Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
North Approach Impact Analysis; new tech paper by Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Topic Started: Jan 27 2010, 03:19 PM (1,369 Views)
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

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!
Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Jan 27 2010, 03:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T3QuillAMocKINGbird
Member Avatar

Good to see you back Craig! Excellent animations! Now 911Blogger deniers will be shown they have Lived within the Obvious facts, and soon find out that when you live in the obvious for so long that they became Ob-LIV-ious to the facts.

Semper Fly!
T3QuillAMocKINGbird
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Thanks T3!

pdf verison here:
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/1/NoCImpactPaper.pdf (1 mb)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

This paper is scientific PROOF that NoC = flyover.

The witnesses below are scientific proof the plane was NoC.

Posted Image
Posted Image




Posted Image
Posted Image

National Security Alert
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sheeplesnshills

If the plane flew north of the Citgo and flewover, how could Mr Morin have watched it fly down and hit to the Pentagon?
He could not have seen it at all after it flew over him if it went NOC (the Navy annex is much too high and long) and he was in a perfect position to see a flyover if that had occurred. Is Mr Morin lying and if so why? And if he is lying why have CIT included his evidence as part of their NOC theory?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
vert

That paper doens't show that the plane couldn't have impacted from a North of Citgo trajectory. It just shows that the plane couldn't have hit the Lightpoles (and generator) on the bridge from NoC.

I didn't see any analysis whatsover of a North approach impact analysis to the Pentagon itself. At a bare minimum they should rename the paper.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

vert
Nov 11 2010, 07:43 PM
That paper doens't show that the plane couldn't have impacted from a North of Citgo trajectory. It just shows that the plane couldn't have hit the Lightpoles (and generator) on the bridge from NoC.

I didn't see any analysis whatsover of a North approach impact analysis to the Pentagon itself. At a bare minimum they should rename the paper.
You are incorrect. The paper is quite specific that the damage trail leading through the building to the C-ring hole could not have been caused by a plane from a trajectory north of the gas station.

The experts behind this paper were very explicit about this:

Quote:
 

Conclusion: "It is impossible for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause the directional physical damage to the light poles, generator trailer, and the Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole approaching from directly over the Navy Annex and north of the former Citgo gas station.


Posted Image

You, however, are not an expert. You are an anonymous troll. Here are the credentials of some of the experts behind this paper:

Quote:
 

The paper was reviewed and approved by Captain Jeff Latas and Commander Ralph Kolstad. Before going to work for JetBlue, Latas spent over 20 years in the United States Air Force, and his exemplary military record includes nearly 5000 hours in fighter aircraft, the Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. [...] Commander Kolstad (picture), who has logged 23,000 of flight time, spent over 20 years in the US Navy flying fighters off of aircraft carriers, achieving TopGun twice He spent 13 years flying Boeing 757/767, mostly as an international captain for American Airlines. He has command time in tail number N644AA, the very plane dispatched as American 77.


For more details read, study, memorize, and reference often FAQ #2




Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Dec 9 2010, 12:13 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

sheeplesnshills
Sep 18 2010, 07:46 PM
If the plane flew north of the Citgo and flewover, how could Mr Morin have watched it fly down and hit to the Pentagon?
He could not have seen it at all after it flew over him if it went NOC (the Navy annex is much too high and long) and he was in a perfect position to see a flyover if that had occurred. Is Mr Morin lying and if so why? And if he is lying why have CIT included his evidence as part of their NOC theory?
Lying?

Absolutely not. He did not have a view of the alleged impact point and could only see the very top of the Pentagon from the Navy Annex after he ran out. What Morin is 100% sure about is that he saw the plane directly above him while he was between the wings of the Navy Annex and that there is "no frippin way" it was south of Columbia Pike.

If the official flight path and speed were true the plane would have to have descended to light pole #1 in about 1 second so there is no way he would have had time to run out and see the tail at all. The ONLY possible way he saw the tail is if the plane was going much slower, had pulled up, and was on it's way to south parking.

This entire presentation is dedicated to Terry Morin's account and cites many others who corroborate his placement of the plane directly over the Navy Annex fatally contradicting the official story:

Over The Navy Annex

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Yeah so just to reiterate and bring this back on topic....

The experts who have written and reviewed this paper agree that it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for any fixed-wing aircraft to cause the physical damage to the Pentagon and light poles from the north side of the gas station.

Jeff Latas was the President of the USAF Accident investigation Board and Ralph Kolstad has piloted the actual plane that was alleged to have hit the building! They are clearly qualified to make this determination.

There is no possible argument left for honest or logical people.

NoC = Flyover and NSA = NoC.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
sheeplesnshills
Sep 18 2010, 07:46 PM
If the plane flew north of the Citgo and flewover, how could Mr Morin have watched it fly down and hit to the Pentagon?
He could not have seen it at all after it flew over him if it went NOC (the Navy annex is much too high and long) and he was in a perfect position to see a flyover if that had occurred. Is Mr Morin lying and if so why? And if he is lying why have CIT included his evidence as part of their NOC theory?
You know what kills me with official story supporters? If it's a witness whose account agrees with the official story, they are most certainly telling the truth and right on key with what they saw. But, if it's a witness that doesn't support the official story, they are without a doubt either lying or mistaken in what they saw. This logic that debunkers use applies to not only Pentagon witnesses but WTC and UAL93 witnesses as well and JREF is going to accuse truthers of cherrypicking evidence? Give me a break.

The government always gets the benefit of the doubt in any argument, even though they've been caught in lie after lie after lie over the course of American history.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Actually that is not what he was saying. He was suggesting that at least a portion of Morin's testimony supports the official story and asking me if I think that he is lying because of this. But of course he is wrong as nothing he says is reconcilable with the official story which would have the plane on the complete other side of the street descending to the light poles within about 1 second after passing the Navy Annex.

Back on topic: The extremely qualified experts cited in this paper conclude that it is impossible for a plane approaching north of the gas station to cause the physical damage observed, reported, and photographed to the light poles and Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole.

Do you agree?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
Craig Ranke CIT
Dec 9 2010, 04:30 PM
Actually that is not what he was saying. He was suggesting that at least a portion of Morin's testimony supports the official story and asking me if I think that he is lying because of this. But of course he is wrong as nothing he says is reconcilable with the official story which would have the plane on the complete other side of the street descending to the light poles within about 1 second after passing the Navy Annex.

Back on topic: The extremely qualified experts cited in this paper conclude that it is impossible for a plane approaching north of the gas station to cause the physical damage observed, reported, and photographed to the light poles and Pentagon leading to the C-ring hole.

Do you agree?
Yeah, I do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Glad to hear it. Do you also agree that we have presented enough eyewitness evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane was NoC?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
Craig Ranke CIT
Dec 9 2010, 07:31 PM
Glad to hear it. Do you also agree that we have presented enough eyewitness evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane was NoC?
Yeah, I've always thought the eyewitnesses you interviewed were certain where they saw that plane fly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Nevermind
Dec 9 2010, 08:19 PM
Craig Ranke CIT
Dec 9 2010, 07:31 PM
Glad to hear it. Do you also agree that we have presented enough eyewitness evidence to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane was NoC?
Yeah, I've always thought the eyewitnesses you interviewed were certain where they saw that plane fly.
Interesting that you would answer that way.

I didn't ask you what you thought about what they thought. That much is already clear since I asked most of them on camera and they even illustrated it.

I asked you what YOU thought after viewing their independently corroborated accounts (assuming that you have).

Have they convinced you that this where the plane flew?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
Yeah, they have. I've heard a lot of accounts that don't go with the official story. I've heard the plane hit short and skidded into the building(which is obviously BS), I've heard it came "streaking down" and I can't recall hearing anybody say the lightpoles were clipped, and I've heard many say it flew north of the gas station. I'm pretty convinced it did not fly the official path. I'm sure 5 lightpoles would've torn AA77 apart before it even reached the building.

The most interesting thing to me about AA77 is the fact that it's the only plane of the 4 on 9/11 that completely disappeared from radar at the time it was hijacked. If you look at the available Flight Explorer paths, there is no path for AA77 after the moment of hijack. Nobody knows for sure the exact path AA77 flew after it U-turned back towards D.C., at least not until something was spotted on radar 50 miles away from D.C., 35 minutes later. Another interesting thing I've learned recently(from the 9/11 Commission) about AA77 is that only two people on that plane supposedly called loves ones during the hijack while the other 3 planes had numerous calls to the ground.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Craig Ranke CIT
Member Avatar

Thanks for the thorough reply.

The reason I ask is because this response completely contradicts a response you made about us on your youtube submission regarding Harley Guy being Mark Walsh only 7 days ago:

Gideon
 

In all fairness to CIT, while I do believe their aggressiveness needs to be checked, they do have some good research. The problem they make is they are too quick to reach conclusions based on that research and they're not´╗┐ very polite to people who attempt to disagree with anything they have to say. The Pentagon discussion is a mess and I don't think we'll ever know what happened there until the 84 videos are released, but that will never happen. It's been nearly 10 years.


1. You just claimed that you agree that we provide enough evidence for a north side approach and that the implications are undeniable when it comes to this evidence (flyover). All we did is ask the witnesses where the plane flew, reported it, and believed them. On what basis are you arguing that we have been "too quick to reach conclusions based on [this] research"? How long do you propose we should have thought about their interviews before coming to the conclusion that we believe them about the north side?

2. You just claimed you believe the plane flew on the north side and therefore you believe the plane did not hit. That means, according to you, we certainly DO know that the plane did not hit the light poles or the building. Why would you suggest that we should wait until the government releases videos that they have controlled and sequestered for close to, or over a decade, before we will "ever know what happened" even while admitting that you don't believe this will ever occur? Obviously you don't really think they will release videos that prove the plane flew on the north side and/or over the building. So why would you suggest we should dismiss the witnesses and pretend like we don't know what happened until the govt does this? That would be like dismissing the evidence for controlled demolition until the govt provides evidence that they planted bombs in the WTC.

Please realize that I'm not trying to be gratuitously confrontational. When I saw that post on your youtube it led me to believe that you did not accept that we have provided enough evidence for our claims, while you seemed to be saying something quite different here in the forum, so I just figured I'd check to see if you would clear that up for me.




Edited by Craig Ranke CIT, Dec 10 2010, 12:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nevermind
Member Avatar
Oh, you didn't know?
In my opinion, can I conclude a plane flew north of the gas station during the attack based on eyewitness testimony, yes. From looking at the pre-collapse photos, can I conclude that AA77 did not do that damage, yes I can. Can I come to the conclusion that the 9/11 Commission is 100% LYING about Dick Cheney's arrival time in the PEOC, ABSOLUTELY, without question.

Can I come to the conclusion the lightpoles were staged, no, I cannot. Maybe they were staged, planted there before the attack or maybe the were knocked down, blown up, during the attack, but I don't know for sure why five were found laying on the ground.

Can I come to the conclusion that Llyod England was part of the conspiracy, no I cannot. He really doesn't seem that bright from the interviews I remember seeing that you guys conducted.

Can I come to the conclusion that bombs caused the damage to the Pentagon, again, no I cannot nor can I come to the conclusion that a missle hit the building(which I know you don't support, I'm just saying).

Can I come to the conclusion that the Pentagon videos that have been released were manipulated, doctored, faked, no I cannot.

Can I speculate about those things happening after concluding the plane flew NoC, sure, but it cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, in my humble opinion. I'm sure you'll bite my head off for that statement. Be my guest.

This is why I stay away from discussing the Pentagon because there's too much uncertainty. I stick to debunking the lies of the 9/11 Commission, which CIT has done with the flight path of AA77. But I cannot say with absolute certainty exactly what happened at the Pentagon based on the NoC flight path alone.

My question is, why do you even care what I think? I'm low on the 9/11 truth totem pole and my research revolves around 9/11 Commission statements that can be debunked with earlier news reports. You make me feel like I'm a some kind of threat to CIT's research because I choose to reserve judgement on exactly what happened to the Pentagon on 9/11. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and the readers will come to that conclusion on their own.

Is my opinion on the Pentagon really that important?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michal

Nevermind
Dec 10 2010, 10:23 PM
(...) Can I come to the conclusion that the Pentagon videos that have been released were manipulated, doctored, faked, no I cannot (...)
oh come on! do you really think that this short video showing white little thing moving slowly towards the building is the very plane? ... with the 12th Spt date tag on it? and frames taken out of the video ...

personally I think it was the worst doctored video I have ever seen ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mte-YMTelI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Pentagon · Next Topic »
Add Reply