Physics and math prove north of citgo flight path entirely possible

Originally posted by cogburn


Honestly, I've no idea why anyone would say that a north side approach is aerodynamically impossible.

Excellent!

Done.

This means that you 100% agree with P4T on this matter and there is no reason for you to discuss it further!


Strange how it took you so long to admit this.

Plus I would think the reason WHY the detractors cited in the presentation would furiously try to push this now proven false lie should be obvious.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT
Don't pop the champagne just yet, sir. You've provided an excellent example of the application of selective reading. Obviously you skipped this post.

I'll restate myself once again since you have failed to understand it the past three times I've posted it.

There are an almost infinite number of NoC flight paths that are aerodynamically possible, however there are none that are both aerodynamically possible and match witness testimony.

When questioned on this fact previously in this very thread, you removed the component of the witness testimony and stated it was just to prove that an NoC flight path would work. When you remove having to confine the flight path to witness statements, such a flight path is possible.

When you attempt to plot a flight path that is 100% consistent with the witness statements, showing the aggregate calculations, the flight path becomes aerodynamically impossible. The provided video and PDF, as it stands, are in direct contradiction to witness testimony (Robert Turcios).

[edit on 11-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn

All I want is someone involved to address this one, simple issue.

Why is the plane shown nearly 100ft above the Pentagon in the PDF supplement in direct contradiction to the testimony of Robert Turcios?

1. It does not show this. You are wrong which is why you haven't quoted them. The example given shows the plane about 50 feet over the Pentagon.

2. They demonstrated a hypothetical pull-up because the detractors said that ANY north side flight path with ANY pull-up was impossible and demanded math for this.

P4T proved them wrong with hypothetical examples.

Now Robert Turcios admitted that he did not see a flyover OR an impact so I don't know why you think he would be an accurate reference as to the true altitude of the plane when it reached the Pentagon. He admitted his focus was on the "fireball".

But if you read the PDF thoroughly P4T specifically states that NO significant pull up is required at all!

Considering witnesses are not able to determine altitude, it is impossible to determine a “pull out” without such data points. Also considering the Navy Annex is roughly 100 feet higher than the Pentagon based on topography alone, very little, if any “pull out”, is needed.

Furthermore in the hypothetical example given for a pull-up they demonstrate the plane pulling up to only 50 feet over the building, not 100.

Why are you lying about what is presented without bothering to quote them?

The fact is that we do not know exactly where it passed over the building and the exact altitude at that moment but ANY north side approach proves it did not hit.

Furthermore it would not be possible to rely on any eyewitness for such details at a mathematically accurate level for such a value and P4T specifically states as much.

So they did NOT say the plane was 100 feet over the building NOR did they even provide math hypothetically demonstrating such a thing.

They simply demonstrated how a pull-up is NOT necessary yet perfectly possible contrary to the false claims and deliberate lies spread by the "detractors".


Oh yeah and btw......a north side approach proves the plane did not hit the building.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by cogburn
Why is the plane shown nearly 100ft above the Pentagon in the PDF supplement in direct contradiction to the testimony of Robert Turcios?

Now Robert Turcios admitted that he did not see a flyover OR an impact so I don't know why you think he would be an accurate reference as to the true altitude of the plane when it reached the Pentagon. He admitted his focus was on the "fireball".

From "The PentaCon Smoking Gun Version (2/2/2007)"

The statements in question arise around 23:45 in the video, including the bit you mentioned about the fireball.

When asked about the impact, he states

The view was obstructed, I could only see the fireball.

When asked specifically if he saw a plane fly over he states (shaking his head)

No, no I did not see a plane fly over the Pentagon

We know Turcios could see the top of the Pentagon because of the footage that illustrates the position of the sign the plane had to "lift up" to fly over.

Given Turcios could see the top of the Pentagon and that he specifically stated he did not see a plane fly over the Pentagon, the PDF that places the plane above the Pentagon is in direct contradiction to Turcios's statement.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn


So what's your point?

As I said he did not see an impact or a flyover and he admitted his attention was focused on the fireball. What he did not see is not evidence for exactly what happened.

However if you accept his much more lucid and 100% confident claim that the plane flew on the north side of the station dozens of feet away from him (as heavily corroborated) you are forced to accept that the plane did not hit the building.

But you are WAY off topic.

The presentation had a stated purpose of countering a furious propaganda campaign from the stated "detractors" based on the proven lie that it is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to achieve ANY possible north side approach at any speeds.

You have admitted that you completely agree with P4T regarding this hypothetical question based on math and physics and that their presentation is accurate.

Now.....if you wish to divert from this mathematical line of reasoning and start analyzing specific witness accounts that we all should already understand are SUBJECTIVE and not mathematical, you should start a new thread.

But keep in mind how CIT understands that eyewitnesses are never 100% accurate which is why we only rely on them for general claims that can be scientifically validated via corroboration.

That of course would be that the plane flew directly over the Navy Annex and north of the citgo. These are the two general claims that we believe have been accurately supported and thoroughly proven by all the confirmed witnesses from multiple perspectives who were in the immediate critical area.

So unless you plan to demonstrate how we have erroneously presented the witness accounts regarding these two claims you couldn't possibly have a relevant counter-point to this evidence that definitively proves the plane did not hit the building.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Craig Ranke CIT]

I been keeping up with this thread from the sidelines and have reviewed the work. I didnt really want to get involved, but someone has to point out the obvious. I see Craig did above, and now cogburn completely ignores it.

Cogburn repeatedly states P4T represents a "pull up" of 100 ft over the pentagon. It doesnt seem cogburn even read the pdf or saw the video which is referenced repeatedly in the pdf supplement to the video.

Both "pull up" scenarios (including the one touching the ground) are less than 50 feet over the pentagon. Cogburn, if you did read the pdf and viewed the presentation, are you able to determine scale? Its all laid out in rather simple terms.

Cogburn, no offense and nothing personal but your credibility is diminished with your repeated false, unsourced claims of "100 ft". You may want to actually review their work before you comment further.

Keep up the good work CIT/P4T!

reply to post by RockHound757


The PDF

Kindly consult the image on page five.

The bottom of the aircraft is shown to be no lower than 50-60 feet. Given the height of the aircraft in question, the tip of the tail would be 70-80 feet from the top of the Pentagon, nearly 100ft. I simply dropped the "nearly" and "almost" and "estimated" from my commentary. Dropping such phrases creates an image that is no more of an exaggeration than the information I am refuting.

Since interpreting eye witness interviews seems to present a challenge, let's go over it one more time. Stay on page five for a moment.

Turcios lost sight of the plane as it dipped towards the bottom of the Pentagon because of the ground, then witnessed the explosion. He absolutely denies seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon. The image on page five is in direct contradiction to Turcios's statements.

Now turn to page seven. The image on page seven is an impossible flight path as it requires the aircraft to actually strike both the Navy Annex and the ground. Remember, the illustration is of a maneuver that is being performed in the middle of a constant bank. An aircraft with any wingspan greater than a total of ~15 feet, flying that low and in a bank of either the maximum or minimum angles set forth would have it's wings clip the ground or the building, regardless of the airspeed, g-forces or skill of the pilot. To avoid striking both the Annex and the ground would require an alteration of the bank angle, thereby an alteration of the constant flight path, which is in direct contradiction to the assumptions put forth in the document. No such physical evidence exists, as it does in the South-of-Citgo approach.

Side note: if you slide that arc forward so the nadir is perpendicular to the face of the Pentagon, you get an approach that is very similar in the vertical aspects to the South-of-Citgo approach. Very interesting.

Given the flight path illustrated on page 5 is in contradiction to Turcios's testimony, combined with the fact that the illustration on page 7 is impossible due to the lack of supporting physical evidence, both are absolutely unfounded in reality.

As I said long, long ago in this thread. It's not the math that's incorrect, it's the application.

P4T/CIT, in just a few posts prior, begins to justify this contradiction by subjectively eliminating portions of testimony because they are inconvenient to the narrative being presented. I'll leave it to the silent majority to pass verdict on such behavior.

Are the flight paths aerodynamically possible? For some planes, sure.

Are the flight paths aerodynamically possible and supported by the rest of the volume evidence presented by P4T/CIT? Nope.

This assumption that a north side approach could not have hit the Pentagon is the problem here. Clinging to that notion makes everything else fall apart.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by cogburn]

Originally posted by cogburn
Now turn to page seven. The image on page seven is an impossible flight path as it requires the aircraft to actually strike both the Navy Annex and the ground.

You may want to actually read the text on page 7. The flight path on page 7 is a hypothetical as stated in the paper, to "cover all bases" (if you will), demonstrating that even with a finite limit souch as the ground, the "pull up" is still possible. Detractors argued the "pull out" would be impossible based on witness statements that the aircraft was below "treetop level". It appears P4T busted that myth by placing the aircraft on the ground at the lowest point. Of course if it actually struck the ground, it would break a wing. But that is not the premise of the hypothetical scenario being demonstrated. Since its clear that the aircraft cannot fly that low, an increase in height of the arc's lowest point, required to clear the ground, would increase the radius making the "pull out" that much more aerodynamically possible. Do you understand what P4T is demonstrating while using the ground as a finite limit?

Given the flight path illustrated on page 5 is in contradiction to Turcios's testimony, combined with the fact that the illustration on page 7 is impossible due to the lack of supporting physical evidence, both are absolutely unfounded in reality.

Given the fact that witnesses are unable to determine altitude, exact speed, pitch angle, bank angle.. etc etc, im not sure why you would place such hefty weight on a single statement or a single witness. It is clear the P4T presentation and demonstration was to bust the myth created by detractors that the North of Citgo path was impossible. Not only did P4T cover all based and prove it to be possible, but also consistent with overall witness statements. At least, moreso than the wild flight paths offered by the detractors.

As I said long, long ago in this thread. It's not the math that's incorrect, it's the application.

Thats not what you said on page 3.

Are the maths correct? Absolutely. Are the applications of theory correct? Absolutely.

Bolding above mine.

Your post on page 4 is also interesting considering you are still here on page 8 after calling CIT/P4T supporters "fanatics".

Perhaps that was the post you claimed P4T didnt cover lateral/level turns? When in fact, they did...

P4T/CIT, in just a few posts prior, begins to justify this contradiction by subjectively eliminating portions of testimony because they are inconvenient to the narrative being presented.

And as P4T states in their presentation - "Anyone can cherry pick a witness statement to calculate an impossible flight path based on their bias".

The fact remains, Numerous independently corroborated witnesses place the aircraft NoC, and P4T demonstrated it is aerodynamically possible using overall witness statements.

I'll leave it to the silent majority to pass verdict on such behavior.

As did P4T at the end of their presentation with the split screen of the twisted, wild flight path drawn and calculated by detractors as compared to the P4T path, with the witness drawings in between. Obviously, you have a problem with it and continue to argue your points after having said you didnt want to argue with "fanatics" on page 4.

More cont below...

cont...

Are the flight paths aerodynamically possible? For some planes, sure.

"Some planes"??? Please provide proof of a fixed wing aircraft which cannot perform a 60 deg bank at 2 G's. All of P4T calculations consistent with witness statements are less. All fixed wing aircraft are capable of such maneuvers. Did you listen to P4T narration where they stated its a requirement for certification? Do you dispute it? If so, please provide a type aircraft which cannot perform such a maneuver.

Are the flight paths aerodynamically possible and supported by the rest of the volume evidence presented by P4T/CIT? Nope.

Matter of opinion... i disagree. The numerous paths shown to be aerodynamically possible by P4T support overall witness statements when taking into consideration witnesses are not computers.

This assumption that a north side approach could not have hit the Pentagon is the problem here. Clinging to that notion makes everything else fall apart.

I let Craig answer that one.

As for your "height of aircraft" argument. What type aircraft exactly was on the north approach as witnessed? Please provide type, dimensions, speed envelope... etc. As far as we know, witnesses did not (and cannot) determine exact type nor offer dimensions. The most "expert" witness was Terry Morin, and he believed the type to be a 737.

Edit to add: I guess it could also be argued the arc as the top most portion of the aircraft, which when arguing based on your "100 ft" backpeddling, now places the entire aircraft below the 50 ft arc.

But.. nice try at backpeddling your "100 ft" claims!

[edit on 11-1-2009 by RockHound757]

reply to post by cogburn


You have presented no math, no physics, and no facts.

You are making things up and have diverted COMPLETELY off the premise of the presentation that you have already conceded you agree with.

If you can't stick to premise you are off topic and have no reason to continue posting in this thread.

Anyone can choose a specific witness account and pick out details that they can spin because witness accounts are subjective.

That's why we do not rely on them for specific details that have not been scientifically validated via corroboration. We understand they are always subjective and very often inaccurate.

But what you are doing is even WORSE than spinning specific subjective details because you are even going so far as to take the liberty to make up your own unsupported claims about subjective witness accounts.

You said:

Turcios lost sight of the plane as it dipped towards the bottom of the Pentagon because of the ground, then witnessed the explosion.

But this is a false claim that you made up which is why you did not bother to quote Turcios making this claim. You have concocted your own narrative and inserted your own false details in a subjective eyewitness account and you are falsely applying it to a completely irrelevant premise.

Bottom line you are WAY off topic and that is against the rules.

This thread is NOT about Robert Turcios or any specific witness and the premise of the presentation is clearly stated and I have explained it to you many times.

If you can not prove the math presented wrong and if you are not trying to argue that ANY north side path is impossible you are off topic and I suggest you compose your own thread and clearly state your own premise so it can be discussed in context.

As it stands you have demonstrated nothing and have not made a single relevant or accurate point.

So Craig, you want math? I am certainly qualified in that arena. For those who are not that familiar with math, please familiarize yourself with sagitta equations and how they are related to radius. Here is a post with the math (no latex here at ATS).

Sagitta Equation

With the proper math in hand, then I will allow ATS readers to check a few of the radius values used in the "paper" and "cartoon" with those derived by real-world sagitta values. I'll check back tomorrow after everyone has had a chance to do their homework and talk radii.

Originally posted by 911files
Sagitta Equation

With the proper math in hand, then I will allow ATS readers to check a few of the radius values used in the "paper" and "cartoon" with those derived by real-world sagitta values. I'll check back tomorrow after everyone has had a chance to do their homework and talk radii.

And here it is disputed that 911Files used improper values.

...Besides, someone needs to let 911files know he blew nearly everything on that 4099 foot "radius" and sagitta "calculation" if he worked from the image that he posted.

Source

911Files also initially calculated the wrong vector.

"911Files" admits our arithmetic is correct for bank angle, but is apparently confused regarding his G Load calculations based on bank angle. I will set him straight here....


The formula we used in the video presentation (which Farmer thinks solves for G load) is:

Θ = arctan ((V^2/r)/11.26)

The above formula does not solve for G load (as "911Files" claims). It solves for bank angle theta (Θ) based on radius and speed. It has nothing to do with G Load.

Source

Even Farmer himself didnt understand it and thought his numbers were off due to NM length and "conversion factor".... Its about time you realized your errors and that you and Farmer were wrong! It only took our release of the tech paper and diagram for JayDuh and Farmer to understand the vectors.

Source


It appears "911Files" didnt understand the math till the release of P4T presentation and tech paper. He now understands how to calculate the correct vector, but is still unable to produce correct radii.

Originally posted by RockHound757

This assumption that a north side approach could not have hit the Pentagon is the problem here. Clinging to that notion makes everything else fall apart.

I let Craig answer that one.

Yes I will answer that one.

But first I want to say thank you RockHound757 for speaking out because it's clear you are a true intellectual skeptic who GETS IT!

Cheers to you mate!


Now....it just so happens that there is already an existing thread on the question of whether or not a north side impact is possible. Here it is:

Is it possible for the Pentagon attack jet to fly north of the citgo and still hit the Pentagon?

As a summary: out of our significant number of detractors who furiously obsess over this information on a daily basis, and of course thousands of people who have viewed this evidence in general, cogburn is the ONLY person who has attempted to argue that a north side impact on 9/11 IS possible but he has failed to demonstrate this with images, hypothetical examples, physics, math, or anything other than his hollow and patently ridiculous assertions.

As the thread reveals there is no valid argument for such a claim and in fact it's rather clear to the layman upon looking at the images that this is the case . But we also have validation form pilots, engineers, and other scholarly individuals that this is an obvious fact.

So if cogburn wants to argue otherwise he will be in lonely company but the thread is still there waiting for any type of coherent argument on the matter.

reply to post by RockHound757


Now here you are quoting people who don't know the difference between the component vector g-force resulting from the turn and the g-load (an aeronautical term). Perhaps you guys will need to brush up on those topics as well.

G-Load

The previous post link with give a further link to centripetal force (the component vector). Since some like to argue form. The Newtonian physics equations do translate to the aeronautical equations as well.

Aeronautical Form Conversion

I would post the equations here, but there is no provision to do so. Now Craig wants to talk math, so lay off the personal attacks please.

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by RockHound757

 

Now here you are quoting people who don't know the difference between the component vector g-force resulting from the turn and the g-load (an aeronautical term). Perhaps you guys will need to brush up on those topics as well.

"G-Load" and "G-Force" are the same thing in "Aeronautical Terms".

It is you who does not understand this basic fact and calculated the wrong vector initially until P4T released their presentations. Since you did not understand the premise of the argument, which was "aerodynamic possiblity of the NoC path", you calculated the horizontal component of lift, which causes the turn, not the vector responsible for aerodynamic possibility, which is the vertical acceleration in the aircraft vertical axis. Reheat calculated the same vector last year, unfortunately, he should have also corrected you.

As for "personal attacks". No one is attacking you. We are demonstrating your habitual inaccuracies. This is a fact.

Edited for a typo

[edit on 11-1-2009 by RockHound757]

reply to post by RockHound757


I respond further tomorrow. You obviously have not read the links and are just wanting to play. G-force does NOT equal G-Load (often called the Load-Factor). I am being generous here. The actual terminology is Load-Factor and it is a dimensionless number and has no acceleration units involved in it at all.

I defined each an every term I used and my g value was clearly defined as centripetal force in terms of g. Do a little homework and I will see ya'll tomorrow.

Just a reminder

Members are NOT the topic here

Semper

Originally posted by 911files
You obviously have not read the links and are just wanting to play. G-force does NOT equal G-Load (often called the Load-Factor). I am being generous here. The actual terminology is Load-Factor and it is a dimensionless number and has no acceleration units involved in it at all.

Still you do not realize G-Force and G-Load are interchangeable. Its the same terminology for a given vector. They are not assigned to a particular vector. Some other phrases used are "Load Factor" and plain ol' "G's". Some pilots even call it "Pucker Factor". But that too can have many meanings. Bottom line, you are confused on the terminology and making up your own by assigning it to a particular vector. You are wrong.

You solved for the horizontal component of lift initially, and not even the self-proclaimed "pilots" over there could catch your mistake. P4T caught it. You thought it was due to a "conversion factor". You were wrong.

I defined each an every term I used and my g value was clearly defined as centripetal force in terms of g.

"I came up with the same values for bank angle [as P4T], but slightly lower g-force values. I suspect it is in the conversion factors used. I used 6076.1 feet per nautical mile and 32.2 ft/s2 for g." - 911Files, Dec 26, 2008

I guess you no longer think your mistake was due to a "conversion factor"?

Do a little homework and I will see ya'll tomorrow.

My homework is done. Hopefully you'll do yours.


Edit to add:

The actual terminology is Load-Factor and it is a dimensionless number and has no acceleration units involved in it at all.

Wrong again. The units are "G's" and G's are represented as G = 32.2 f/s^2. As defined in the P4T tech paper and every aerodynamics book on the planet.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by RockHound757]

reply to post by RockHound757

Yay! Someone new to play with. I'm not going to piecemeal quote and save ATS the bandwidth.

I addressed the two extreme examples illustrated on pages 5 and 7 exactly because they were the extremes. There is nothing in the text that disputes any of my claims, period. In fact, I use Turcios because he's the witness mentioned in the text of which you are so fond. No other reason. When I say "some planes" I refer to planes that could satisfy the wingspan requirements to meet the needs of the illustration on page 7. Being the lower extreme of the situation presented, the aircraft must satisfy this requirement as well as the upper extreme. That would be how scientific research is judged. Nothing more, nothing less. They simply did not take into account the wingspan of the plane when they created their lower extreme. P4T/CIT seems to have committed a novice mistake, but a mistake that invalidates any information pertaining to those calculations. They should just rip out pages 5 and 7 and do it over if they want anyone to take them seriously. It happens all the time in the scientific peer review process, and to the best of scientists. I'll grant you that most people may not understand what it means when you provide extremes within research intended for peer review. They just need to fix it and I don't understand why you feel compelled to defend it.

You quote P4T/CIT as: "Anyone can cherry pick a witness statement to calculate an impossible flight path based on their bias".

Here's an equally valid quote for our growing collection: "Anyone can cherry pick a witness statement to calculate a possible flight path based on their bias".

This is exactly what we have here when the claim is made these flight paths are congruent with witness statements. Your own statements support this in which you judge the subjective inclusion of portions of Turcios's statements. P4T/CIT simply picked the portions of witness statements that fit their pet theory.

Furthermore the claim of numerous witnesses is a misleading claim, if not outright hogwash. P4T/CIT interviewed 13 people of over 100 that claim to have seen the events of that day. Hardly "numerous" when taken in scope and hardly complete in its scale. A maximum 13% of research is tantamount to no research at all and I'm still shocked that this information is touted so vehemently on such a minimal amount of research.

I can't help but giggle a little at the conversion factor comments. The factor used by 911files is the standard for that computation and actually figures to 0.999997451 nautical miles. That is an absolutely acceptable margin of error for any scientific research and is, as I mentioned, the accepted standard for that calculation. What did P4T/CIT use that yielded different results?

Oh and one more thing...

Yes, load-factor is a unitless measure, however while not accurate, it's a forgivable mistake given the nature of the information being calculated. Note that the FAR doesn't make that mistake in the calculations for the limit maneuvering load factors of commercial aircraft. According to Wikipedia the load-factor is expressed as G as a "convenient unit" in the aviation industry. However that's Wikipedia and the reference is not cited so who knows how valid that is. Convenience aside, load-factor is not measured in Gs and to do so is incorrect.

I don't have a problem with what P4T/CIT are trying to do, never have. I have a problem with the application of bad logic and bad science to support any claim, CT or OS.

There's enough crap to go around and I'll continue to point it out as I see fit. If I switch from one pile of crap to another, that's my prerogative.

As for determining if something is or is not on topic... I think the mods are all over this thread and we've nothing to worry about.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by cogburn]