Why they didn't use planes...

Originally posted by Achorwrath
I see, so anyone with an oposing view or conradictory information is a Liar,

You're putting words in my mouth and twisting what i said.

You just said all of the NIST engineers are Liars,

YES THEY ARE... either that, or they're incompetent

I say both.

but the engineers from Beoing that you claim have said it is impossible are not.

If you actually read what i've said, watched the documentary, and then carefully READ the ARTICLE you've cited as a basis for your "argument", you'd realize everything I've said is CORRECT and I still stand by what i've "SAID", explained and pointed out... clearly you seem to be having trouble understanding.

So what would you like me to do first? Present the line by line technical evidence for why NIST "experts" are full of # and have created a REPORT that omits FACTS and evidence, twists facts and evidence, and hides facts and evidence to PROTECT the 911 HOAX and perps?

or just show you how your argument is flawed and your accusations mis-directed due to the fact you don't understand or see the DECEPTION in that article because either you haven't read it carefully, or you read what isn't there.

and that IS the KEY in understanding what i've said and exposed since its not what they say in that article thats important,,, its what they DON'T SAY and simply IMPLY.

you've DEDUCED and ASSUMED a conclusion because the DECEPTION is very well structured by non other than the MSM propoganda machine accomplices... a pity it flew right over your head. pun intended.

That shows Bias for your theory and a refusal to view all evidence in the situation.

Not only is it NOT "my" theory, but its NOT "A" THEORY... its FACT.

and i promise you, unlike you... i've done far more research, investigation and viewed ALL THE EVIDENCE.

Just as you discount witnesses who saw the planes, the debri, etc.

where did i say that? what specifically are you referring to?

if i ever discounted witnesses, I have evidence to BACK IT UP.

so whats the problem?

Failure to view all evidence without prejudice destroys the scientific method.

careful there M8... you're coming awfully close to being a hypocrite.

You conclude the assumption when you do this,
You know the outcome you want, (no planes) and you build your case by selective research.

the difference between "npt'ers" like myself and plane huggers is that we build our cases with everything but selective research... Thats why plane huggers always lose the argument and have never been able to disprove NPT.

you can't defend yourself or win an argument if you don't have the facts to support you.

which sums up plane huggers dilemna.

You see only what you want so you will find what you are looking for.

do the words POT KETTLE BLACK mean anything to you?

Hmmm Boeing and 767 pilots seemd to think it would have sruvied but there would be alarms going off.

Flying a Boeing 767 straight ahead at 1,000 to 1,500 feet would not be too difficult, even at more than 580 m.p.h., and it would most likely not threaten the structural integrity of the plane, a half a dozen pilots and a Boeing spokeswoman said.

Source

talk about cherry picking and being selective not to mention a total failure to see the obvious flaws in what you've assessed, asserted and implied.

you don't have the slightest clue as to what i'm talking about do you?

you don't see any inconsistency or problem with the article or what you're saying?

So the pilots and Boeing lied then and now are telling the truth?

Its almost not even worth responding to,,, but okay............

u seem to have it all figured out,,, so TELL ME,,, what PILOTS and BOEING are you talking about? For that matter, WHAT are you talking about at all?



here's a clue... Liz Verdier

wonder how long it takes until you fully see the problem with what you've posted as evidence that supposedly disproves the facts and what i've said.

reply to post by matrixNIN11


Sorry matrixNIN11 I did not check your links, I did only read your posts and by just reading your posts they made a lot of sense.

Sorry about that.

D.Duck

I have watched the interiews.
I have read your posts,

Again you have no evidence to support your Theory.

It is not fact as it is not verifiable, there is a large distinction there.

You discount the witneeses that say they saw the plane hit the building, cut the light poles, by saying they are lying or are part of the cover up.

No, actually its a MYTH and LIE that a boeing 767 could acheive such a speed or accomplish the MANEUVERS it did and still maintain its structural integrity. But we know a MILITARY JET AND PILOT could easily have pulled off what the OCT and Nist et al apart of the LIE claim

Et. Al means Et Alia, which translates from Latin into "And Others".

This is grouping of people which is suggestive.

next you group people that support the evidence of a plane impact by calling us "planehuggers" again a grouping done by you not me.

So yes my statement:

I see, so anyone with an oposing view or conradictory information is a Liar

Is accurate

I could have further added "or is delusional"

But all that aside, I have shown proof that interviews with leading or suggestive questions are not valid and even within hours of witnessing the event are subjected to a 10% recall difference, now apply that to weeks or months.

You have not shown me where my findings are not correct.

You offer up limited witnesses and then conviently ignore their and other testimony that they saw the plane hit.

You counter their statements there by saying,

You STILL don't seem to understand the significance and implications of the NOC being PROVEN BY THE SAME WITNESSES YOU CLAIM SAY THEY SAW THE IMPACT when in FACT that wasn't what they ACTUALLY all claim.

source

so you discount their statments of seeing it hit by saying you can't have both.
What about the other witnesses that were closer? again the ones that it went over head of on the highway? the ones that saw it clip light poles at the pentagon.

The ones directly underneath the impact that saw the planes hit the towers?

In the no plane theory they are written off completely.

You keep bringing up the laws of physics and Newton,

Yet when we show you evidence (using Physics and Newton) you discount it saying we do not know what we are talking about.

You seriously need to educate yourself on real physics instead of relying off the NIST and OCT lies you continue to blindly accept. Now go lick your wounds and come back when you achieve a basic education on aviation physics and can comprehend NEWTONS LAWS of PHYSICS.

Oh it is Newton's Laws of Motion, not Physics

Boeing acknowledged publicly that the 767 COULD reach those speeds and that it would not come apart in fact it is in their Type Cetificate Data Sheet.

Airspeed Limits:
VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
VFC = 390 KCAS to 17,600 ft/382 KCAS at 23,000 ft/.87M above 26,000 ft, linear variation
between these points.
VMO = 360 KCAS/.86M
VLE = 270 KCAS/.82M
VLO = 270 KCAS/.82M

Sourc e
Grab the PDF.

Notice the Mach numbers that is the speed of sound.

Now those have a range of Mmo+.07 (FAR 25.335b). Source - Post 22
Also note how he mentions the 767 directly.

The speed of sound is 767MPH (767 * .82 = 628.94 MPH) significantly higher than the 500+ MPH they were traveling at.


In fact it can reach .91M in a terminal dive as indicated by the VD number.

that is a published FAA document.





[edit on 19-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

[edit on 19-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
PILOTS (who have actually flown a BOEING 767), AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS, ATC and anyone that understands THE BASIC LAWS OF MOTION, AVIATION PHYSICS and NEWTONS LAWS SUPPORT WHAT I'VE STATED.

Yet not a single pilot, engineer or ATC over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth supports your claims. In fact, P4T just made it clear again this week that P4T DOES NOT support the no-plane "theories".

You must have a special group of pilots from your dimension where you got your physics law books from.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
So The EVIDENCE and FACTS support everything i've just claimed

Yes you just "claimed", but posted no evidence. I don't see a list of pilots, engineers or ATC that agrees with you.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
but you can still start your education lesson and debunking with this documentary
www.youtube.com...

At 1:12 in the above video, he specifically says "a 767 will not go 540mph in LEVEL FLIGHT". I already covered this in my post above. If a 767 takes off and levels out at 700 feet, it CANNOT reach 540mph because it's engines are not powerful enough at that low of an altitude.

At 2:40 in the above video, the engineer says "the engine would not have enough thrust to reach those speeds at that altitude". I AGAIN already said that. After taking off and reaching 700 feet, the plane could not reach 540mph because it's engines are not powerful enough at that altitude.

The next engineer again confirms the engines aren't powerful enough at that altitude.

At 9:00, Jeff Hill (shure) asks if the plane were coming down from a higher altitude (shallow dive), could the plane reach 540+mph and the engineer says YES. "Any type of "dive" will have the assistance of gravity. But once you reach your altitude, drag will set in and slow the aircraft down".

This is the point I was trying to make. A 767's engines are not powerful enough to reach 540mph at 700 feet level flight, just as the previous engineers have said. But, a plane CAN reach that speed on it's way down to 700 feet from a much higher altitude, but once you reach that altitude, drag sets in and you start to lose that higher speed.

This engineer also proved what I said that you don't need the plane's engines to reach 540mph while you glide down from 30,000 feet because gravity will take over.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
except that a REAL PILOT who flew a BOEING 767, BOEING ENGINEERS, AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS AND REAL AVIATION ENGINEERS ALL support everything i've just explained and asserted.
IOW, THEY ALL CONTRADICT WHAT YOU CLAIM.

Seems that you misunderstood (like I stated earlier) and they all just contradicted what YOU claimed. Instead of proving me wrong, you just proved me CORRECT and proved YOURSELF wrong with the very first link you posted. Everything else is null and void and these little "facts" have been proven to be FALSE. Keep trying.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
You seriously need to educate yourself on real physics. Now go lick your wounds and come back when you achieve a basic education on aviation physics and can comprehend NEWTONS LAWS of PHYSICS.

Now since you just proved your own self wrong, you should read the above quote of yours aloud to yourself in a mirror 100 times, then come back with another claim you can debunk your own self with.

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Again you have no evidence to support your Theory.

you have no evidence to support your claim that it is a "theory".

so what specifically again, are you referring to??

It is not fact as it is not verifiable, there is a large distinction there.

whats not verifiable?

You discount the witneeses that say they saw the plane hit the building, cut the light poles, by saying they are lying or are part of the cover up.

that "argument" has been repeatedly addressed, answered and debunked in several threads for which you've been conveniently silent and absent from.

but if you want to go back to the drawing board... Alrighty then. I'll play your game one more time.

please state exactly all the witnesses you claim have been discounted and WHAT each claims to have seen.

No, actually its a MYTH and LIE that a boeing 767 could acheive such a speed or accomplish the MANEUVERS it did and still maintain its structural integrity. But we know a MILITARY JET AND PILOT could easily have pulled off what the OCT and Nist et al apart of the LIE claim

Et Alia which translates from Latin into "And Others".
This is grouping of people which is suggestive.

now you're playing semantics instead of addressing the point of my argument?

this game you're playing is getting very tiresome.

next you group people that support the evidence of a plane impact by calling us "planehuggers" again a grouping done by you not me.

So yes my statement:
I see, so anyone with an oposing view or conradictory information is a Liar

Is accurate

so wheres your contradictory facts again?

But all that aside, I have shown proof that interviews with leading or suggestive questions are not valid and even within hours of witnessing the event are subjected to a 10% recall difference, now apply that to weeks or months.

what does the point about "within hours of witnessing the event" have to do with the SCIENCE about PLANE SPEED or NIST etc?

You have not shown me where my findings are not correct.

since you keep jumping all over the place, when you state "your findings", please state what specifically and which topic you're referring to.

iow, the latter half of this thread has been focused on NIST and plane speed.

You offer up limited witnesses and then conviently ignore their and other testimony that they saw the plane hit.

so now we're back to the Witnesses...oooooooooookay.

Limited witnesses? what R U talking about???

please review what SPreston points out in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You counter their statements there by saying,

You STILL don't seem to understand the significance and implications of the NOC being PROVEN BY THE SAME WITNESSES YOU CLAIM SAY THEY SAW THE IMPACT when in FACT that wasn't what they ACTUALLY all claim.

source

so you discount their statments of seeing it hit by saying you can't have both. What about the other witnesses that were closer?

WHICH ONES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

again the ones that it went over head of on the highway? the ones that saw it clip light poles at the pentagon.

So since you claim to understand the issue so well regarding witnesses and what they saw etc,,, please state exactly which witnesses and testimony you're referring to and which you're claiming contradict what i've explained?

you want to get detailed and technical, fine... lets all go backwards and get on the same exact page and line by line analysis and start from scratch.

The ones directly underneath the impact that saw the planes hit the towers?

which are WHOM again?

this is fun isn't it?

In the no plane theory they are written off completely.

I have a feeling CIT, Craig and Preston would say and in fact have shown otherwise.

but they're welcome to correct me if i'm wrong.

You keep bringing up the laws of physics and Newton,
Yet when we show you evidence (using Physics and Newton) you discount it saying we do not know what we are talking about.

what now specifically are you referring to?

Oh it is Newton's Laws of Motion, not Physics

simple TYPO... should have read: "and" ... which was the intention.

but then, Newtons Laws are in essence and for all intents and purposes based on 3 "PHYSICAL" laws. So my use of Physical laws and Newton is still valid.

a shame you're not this nit-picky with the OCT and allow them so much latitude

Boeing acknowledged publicly that the 767 COULD reach those speeds and that it would not come apart in fact it is in their Type Cetificate Data Sheet.

Notice the Mach numbers that is the speed of sound.
Now those have a range of Mmo+.07 (FAR 25.335b).
Also note how he mentions the 767 directly.
The speed of sound is 767MPH (767 * .82 = 628.94 MPH) significantly higher than the 500+ MPH they were traveling at.
In fact it can reach .91M in a terminal dive as indicated by the VD number.

First of all, wheres the link/source for your assertion about what Boeing allegedly says about "those" speeds etc?

Second, the TCDS and data above are not specific to the situation or rather, don't address the situation, factors and scenario that took place on 911. If you'd like i'd be happy to present the relevant EVIDENCE, DATA and FACTS that go far deeper and explain in detail what "your" boeing "data" DOESN'T. But I doubt you even fully or remotely understand the data you're using as a basis for your argument. So please feel free anytime to explain where and how this data you've posted can be applied to 911 and flight 175.

Once again more personal attacks

You did not counter one item in my post.

you keep talking about all of this evidence yet provide none.

the verticle dive speed is very important. It proves the plane is Physically capable of moving at those speeds without breakup

Also your Boeing video is not proof, when asked itf a dive would allow a 767 to reach over 500MPH and he said Yes any dive would

Your witnesses are being led in the questioning.

As I have shown even if you question someone within hours using leading questions they have improper recall.

the CIT interviews were done on a handfull of people in 2008, seven years later.

since you have offered more physics and evidence please provide it,

My post coeverd all of the no plane theories including the towers and the pentagon.

Please provide your evidence in return. Your own video is the public announcement that the plane was capable of reaching over 500 MPH even in a shallow dive.



[edit on 19-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

reply to post by matrixNIN11


I for one have seen all the data provided by Matrix and DD and can say that the proof has been provided already and that to providing it again within the same thread is a waste of time and space... Thanks Matrix for science that backs up your claims and also to DD for all the info provided and the great video... Clearly shows how easy it would be to fake an aircraft and have thousands believe it to be real....

Rgds

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
PILOTS (who have actually flown a BOEING 767), AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS, ATC and anyone that understands THE BASIC LAWS OF MOTION, AVIATION PHYSICS and NEWTONS LAWS SUPPORT WHAT I'VE STATED.

Yet not a single pilot, engineer or ATC over at Pilots for 9/11 Truth supports your claims. In fact, P4T just made it clear again this week that P4T DOES NOT support the no-plane "theories".

they don't have to for the theory to be valid... its not necessary.

i don't care what they support or don't, is irrelevant in this discussion or proving or disproving npt.

but what i stated above and was specifically referring to, has really nothing to do with NPT... it has to do with flight 175 and the aviation physics of a boeing 767 doing what Nist and the OCT claims it was... which is nothing but a fairy tale.

and I know how much you enjoy and believe in fairy tales.

You must have a special group of pilots from your dimension where you got your physics law books from.

fortunately I don't get my books from Never Never Land bookstore as you do.

so hows Peter, Michael and Tink doing?

"So The EVIDENCE and FACTS support everything i've just claimed."
Yes you just "claimed", but posted no evidence. I don't see a list of pilots, engineers or ATC that agrees with you.

I posted a link to actual interviews that discuss, address and present FACTS and EVIDENCE which destroy your Nist and Oct fantasy... that was just for starters. Before I waste more of my time playing your rhetorical games, i'm just waiting for you to show exactly how and where whats been presented, is erroneous.

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
-----------------
but you can still start your education lesson and debunking with this documentary
www.youtube.com...
-------------------------

At 1:12 in the above video, he specifically says "a 767 will not go 540mph in LEVEL FLIGHT". I already covered this in my post above. If a 767 takes off and levels out at 700 feet, it CANNOT reach 540mph because it's engines are not powerful enough at that low of an altitude.

At 2:40 in the above video, the engineer says "the engine would not have enough thrust to reach those speeds at that altitude". I AGAIN already said that. After taking off and reaching 700 feet, the plane could not reach 540mph because it's engines are not powerful enough at that altitude.

The next engineer again confirms the engines aren't powerful enough at that altitude.

At 9:00, Jeff Hill (shure) asks if the plane were coming down from a higher altitude (shallow dive), could the plane reach 540+mph and the engineer says YES. "Any type of "dive" will have the assistance of gravity. But once you reach your altitude, drag will set in and slow the aircraft down".

This is the point I was trying to make. A 767's engines are not powerful enough to reach 540mph at 700 feet level flight, just as the previous engineers have said. But, a plane CAN reach that speed on it's way down to 700 feet from a much higher altitude, but once you reach that altitude, drag sets in and you start to lose that higher speed.

This engineer also proved what I said that you don't need the plane's engines to reach 540mph while you glide down from 30,000 feet because gravity will take over.

---------------------------
except that a REAL PILOT who flew a BOEING 767, BOEING ENGINEERS, AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERS AND REAL AVIATION ENGINEERS ALL support everything i've just explained and asserted.
IOW, THEY ALL CONTRADICT WHAT YOU CLAIM.
------------------------------

Seems that you misunderstood (like I stated earlier) and they all just contradicted what YOU claimed. Instead of proving me wrong, you just proved me CORRECT and proved YOURSELF wrong with the very first link you posted. Everything else is null and void and these little "facts" have been proven to be FALSE. Keep trying.

----------------------------
You seriously need to educate yourself on real physics. Now go lick your wounds and come back when you achieve a basic education on aviation physics and can comprehend NEWTONS LAWS
--------------------------------

Now since you just proved your own self wrong, you should read the above quote of yours aloud to yourself in a mirror 100 times, then come back with another claim you can debunk your own self with.

How so?

I still fail to see where your argument disproves the facts and evidence layed out throughout that Doc.

In fact you've cherry-picked a few portions to suit your agenda, and ignore the CONTEXT as well as over 2 hours of evidence.

with plane-huggers like yourself leading YOUR movement, its no wonder NPT hasn't been disproven yet, and actually continues to gain strength.

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
Thanks Matrix for science that backs up your claims

Before you praise someone, you might want to read the past couple pages including this one so you can catch up and see who provided the real science. Matrix debunked his own science and self and I just showed it to him here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But you keep on praising someone who posts a link that debunks his own claims and continues to get warnings and now wears a red warning flag under his name. That's a great crowd to praise.

9/11 video

Listen to them. "Oh my god! Another plane just crashed into the building! A jet! A jumbo jet!" This was shot extremely close to the WTC. She says that she SAW the plane before it hit.

Oh wait, this is faked too right? They hired actors to read a script and made a fake video?

[edit on 3/19/2009 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I have read the last couple of pages there bonez and have verified that all the data provided by Matrix and the others is true and the data you have provided is not close.... I have viewed it all several times and your theory just doesn't hold water let alone fuel.

As to him debunking his own claims... I know that in a thread like this where the goal posts are changed at each post that it may happen that one may stumble and make an incorrect statement once in awhile.. Most errors would be typos etc like what goes on here...

But that does prevent the smart people who are reading Matrix's data and DDs data from realizing that the error is in your reasoning. I have and others have proven this time and time again within this and other threads. I will not repeat myself within the same thread because I know the real truth seekers will use the thread button on the bottom of my post and the others that have the real data and will gain their knowledge correctly.

It would seem that the warning tag doesn't really mean much.... I was warned for using the word 'Disinfo" four times in a thread....
How many times have you used in your posts here?
Thanks
Rgds


[edit on 19-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

reply to post by Zaphod58


Great video, haven't seen this one before. Yet another home video that the no-planers will call fake, even though there was no plane videoed. These are just payed actors shedding real tears for the no-plane theorists. Makes me sick.

It doesn't matter how many facts you show these no-planers, they will make things up out of the air to explain it away and show no proof to back up their made-up claims.

[edit on 19-3-2009 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by Zaphod58


So What you are saying there Zaphod is that if I post a video that I provide a conversation that has some shouting "Oh my god! They just crashed another missile into the world trade center!" Oh my I better some clean underwear like the girl in the video...

Oh My god....

That's proof of the missle? Great I will see if I can find footage like that then....

Rgds

Maybe someone else can find footage of someone stating that they saw a missile... I know that some news reporters stated things about missiles... But they aren't credible witnesses I guess because they were not affected by the conditioning that the general population went through...





[edit on 19-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
As to him debunking his own claims... I know that in a thread like this where the goal posts are changed at each post that it may happen that one may stumble and make an incorrect statement once in awhile.. Most errors would be typos etc like what goes on here...

yeah, except Matrix's errors weren't typos, nor did he make incorrect statements. He flat-out said that what I posted about how planes can fly was scientifically wrong and then he posts a video where his own engineers said exactly what I said. THAT'S DISINFORMATION.

That's exactly why no-planers are called disinfo artists. Matrix made false claims and even peddled them as "scientific facts" when they turned out to be scientific disinfo and his own video debunked what he said.

You guys have been caught making things up over and over I keep pointing them out. Keep trying.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


You have your facts wrong bonez... his data and statements were not wrong and haven't been wrong throughout the thread. I'd suggest you go back and reread what he's written and then rethink it. There is lots of misinformation within this thread and you'll have to do some good searching to find the good stuff... Here are a couple of links to some data that may help you find your way...

One, and Two

All valid and proven so through this and other threads... I'm sure anyone that wants the truth will know it when they see it...

Rgds

reply to post by _BoneZ_


It's part of a new special coming on the History Channel this month. They're going to have new videos that hadn't been released before showing New Yorkers and their reaction.

Reply to AllTiedTogether

No sorry, but that wouldn't convince me of anything. But when you have dozens of videos showing a missile, and dozens of people saying they saw a missile, and friends of mine that tell me exactly where they were standing saying they saw a missile, and THEN show me that video I'll believe you.

[edit on 3/19/2009 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
You have your facts wrong bonez... his data and statements were not wrong and haven't been wrong throughout the thread.

I'll give one example:

I said "you can again take your 767 to 30,000 feet and turn the engines off and glide your plane down to 800 feet at 500mph (using gravity)".

He said "NO YOU CAN'T".

He then posts a link to a video where at 9:00 minutes in, the engineer says the same exact thing I said.

How the hell is Matrix not wrong? Matrix is saying you can't do something that the engineer says you can do in the very video that Matrix posted. Now you're just making things up and spinning the truth, just like natural disinfo artists do.

Real researchers will see right through the disinfo and see who is wrong and who is correct. It don't take much.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


thank you for the one example but if I went through all your posts and showed where you were wrong I'd have written pretty much like all the rest have that showed your data to be wrong. Like I stated earlier, the goal posts change so often on this that the only mistakes Matrix or DD may have made were due to the question changing as they were answering the question. This is not fair and others have seen it also.

Thanks..


[edit on 19-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

thank you for the one example but if I went through all your posts and showed where you were wrong I'd have written pretty much like all the rest have that showed your data to be wrong. Like I stated earlier, the goal posts change so often on this that the only mistakes Matrix or DD may have made were due to the question changing as they were answering the question. This is not fair and others have seen it also.

Thanks..


[edit on 19-3-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

Lets not forget that in other threads NPTers have said the air craft would have come apart, that there was no way it could FLY at 500+ MPH

I posted an FAA document showing that the plane can fly at up to .91M that is 91% the speed of sound and maintain structural integrity
At 14,000 feet it can fly level at .82M

Now bear in mind that according to FAR they have a +.07 buffer on the mach seed.

Meaning that a 767-200 can fly at .98M almost the speed of sound at 17,000 Feet.


And .89M at 1,4000

The COULD withstand the stress without comming apart.

In a controlled gravity dive of no more than 10 degrees from 30,000 to 800-700 feet 500MPH + is completely possible and maintainable

Remember its cruising speed (not max max cruise speed is 568MPH At 35k Feet) is 530MPH at 35,000 Feet.

now starting off from 30-35k feet you are not speeding up an enormous amount.
only 10MPH

This shows that air resistance is coming into play on the air craft.

Yet we hear from the NPT side that it is physically impossible.

The evidence provided by myself and other shows that this is possible.

As for the witnesses, I have shown that using leading and suggestive questions (like the ones in the interviews touted) bring about false recall.

even within hours of the witnesses event they result in a 10% loss of true recall.
The CIT interviews were done 7 year later.
Although SPreston and Matrix have tried to claim they were the same as the 2001 interviews.

They claim that these people were interviewed by the Military Historical Society yet provide no proof, same thing with the Library of congress interviews.

In the movie I took ALL of the first witnesses and showed how they could not have seen ANY details based on location. asking them detailed questions was moot.

One witness to the event was 2.4 miles away you can barely register the outlines of the building at that distance.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
9/11 video
Listen to them. "Oh my god! Another plane just crashed into the building! A jet! A jumbo jet!" This was shot extremely close to the WTC. She says that she SAW the plane before it hit.
Oh wait, this is faked too right? They hired actors to read a script and made a fake video?
[edit on 3/19/2009 by Zaphod58]

this has to be one of the most pathetic arguments as evidence against NPT to date.

The double standards and hypocrisy by you plane-huggers is absolutely amazing that you can use a video with someone claiming they saw a plane (not even mentioning theres no plane seen in the video the persons taking)
but ignore all the videos and witnesses who say they saw a missle or NO PLANE at all.

you people crack me up