Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
And 12 out of 13 insist the plane hit the pentagon. Thank for reminding everyone of this, again.

I don't care if the alleged plane hit the Pentagon or not. I've yet to see any evidence that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon, no serial part numbers, etc.

Thanks for reminding us all, again, that these witnesses saw the alleged plane fly NOC. A NOC flight path contradicts the official story and destroys it.

I can see why some debunkers love to quote these witnesses when they state that the alleged plane hit the Pentagon, but the same debunkers shy away from the same witnesses when they state that the alleged plane flew NOC. Ouch. Does it hurt the official story when multiple witnesses independently state something that you don't like to hear?

I hate Farmer because he lies and spins anything he reads. Not to mention
HIS math is incorrect.

There's an entire history of his edits and mistakes. He's trying his best
to find a loop hole in the North approach math/presentation, and even
using extremes to skew the flight aerodynamics...so much so that he
insists on doing all of his calculations with a non-factual air speed.

This sort of cover-up makes a truther wonder why it's even necessary
if the official story was really true to begin with?

Originally posted by tezzajw
I've yet to see any evidence that the alleged Flight AA77 hit the Pentagon, no serial part numbers, etc.

I asked you before - can YOU provide serial numbers for the Piper Cherokee, registration N312AG that crashed and killed 4 in the San Bernardino Mountain range, near Forest Falls, California, on Nov 9, 2008?

Perhaps you can claim the 4 bodies pulled from the wreckage were...well.."fabricated" or made up. Perhaps they were frozen cadavers placed in the wreckage afterward, to make it appear that 4 souls died.

That article I referenced above also states "the plane was so extensively damaged its tail numbers could not be read, preventing definitive identification of the aircraft". Does that ring any alarm bells? Perhaps this made-up plane crash stuff happens all the time.

Can you produce any serial numbers for that crash? Just because the FBI hasn't made you privy to any and all evidence they collect does not mean it isn't there. Further, who CARES if you want to see serial numbers of parts from the Pentagon? Its not like you (or the CIT Sleuths) are going to actually...you know.....*do* anything about it.

Thanks for reminding us all, again, that these witnesses saw the alleged plane fly NOC. A NOC flight path contradicts the official story and destroys it.

Ah contraire, again. The physical evidence of the impact means a north of Citgo flight path is impossible. Simple as that. The vaunted CIT witnesses are mistaken in their placement of the flight path, but are bang on regarding the impact.

Tell you what. Get Craig and Aldo to head back to Arlington (we'll have a bake sale to help them out) and get Lagasse or Brooks or Morin to recant their claim that the aircraft hit the building and you'll already be ahead of where you were before!

Originally posted by pinch
I asked you before - can YOU provide serial numbers for the Piper Cherokee, registration N312AG that crashed and killed 4 in the San Bernardino Mountain range, near Forest Falls, California, on Nov 9, 2008?

For the sake of your own credibility, pinch, please stay on topic. I'm not interested in those other crashes and neither is this thread.

Ah contraire, again. The physical evidence of the impact means a north of Citgo flight path is impossible. Simple as that. The vaunted CIT witnesses are mistaken in their placement of the flight path, but are bang on regarding the impact.

pinch, were you there to watch the alleged plane fly towards the Pentagon? I'm presuming the answer is no.

Therefore, when you claim that 13 people did not see what they saw, I can not take your objection seriously. Those 13 people were there when it happened, you were not. They've independently stated that they saw an alleged plane flying NOC. You weren't there, so the best that you can do is to trust the government data. Those real-time eyewitnesses know that they saw a NOC approach.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by tezzajw]

As promised, here is the technical paper for the 'math' as promised from Pilots For 9/11 Truth in pdf form.

(includes calculations for the "pull out")

THE NORTH APPROACH

TECHNICAL SUPPLEMENT TO:

9/11: THE NORTH FLIGHT PATH

AERODYNAMICALLY POSSIBLE – WITNESS COMPATIBLE

January, 4 2008

By Rob Balsamo and Tino Desideri

Contact: [email protected]

(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 11th 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 ( 383.49K )

[edit on 1/6/09 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


Wow!

P4T have really really stepped up to the plate with this professional and accurate scientific analysis.

Virtually all possible scenarios for a north side approach and a "pull-up" have been fully addressed by true professionals proving that there isn't a reason on earth to doubt the unanimous claim from 13 independent witnesses who prove a military deception on 9/11.

THANK YOU Pilots for 9/11 Truth for this incredible effort and your unrelenting commitment to truth and justice.

You are most definitely true patriots and heroes.

With a stated unknown aircraft, traveling at unknowable speeds, at an unknown altitude, on an assumed heading, the PDF proves... what exactly?

That if a plane... a Cessna even... were flying over the Navy Annex it could execute a maneuver that would allow it to fly over the Pentagon? Bravo. *golf clap*

Did anyone see the plane fly away into the distance? Nope.

Did any of the plethora of radar installations in the area track such an aircraft? Nope.

Did any other surrounding radar installations within 200 miles have a mystery plane appear on track that has never been resolved? Nope.

What were the set of exact, or even rough, measurements of the altitude of the plane as it passed over the heads of the witnesses and how was that determined? If this process was done for some witnesses, why not all? Would that not provide a vast amount of information to further estimate a complete flight path including all 3 dimensions? I assert that this information doesn't exist and cannot be determined from the witness statements, and thereby is completely arbitrary (ie: from the land of make-believe).

You know what's truly fantastic about that PDF? Note the distance at which the plane was to pass over the Pentagon.... Nearly 100 feet! No one saw this? Are you kidding?

An explosion cannot occur some 100ft below the bottom of the aircraft and have it obscure that aircraft unless the resultant fireball not only obscured the face of the Pentagon but also up to a height of 120ft or more... and do so at the speed of light.

Too bad that's totally inconsistent with the video frames released from the security camera video, physical damage and burn patterns, the Doubletree video, as well as eye witness testimony.

Utter snake oil.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by cogburn]

posted by cogburn

Utter snake oil.

Snake oil? Oh yeah that totally unbelievable flight down the hill through the 337 pound wing shattering light poles and then the high G pull up to level flight inches above the lawn with the alleged crash into the wall at an official 535 mph, with the fake looking videos showing the fake looking explosion. All this from an aircraft which was actually flying Over the Naval Annex according to 20+ eyewitnesses, most of them previously published and documented eyewitnesses way back in 2001, which could not possibly have taken down the five light poles nor created the official damage path through the Pentagon. The decoy aircraft this math and this tech paper was prepared for. The math and tech paper which has a bunch of snake oil salesmen all frantic and desperately looking for a safety rope.

The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

Yep. UTTER SNAKE OIL.



[edit on 1/6/09 by SPreston]

Perhaps if one of the government loyalist insiders could check and find out what kind of aircraft they used to fly Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, and list the modifications to the aircraft, there would be fewer 'unknown' parameters, and Pilots For 9/11 Truth could update the technical paper for the 'math' for your consideration.

Or perhaps one of you could snag the actual Flight Data Recorder out of that aircraft; it would be a big help. Or perhaps you guys should have a talk with your bosses and see if they want to 'modify' the Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY 'again'. It seems that if the 'tale' was the truth from the beginning; it would not require any 'modification' at all, would it?

For a shred of sanity concerning this (IMO only) "no/wrong plane" nonsense, please

click here

and here

and here

[edit on 6-1-2009 by SlightlyAbovePar]

With a stated unknown aircraft, traveling at unknowable speeds, at an unknown altitude, on an assumed heading, the PDF proves... what exactly?

It proves exactly what all you GL's said wasn't possible...in more ways
than one.

That if a plane... a Cessna even... were flying over the Navy Annex it could execute a maneuver that would allow it to fly over the Pentagon? Bravo. *golf clap*

Gee, if it was that easy, why didn't all of those uneducated GL's pick up
on the fact that a north approach IS possible?

Did any of the witnesses see the plane fly off into the distance?

Did any of those 13 witnesses on video see a south approach? Nope.
How many video witnesses do you have for a south approach? Zero?

Did any of the plethora of radar installations in the area track such an aircraft? Nope.

You mean the proven altered RADES data?

Did any other surrounding radar installations within 200 miles have a mystery plane appear on track that has never been resolved? Nope.

See above. Hey about that poor excuse for an animation that the
NTSB has issued. I haven't seen any corrections, or explanations for
the anomalies found. Have you? Nope.

What were the set of exact, or even rough, measurements of the altitude of the plane as it passed over the heads of the witnesses and how was that determined? If this process was done for some witnesses, why not all? Would that not provide a vast amount of information to further estimate a complete flight path including all 3 dimensions? I assert that this information doesn't exist and cannot be determined from the witness statements, and thereby is completely arbitrary (ie: from the land of make-believe).

We asked for that data for several days from the cry babies that said
NoC was impossible. We never received that data...probably because
they now know that a North approach is entirely possible thanks to
REAL pilots who actually fly REAL planes.

Why don't you ask your friends, or provide the data for us? Please
look back in this thread for the many requests for information to
rule out any excuses from the GL's.

You know what's truly fantastic about that PDF? Note the distance at which the plane was to pass over the Pentagon.... Nearly 100 feet! No one saw this? Are you kidding?

Again, where are your SoC witnesses on video? Names please?
Lloyd with the 200 pound pole sticking out of his super clean taxi cab?

An explosion cannot occur some 100ft below the bottom of the aircraft and have it obscure that aircraft unless the resultant fireball not only obscured the face of the Pentagon but also up to a height of 120ft or more... and do so at the speed of light.

Speed of light? Why so fast?

Are you a bomb/explosives expert? Where is your scientific data to
back up this claim? Why can't the fireball rise at let's say...half the
speed of light to be effective?

Too bad that's totally inconsistent with the video frames released from the security camera video, physical damage and burn patterns, the Doubletree video, as well as eye witness testimony.

Too "badder" the security video doesn't show an aircraft or support the
FDR.

Thanks for playing. YOu should research more before posting.

Originally posted by SPreston
The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

Yep. UTTER SNAKE OIL.

You may very well be correct.

Rejection of the P4T/CIT version of events does not mean an embracing of the NIST report or the 9/11 Commission report.

An alternative explanation that has more holes than the original explanation is less than meaningless... its distracting, it's a waste of resources, and it could potentially ruin valuable witness testimony with shoddy and amateur interrogation techniques.

The road down which P4T/CIT have giddily taken their research (it's a far cry from something I'd qualify as an "investigation") is based upon well constructed nothingness.

Someday P4T/CIT apologists will come to realize this.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by turbofan

With a stated unknown aircraft, traveling at unknowable speeds, at an unknown altitude, on an assumed heading, the PDF proves... what exactly?

It proves exactly what all you GL's said wasn't possible...in more ways
than one.

Refusing to accept P4T/CIT pseudo-science does not make one a government loyalist. It makes one a rational, discerning individual that refuses to swallow anything fed to them without first examining it with a critical dispassionate eye.

Originally posted by turbofan
Gee, if it was that easy, why didn't all of those uneducated GL's pick up
on the fact that a north approach IS possible?

Because other than poorly aquired and completely unverified witness testimony there is no such evidence of a flight path North of the Citgo. Furthermore the PDF discusses the vertical approach, not latitude or longitude. What were you reading? Maybe you had it sideways.

Originally posted by turbofan
Did any of those 13 witnesses on video see a south approach? Nope.
How many video witnesses do you have for a south approach? Zero?

The lack of evidence of a south flight path does not indicate a fly-off. It merely indicates a possible alternative explanation for light pole and generator damage. Both of which P4T/CIT carefully avoids ever explaining. In fact, check my sig... CIT refuses to release a denied FOIA request for the positioning of the light poles they claim to have. There's no reason to withhold this denied request, especially on these forums where there are literally 100's of people who can help devises such requests so they are fulfilled. If one is truly seeking the truth, why not open up your research for assistance from those more experienced? Unless, of course, the FOIA doesn't really exist and CIT never really did investigate the fallen light poles.

Originally posted by turbofan

Did any of the plethora of radar installations in the area track such an aircraft? Nope.

You mean the proven altered RADES data?

Originally posted by turbofan
See above. Hey about that poor excuse for an animation that the
NTSB has issued. I haven't seen any corrections, or explanations for
the anomalies found. Have you? Nope.

This includes Ronald Reagan, BMI, LaGuardia, JFK, and any other air traffic control station within a 200 mile radius that could have tracked a fly-off aircraft. Since the NTSB animation doesn't show a fly-off, I have no idea why you even mention it.

Originally posted by turbofan
We asked for that data for several days from the cry babies that said
NoC was impossible. We never received that data...probably because
they now know that a North approach is entirely possible thanks to
REAL pilots who actually fly REAL planes.

Why don't you ask your friends, or provide the data for us? Please
look back in this thread for the many requests for information to
rule out any excuses from the GL's.

You seem to miss my point. No attempt was made to gain this information in any measurable, accurate way from any P4T/CIT witness because they are amateurs and did not know what to ask for nor how to ask for it.

Originally posted by turbofan

You know what's truly fantastic about that PDF? Note the distance at which the plane was to pass over the Pentagon.... Nearly 100 feet! No one saw this? Are you kidding?

Again, where are your SoC witnesses on video? Names please?
Lloyd with the 200 pound pole sticking out of his super clean taxi cab?

The more your post continues, the less logic you seem to apply. What exactly does that have to do with the way P4T/CIT PDF portrays the plane at a ridiculous 100ft above the Pentagon? Not one single thing.

Originally posted by turbofan

An explosion cannot occur some 100ft below the bottom of the aircraft and have it obscure that aircraft unless the resultant fireball not only obscured the face of the Pentagon but also up to a height of 120ft or more... and do so at the speed of light.

Speed of light? Why so fast?

Are you a bomb/explosives expert? Where is your scientific data to
back up this claim? Why can't the fireball rise at let's say...half the
speed of light to be effective?

I'm not going to dignify this with a response. Any high school physics book will provide the information required to answer your question.

Originally posted by turbofan

Too bad that's totally inconsistent with the video frames released from the security camera video, physical damage and burn patterns, the Doubletree video, as well as eye witness testimony.

Too "badder" the security video doesn't show an aircraft or support the
FDR.

Thanks for playing. YOu should research more before posting.

Please see this thread. Using original copies of the photos leaked by the AP in 2002, I conducted a rigorous and completely documented and replicable image analysis of the frames that do indeed indicate an aircraft. If you'd like to argue those images that thread and others are better suited than this one.

Let me state one thing in very simple terms:

To deny the P4T/CIT version of events does not mean you accept the version posited by government agencies. It means that neither explanation fits the series of events. The gov't reports are crap and so is P4T/CIT's version of events, period.

... and for what it's worth, I am not convinced my government is responsible, only potentially certain evil people in key positions of power. I dont wear tin foil hats. I work for a well respected MSM conglomerate as a senior scientific research analyst. I'd be happy to have the mods verify my work email address and my office phone if it's that important to you. I post here of my own accord and not as a representative of my employer. My coworkers and I would certainly have a good laugh should any of this P4T/CIT pseudo-science ever cross our desk.

I am the very type of person you "truth seekers" are attempting to convince.

/facepalm


[edit on 7-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn



cogburn wrote:

"To deny the P4T/CIT version of events does not mean you accept the version posited by government agencies. It means that neither explanation fits the series of events. The gov't reports are crap and so is P4T/CIT's version of events, period."


cogburn, you're killing me here with this teasing and suspense of yours!

I cannot bear it any longer!

According to your statement above, the witness observations about the NOC flight path
cannot possible be trusted, and neither can the official account be trusted!

That means that you're actually the one who got the answer; sort of in between the
two, answer!!

My ears stand on stilts now. They are quivering in anticipation. Geez, I think they're
even sensually charged!

Pray, do tell! How on earth was it done then??

Don't let us down this time - as has usually been the case previously!

reply to post by djeminy


No, sir. I do not believe you understood what I was saying in that statement. Allow me to clarify.

It means that CIT's interrogation of the witnesses was misleading and incomplete; to the point of annoyance if you have a trained eye.

It means that P4T used "facts" to derive suspect flight paths are wholly uncorroborated. They demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the maths involved when they correctly utilized calculations on incorrectly aggregated make-believe data. There is a distinct and important difference between knowing how to apply an equation and understanding what it means.

It means that the various involved government agencies refuse all requests at clarification of inconsistent information.

There is not one single party that has presented a scenario that stands up to scrutiny.

That, sir, is my point.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
reply to post by djeminy

 

No, sir. I do not believe you understood what I was saying in that statement. Allow me to clarify.

It means that CIT's interrogation of the witnesses was misleading and incomplete; to the point of annoyance if you have a trained eye.

It means that P4T used "facts" to derive suspect flight paths are wholly uncorroborated. They demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the maths involved when they correctly utilized calculations on incorrectly aggregated make-believe data. There is a distinct and important difference between knowing how to apply an equation and understanding what it means.

It means that the various involved government agencies refuse all requests at clarification of inconsistent information.

There is not one single party that has presented a scenario that stands up to scrutiny.

That, sir, is my point.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by cogburn]

I come from a poor working class family, so I don't really fit in to your "sir" thing!
It just doesn't "feel" right!
Hope you'll address me hereafter in a more condescending and patronizing tone
befitting my true standing in society!

You state that: "I do not believe you understood what I was saying in that statement.
Allow me to clarify."

Here is your statement again:

"To deny the P4T/CIT version of events does not mean you accept the version posited by government agencies. It means that neither explanation fits the series of events. The gov't reports are crap and so is P4T/CIT's version of events, period."

Could you please tell me what is was that I didn't understand in your above
statement?

You state further that: "there is not one single party that has presented a scenario
that stands up to scrutiny."

Obviously, for you to state this so categorically, you must be the one who got all the
answers!

So again, what is the answer - please!!

posted by SPreston
The Pentagon OFFICIAL STORY.

Yep. UTTER SNAKE OIL.

posted by cogburn
You may very well be correct.

Rejection of the P4T/CIT version of events does not mean an embracing of the NIST report or the 9/11 Commission report.

An alternative explanation that has more holes than the original explanation is less than meaningless... its distracting, it's a waste of resources, and it could potentially ruin valuable witness testimony with shoddy and amateur interrogation techniques.

The road down which P4T/CIT have giddily taken their research (it's a far cry from something I'd qualify as an "investigation") is based upon well constructed nothingness.

Someday P4T/CIT apologists will come to realize this.

So what is your solution; wait 100 years for a state or federal prosecutor to develop the cohones to investigate? CIT are not professionals; they are private citizen investigators. You would rather nobody bothers to do anything; just let the traitors get away with their lying and murders and treason and war crimes? Some fine American you are.