Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
But we'll keep trying!
9/11: THE NORTH FLIGHT PATH: Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible - 19:29 - Dec 25, 2008
Pilots For 9/11 Truth - pilotsfor911truth.org
The latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth and a supplement to "9/11: Attack On The Pentagon". Some have created a myth that the flight path(s) - witnessed by numerous individuals who place the aircraft opposite the physical damage in Arlington, Va on Sept 11, 2001 - were aerodynamically impossible. We are about to bust such a myth. For more information, please visit pilotsfor911truth.org...
We will be publishing a tech paper as a supplement to this analysis as well as offering a high quality download once holiday priorites settle. Thank you for your support!
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
If you believe the unanimous independent witness accounts..."
Originally posted by tonysoprano
First of all this was written for "twoofers". That's the only people who will believe it.
Just as predicted it is a combination of disregarding inconvenient witnesses, illusions, incorrect radius calculations and pure unadulterated horse manure. It's not surprising at all that it was done as a cartoon. They could not write this and pull the shenanigans shown.
The FIRST path shows the aircraft impacting near the helipad (pardon me, flying over the helipad) That radius is close enough and the calculations appear to be accurate. So that still rather extreme bank angle is planted in the viewers mind as being aerodynamically possible at FDR speeds, no less! As an after thought it is then mentioned that well, that's not exactly what happened, we'll now adjust it to the impact point.
Now, when it switches to the proper impact point, the razzle dazzle crap begins. The radius is WRONG. The radius for that flight path is approximately 7025'. That computes to a bank angle of 67.4 degrees, 2.6 G's at 460 knots. That flight path from Paik CAN NOT be adjusted to an increased radius and still pass North of the station and to the impact point. Of course, it can be flown at a slower speed and that is implied throughout the cartoon. OHhhhhhh, the innuendo of how that lines up nicely with a runway at Reagan. I'm truly impressed.
Where those huge turn radii and very shallow bank angles are derived from in the latter portion of the cartoon is anyone's guess. It is never clearly stated how and where those radii were derived nor to what flight path they apply. Maybe they are just ignoring Paik (well, his statements are ignored anyway except for what supports the delusion) and the impact point. They can draw any flight path they want if it ignores key witnesses. What does that prove?
A flight path to the North of that station from a straight approach would have never been questioned as to it's aerodynamic probability. It's adhering to where the witnesses place it that makes it aerodynamically impossible.
Note that no vertical pull-up was addressed at all throughout the entire charade. There is a good reason for that. I don't need to specify that as most understand that the calculated bank angle and G forces for the point to point flight path must be maintained in order to arrive at the destinated point. G must be added (as all of the witnesses stated that it was at a very low altitude) in order to fly over the building.
The innuendo of some type of exotic aircraft design was to be expected. It's funny that the witnesses describe a transport category aircraft, but that might be an inconvenient fact. We'll put exotic aircraft in anyway just for grins. Oh, and we'll also throw in a large aircraft at about 35 degrees of bank after take-off executing an idiotic low altitude turn just to show them it can be done. We just won't tell everyone that that's a lesser bank and G than any of our postulated turns require when we adhere to what the witnesses said.
Oh, the irony. The Ranquisamo clones will be all over this. They now have poof that the "Official" flight path was impossible, but the North Flight path is very reasonable. Why? Because Ranquisamo said so and it's in a cartoon.