightly out over the parking lot instead so that a great
portion of its left wing would pass over top of the building. Just like Paik, that
seems to be about as far as you can stretch any alternative interpretation of the
words that Morin used to describe either his location or the course he saw. In any
case, what's important is that when Morin saw it, the plane still was neither
pointed at the Pentagon nor in the process of turning.

( d ) Then the center of the plane would pass over the corner of the Annex that is
closest to the Pentagon, while the entire plane misses the VDOT antenna by a
wide margin.

( e ) The INS path goes over the Citgo slightly south of the center of the building.
It's about 150 feet from the north side of the building and most literal sense of
NOC, 200 feet from the closest witness path, and 500 feet from the average of
the points where the witnesses placed the plane as it passed the Citgo. Then it
continues straight northeast with no indication of any turn.

( f ) The final INS point is right square in the middle of the same clover leaf that your
witnesses' paths converge over and traverse in straight lines, and moreover in
the midst of those lines. The INS and witnesses thus agree that the plane
reached a point near the center of that leaf while on a straight course, and that
the general approach up to the line of the Citgo was straight and northeast.

( g ) At the Citgo, they disagree on the relative position of the plane to the building
as well as whether it was in the process of turning or still going straight. As a
result, then there are conflicting directions for the clover leaf traverse.

( h ) The straight INS course and all further evidential value of its position data must
end at the final point that it reports. It can no longer contradict a roll and turn
toward the Pentagon, various flight paths either past, into or over it, or any
eyewitness accounts of those things.


( i ) Much of the above anticipates likely GL contentions and how to defend.
But the much more important offensive upshot is that according to the
government's own INS position data drawn from the FDR that it claims is the real
McCoy:


(I) The plane must miss Poles 1 and 2. It has to pass
them and not cross the highway to reach the final INS position in the middle
of the cloverleaf. Moreover, all of your witnesses who report that it reached
that same point are confirmed. This basic and crucial point is not diminished
or affected by the conflicts in how got there.

(II) At that point, the plane has already gone too far to begin making the
sharp turn it needs to get on any vector that leads to the light poles or
the one alleged impact point.
The first vectors to be lost during its
straight progress after the Citgo were those that would be consistent with
the building damage and/or allow the poles to be struck.

(III) Due to the severe roll consequent to any sharp turn at speed, the INS
data does not leave enough time and space to level the roll so the plane
can first cross but not blemish the lawn, and then strike the building down
low with almost level wings in the manner that is required for the impact
and damage to remain consistent.
Thisr paper shows that the INS data
demands maneuvers that are aerodynamically impossible.

(IV) The eyewitnesses report a completed turn onto a course that leaves a
vanishingly small possibility of reaching the sole alleged impact point, but its
angle would still be inconsistent with the damage. The INS course just
makes that sole impact point impossible to reach in the first place.

Alice would say that there's no real difference between vanishingly small
possibilities of things and impossible things, and that there's no point in
trying to prove sub points that disprove your main point.


This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jan 31 2010, 02:49 AM
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: 10th December 2017 - 09:19 PM