The 9/11 Forum

Detractors to the overwhelming north side approach evidence have desperately attempted to create a myth that it is somehow aerodynamically impossible for a plane to fly north of the citgo and have demanded that we provide the "math" to prove that it is possible.

I have always argued that it is the general claim that the plane was on the north side at all that proves a deception and it would be unreasonable to expect any witness to be mathematically accurate when illustrating any specific flight path.

In other words we can not accurately determine all the necessary values to compute the math based on eyewitnesses who can only be relied on for general claims as made clear by Sgt Lagasse in this important quote:


But the demands for math persisted and Pilots for 9/11 Truth have met those demands with flying colors!

Watch this new 19 minute scientific presentation:
9/11: THE NORTH FLIGHT PATH: Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

I would still like too see PFT's math.

Hambone wrote:I would still like too see PFT's math.

What's stopping you?

9/11: THE NORTH FLIGHT PATH: Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

tech paper supplement:
NoC_TechPaperPDF.pdf

I'd love some feedback from any of the scientists here.

The silence in this forum has been deafening.

Craig Ranke CIT wrote:

Hambone wrote:I would still like too see PFT's math.

What's stopping you?

9/11: THE NORTH FLIGHT PATH: Aerodynamically Possible - Witness Compatible

tech paper supplement:
NoC_TechPaperPDF.pdf

I'd love some feedback from any of the scientists here.

The silence in this forum has been deafening.

Nothing I guess.

Unfortunately, these guys (myself included) are all collapse fanatics. While I have had issues with your handling of previously documented testimony, I am very impressed with the witnesses you have provided.

I think your work deserves careful consideration. I'll take a look at the math when I get a chance. I have to admit I am less active now than I have been previously.

Hambone wrote:While I have had issues with your handling of previously documented testimony

Care to elaborate?

Hambone wrote:I would still like too see PFT's math.

Hello Hambone,

Perhaps you missed it, but the NoC "turn math" was discussed at the P4T forum back in December. See post #55 here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=15861&view=findpost&p=10761451

Here is a bank angle vs. airspeed chart/spreadsheet that I put together for that research:
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16582

Here is my load factor vs. bank angle chart (for the various radii presented in the P4T video linked above):
http://flickcabin.com/public/view/full/16964

Here is a load factor chart for verification of the above, linked at the P4T discussion:
http://www.coryat.com/faa-pp-written/2.jpg