It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was Video Fakery Employed on 9/11? [HOAX]

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


I will repeat the concrete used in the floors was a lightweight floor mix DO YOU UNDERSTAND also what was the dimensions between floors DO YOU KNOW the exact position that the cockpit area of the plane hit ie was it exactly on a floor or between 2 floors that all makes a difference.

Re this quote


Originally posted by JimFetzer

Since a tiny bird makes a hole in the fuselage of a commercial carrier when it impacts with it in flight--where the bird only weights a few ounces--compare that to an acre of concrete, 4-8" deep, on the horizontal. Suppose one of these floors were floating in space and a plane hit it at 530-560 mph. What do you suppose would happen? The plane would be sliced and come apart, with wings, tail, fuselage--not to mention bodies, seats, and luggage--flying in every direction. For any of you to doubt this displays either enormous ignorance or massive denial or simply "faking it" for the purpose of defending an indefensible theory. It would have been physically impossible for a Boeing 767 to have impacted with the South Tower and make the smooth and faultless entry shown in the videos: www.disclose.tv...

reply to post by weedwhacker
 



In bold above
Can you not UNDERSTAND that when you claim a softer bird damages a plane its the same principle that means the plane can punch a hole in a wall. Watch this video



Lets reverse the process what do you think would happen if his arm was out and the blocks dropped onto it


Its physics NOT fakery




posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I think there may be 40 videos. And the witnesses were all over the place. I don't know where you thought you had educated me, but if you don't understand this case any better than this, then you are the one who has a lot of learn, not me. And don't forget that the plane seen in the videos is traveling at an impossible speed. Since John Lear, who is one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth both have confirmed that it was traveling at an impossible speed, let's start there. Give us your best explanation of why we are wrong about the impossible speed.

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



edit on 6-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I think there may be 40 videos. And the witnesses were all over the place. I don't know where you thought you had educated me, but if you don't understand this case any better than this, then you are the one who has a lot of learn, not me.


Okay Jim, I gave you ample time and opportunity to reply to my questions.

How long have you been spouting that 9/11 was an inside job?

I assume quite a few years...........and yet you still can't answer some valid questions that put your "No planes" theory in jeopardy!

Given that you like to debate this topic and you seem so cocksure that you have all the answers......I am franky disappointed with your lack of response.
I thought I might have a decent debate with you on the issue.........but it's turned into a No Contest!


Do you side step any awkard questions put to you by the students whom you teach too?

Oh well youv'e scored nil points today my friend.

edit on 6-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
I think there may be 40 videos. And the witnesses were all over the place. I don't know where you thought you had educated me, but if you don't understand this case any better than this, then you are the one who has a lot of learn, not me. And don't forget that the plane seen in the videos is traveling at an impossible speed. Since John Lear, who is one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth both have confirmed that it was traveling at an impossible speed, let's start there. Give us your best explanation of why we are wrong about the impossible speed.

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



edit on 6-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)


Lets see its that the same John Lear that told lies about the envelope, the same John Lear who posts stupid pictures on the livingmoon site and makes daft claims about what he thinks is on the moon.

As for the aircraft speed HAVE we actually got an accurate one for it? How can the speed be impossible as we see it traveling at speed, like I said do we have an ACCURATE speed.

Why no comment from you re the impact physics or is the fact you dont reply a clue that you dont understand whats happening.

Do you know the difference in the type of concrete used for the floors compared with a normal structural concrete mix.

PS You replied to my post to backinblack.
edit on 6-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: line added



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


"We??"


Since John Lear, who is one of our nation's most distinguished pilots, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth both have confirmed that it was traveling at an impossible speed, let's start there. Give us your best explanation of why we are wrong about the impossible speed.


AFAIK....firstly, John Lear seems to no longer be associated with "P4T". (In name only, but maybe he can't get them to take it down?). Remember, Lear was pushing the silly "holograms" and "moon-beams" --- sorry ---- "DEW" woo-woo junk. When the only real person behind that little club was posting here, and spamming with the same repeat posts of their club's so-called "CV", his name was conspicuously absent. Even P4T founder (and apparently sole sock-weaver) Rob Balsamo hasn't seemed to jump on the "no planes" bandwagon....so, puzzled
about the "We" there....


Secondly, no....the P4T nonsense has NOT "confirmed that it was traveling at an impossible speed". That malarkey only works on those not experienced in the actual airplanes (and a few mouthpieces, like "Kip" Wittenberg, "Rusty" Aimer and "Rotten" Ralph Kolstad...still haven't figured out their problems, and real deal....). Balsamo's cutesy (and faked, concocted, mashed-up "Vg Diagram" notwithstanding.....).

Simply put, descending with throttles (thrust levers) shoved to the firewall, it WILL accelerate to well above Vmo. The limiting factors of parasitic and induced drag, and available engine thrust, is overcome by assistance from gravity. Aerodynamically, the next speed-limiting thing would be the Mach Number. Anything near, or at Mach Critical might begin to cause stability and perhaps even control problems....but, at that air temperature/indicated airspeed, the Mach was around 0.76 or thereabouts. Perfectly acceptable speed envelope, in that regard. Also, I have to look again, but somewhere in my training on the airplane, long ago, I vaguely recall a mention that it was NOT prone to a phenomenon known as "Mach tuck". Had to do with the horizonatal stabilizer design, moment arms and center of lift relationships....Mach tuck was more of a problem in some earlier large jet designs, especially with T-tails and wings swept at greater angles, relative to the fuselage centerline, than the B757/767 family design.

Contrary to the BS Balsamo (and his sock puppets') claims, merely exceeding the Vmo (360 KCAS) or even its demonstrated Vd (420 KCAS)....[which he would never even address, ran away from that each time!]....would NOT cause instant "airplane-fall-apart-syndrome". Funny, I let him (and his puppets) stew, twist and spin for a long time....until I used the very source where he'd swiped the "Vg Diagram" from, (after he altered the speeds along the bottom), and the text that accompanied the original diagram, in the original source material, blew him up...and schooled him.

(He LOVES to cherry-pick, when trying to "argue" his baloney claims....).


Furthermore, Balsamo, in his "spam-o-rama" fest, here, included what he cited as "examples"....other instances of extreme airspeed exceedances....and, again funnily, three out of those four airplanes all flew successfully, to safe landings, even after some structural damage. Only one that crashed (Egypt Air 990) did so BECAUSE the First Officer was trying to make it crash!!

Now, my (admittedly shallow) research into "Jim Fetzer" indicated to me that he is not a pilot...not mentioned, in any case....and certainly not an airline pilot. A "Jim Fetzer" who says he's experienced in aviation, due to the involvement with the Sen. Wellstone accident research isn't much of a resume'....one doesn't become that well versed in flying, airplane details and aviation complexities in that manner. Practical, hands-on years of flying experience is what gets the job done, there.


Finally, as it is difficult to find examples (and certainly none that would mimic or re-create the United 175 flight profile, in real equipment, and not a simulator) so I can offer only these two. First is a Boeing 767 evaluation flight, where the crew is merely recording the IAS when the Vmo OverSpeed Warning activates.

The video quality is not as sharp as I would like, but will have to do. Things to note:

Particular attention to the Attitude Indicator, and the pitch angle. In this case, Nose Down pitch. You will see how little is required, no extreme attitude angles, it doesn't even exceed ten degrees. In that condition, even with power at Flight Idle, the speed can build up quite rapidly. Further, the Vertical Velocity should be noted. The VVI range is 6,000 fpm up/down. The instrument, in the demo, is pegged at 6,000 fpm DOWN...the actual rate could be higher, though.

The demo ends, at the speed...and it is seen how effortlessly the pilot levels off, stopping the descent. NO "hard pulls" on the elevators, no "high Gs", nothing at all. Even when level, the speed doesn't bleed off very quickly, so he uses speed brakes to help it slow faster. NOW....imagining that, AT the Vmo (and all the Master Warning visual and aural annunciations) that full thrust is applied, whilst keeping the nose down attitude the same? Speed will continue to accelerate. Matter of just seconds to achieve the speeds estimated/calculated with United 175:



_____
Moving on to one more, from a documentary about the flight testing regimen for the Airbus A-380. The infamous "flutter test". In this video, they encroach to the very edge of the airplane's Mach envelope (0.96), and very close to Mach 1. Going in, they of course know already they won't have any control flutter problems....the engineering computers and the software have confirmed this already, in the designs.

They don't expect any structural failure problems...indeed, what they have happen, in first part, is some fairing damage. Non-structural parts. They just re-design some of its attachment points, to correct the problem. Probably a minor airflow pattern they overlooked/didn't expect.

The "window-dressing" and dramatic license of the parachutes, helmets are a bit overblown....I mean, realistically and logically, IF they were actually that concerned for the crew's safety, then they would have a MINIMUM crew...just the two pilots....NOT the full engineering/testing staff!!!





BTW...even after all the things they put that airplane through, in the flight testing regime...it STILL is delivered to an airline customer, and used in normal service afterwards!!! (Ship 001....that was its "contract number", or "c/n".....it went to Emirates Airlines, I believe).



edit on 6 February 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Now, my (admittedly shallow) research into "Jim Fetzer" indicated to me that he is not a pilot...not mentioned, in any case....and certainly not an airline pilot. A "Jim Fetzer" who says he's experienced in aviation, due to the involvement with the Sen. Wellstone accident research isn't much of a resume'....one doesn't become that well versed in flying, airplane details and aviation complexities in that manner. Practical, hands-on years of flying experience is what gets the job done, there.


Weed, being a pilot does NOT make you an expert on everything related to planes..
Heck, I know people that have been driving cars for 50 years and still can't change a tyre..
I know you need reasonable knowledge but to blatantly state someone is not qualified to give evidence merely because you think they are not a pilot is insanity...

BTW, I don't recall you ever addressing the vg diagram..
Usually the posters were banned and you didn't answer other than to say it's rubish without offering a different vg diagram or evidence of his being wrong...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
By Newton's third law, the impact of a plane flying more than 500 mph hitting a stationary 500,000-ton building would have the same effects as a 500,000-ton building moving more than 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. One of us has not been giving this matter the thought that it deserves. The question is important to know how we know we are seeing a fantasy, which is clearly the case.

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   
I'm sorry. I wasn't sure you were serious. Some of the firemen at certain key positions were in on it. Others, who may have figured out something funny was going on, were not keen on losing their jobs. More than 100 witnesses in the JFK assassination wound up dead. (See JFK: THE DEAD WITNESSES (1994) by Craig Roberts and John Armstrong.) Maybe the didn't want to join them. Has it occurred to you that the government that would murder some 3,000 citizens might be willing to add a few firemen to the list if they spoke their minds? I hope that you will give it some thought.

More importantly,have you taken a good look at the slides I have regarding the hit on the North Tower in my Powerpoint? Do you think that the flying what'sits in the time sequence frame resembles a Boeing 767, even remotely? I have more on this, but the guy I need to contact about it is sleeping at this hour of the night. I will get back to you with more, but it seems to me the combination of Leslie Raphael's study and the actual images seem to me to carry more weight than any absence of protest from firemen, who may well be staying as far away as they can from 9/11.

reply to post by Logical one
 



edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
weekwhacker, Any hypothesis you don't like or can't understand seems silly to you. The question is what theory can explain the impossible speed, the impossible entry, the equal frames consideration, the cookie-cutter cut outs and all of that. If the hologram hypothesis can explain it when other hypotheses cannot, then it turns out to be the best supported among the alternatives. I am waiting for you to do better. And I was citing John as a source who is separate and apart from Pilots. Have you noticed that they support the impossible speed of the plane shown in the video? That seems to me to be significant, so perhaps you want to respond to their study. I have much more from John.

reply to post by weedwhacker
 



edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
9-11 WAS an inside job, i have made unbelievable contact with something scary and new that knows the truth.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Why is everyone so eager to use the word "lie" to describe the positions of those with whom they disagree? I take it you do not know John Lear and have never interacted with him, because frankly he is among the most open and honest students of 9/11 with whom I have personally dealt. His observations about the missing "envelopes" seems to me to be important. So if you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. I have a long affidavit from John that was admitted as evidence in a lawsuit in New York, which I am going to post inspite of its length, because of its extraordinary interest and importance to the issues we are discussing. I hope that the administrators of ATS will allow this exception to the rule for those reasons, because I believe that it certainly belongs here.

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Jerry V. Leaphart #jl4468
Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C.
8 West Street, Suite 203
Danbury, CT 06810
jsleaphart@cs.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS, on behalf of :
The United States of America :
:
Plaintiff, : ECF CASE
vs. :
: 07 CIV 4612 (GBD)
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS :
INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al :
: January 28, 2008

Defendants. :
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEVADA :
COUNTY OF CLARK :
JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am 65 years of age, a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with over 19,000 hours of flight time, over 11,000 of which are in command of 3 or 4 engine jet transports, have flown over 100 different types of aircraft in 60 different countries around the world. I retired in 2001 after 40 years of flying.

2. I am the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, and hold more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. These include the Airline Transport Pilot certificate with 23 type ratings, Flight Instructor, Flight Engineer, Flight Navigator, Ground Instructor, Aircraft Dispatcher, Control Tower Operator and Parachute Rigger.

3. I flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983

4. During the last 17 years of my career I worked for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor. I was certificated by the FAA as a North Atlantic (MNPS) Check Airman. I have extensive experience as command pilot and instructor in the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Lockheed L-1011.

5. I checked out as Captain on a Boeing 707 in 1973 and Captain on the Lockheed L-1011 in 1985.

6. I hold 17 world records including Speed Around the World in a Lear Jet Model 24 set in 1966 and was presented the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controller's Association) award for Outstanding Airmanship in 1968. I am a Senior Vice-Commander of the China Post 1, the American Legions Post for “Soldiers of Fortune”, a 24 year member of the Special Operations Association and member of Pilotfor911truth.org.

7. I have 4 daughters, 3 grandchildren and live with my wife of 37 years, Las Vegas business woman Marilee Lear in Las Vegas, Nevada.

II.

8. No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted for the following reasons:

A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

B. The engines when impacting the steel columns would have maintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building. One alleged engine part was found on Murray Street but there should be three other engine cores weighing over 9000 pounds each. Normal operating temperatures for these engines are 650°C so they could not possibly have burned up. This is a photo of a similar sized engine from a McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 which impacted the ocean at a high rate of speed. You can see that the engine remains generally intact.(photo, www.cbsnews.com... shtml)

C. When and if the nose of an airplane came in contact with the buildings 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns and then, 37 feet beyond, the steel box columns of the building core the momentum of the wings would have slowed drastically depriving them of the energy to penetrate the exterior steel box columns. The spars of the wing, which extend outward, could not possibly have penetrated the 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns placed 39 inches on center and would have crashed to the ground.

D. The argument that the energy of the mass of the Boeing 767 at a speed of 540 mph fails because:

a. No Boeing 767 could attain that speed at 1000 feet above sea level because of parasite drag which doubles with velocity and parasite power which cubes with velocity.

b. The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.

E. The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed 39 inches in center, at over 500 mph. This fuselage section would be telescopically crumpled had it actually penetrated the building as depicted in the CNN video. It is impossible for it to have then re-emerged from the building and then fallen intact and unburned as depicted.

F. The Purdue video fails because no significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine thereon could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground. The Purdue video misrepresents the construction of the core of the building and depicts unidentified parts of the airplane snapping the core columns which were 12"x36". The Purdue video also misrepresents what would happen to the tail when the alleged fuselage contacted the core. The tail would instantaneously separate from the empennage (aft fuselage). Further, the Purdue video misrepresents, indeed it fails to show, the wing box or center section of the wing in the collision with the core. The wing box is a very strong unit designed to hold the wings together and is an integral portion of the fuselage. The wing box is designed to help distribute the loads of the wings up-and-down flexing in flight.

G. My analysis of the alleged cutout made by the Boeing 767 shows that many of the 14-inch exterior steel box columns which are shown as severed horizontally, do not match up with the position of the wings. Further, several of the columns through which the horizontal tail allegedly disappeared are not severed or broken. In addition, the wing tips of the Boeing 767 being of less robust construction than the inner portions of the wings could not possibly have made the cookie-cutter pattern as shown in the aftermath photos. The wing tips would have been stopped by the 14 inch steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

H. The debris of the Boeing 767, as found after the collapse, was not consistent with actual debris had there really been a crash. Massive forgings, spars from both the wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers, landing gear retract cylinders, landing gear struts, hydraulic reservoirs and bogeys oxygen bottles, a massive keel beam, bulkheads and the wing box itself cold not possibly have 'evaporated' even in a high intensity fire. The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.

III.

9. My opinion, based on extensive flight experience both as captain and instructor in large 3 and 4 engine aircraft is that it would have been impossible for an alleged hijacker with little or no time in the Boeing 767 to have taken over, then flown a Boeing 767 at high speed, descending to below 1000 feet above mean sea level and flown a course to impact the twin towers at high speed for these reasons:

A. As soon as the alleged hijackers sat in the pilots seat of the Boeing 767 they would be looking at an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) display panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of 'hard' instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well.

Had they murdered the pilot with a box knife as alleged there would be blood all over the seat, the controls, the center pedestal, the instrument panel and floor of the cockpit. The hijacker would have had to remove the dead pilot from his seat which means he would have had electrically or manually place the seat in its rearmost position and then lifted the murdered pilot from his seat, further distributing blood, making the controls including the throttles wet, sticky and difficult to hold onto.

Even on a clear day a novice pilot would be wholly incapable of taking control and turning a Boeing 767 towards New York because of his total lack of experience and situational awareness under these conditions. The alleged hijackers were not 'instrument rated' and controlled high altitude flight requires experience in constantly referring to and cross-checking attitude, altitude and speed instruments. Using the distant horizon to fly 'visually' under controlled conditions is virtually impossible particularly at the cruising speed of the Boeing 767 of .80 Mach.

The alleged 'controlled' descent into New York on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of 'controlled' flight.

Its takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the "EFIS" (Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent. The Boeing 767 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls.

B. As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the cockpit. The 'clacker' is a loud clacking sound, designed to be irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning, impossible because of the noise and distraction.

C. Assuming, however, that the alleged hijacker was able to navigate into a position to approach the WTC tower at a speed of approximately 790 feet per second the alleged hijacker would have about 67 seconds to navigate the last 10 miles. During that 67 seconds the pilot would have to line up perfectly with a 208 ft. wide target (the tower) and stay lined up with the clacker clacking plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 767 maximum stability limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising irregular currents of air.

He would also have to control his altitude with a high degree of precision and at the alleged speeds would be extremely difficult. In addition to this the control, although hydraulically boosted, would be very stiff. Just the slightest control movements would have sent the airplane up or down at thousands of feet a minute. To propose that an alleged hijacker with limited experience could get a Boeing 767 lined up with a 208 foot wide target and keep it lined up and hold his altitude at exactly 800 feet while being aurally bombarded with the clacker is beyond the realm of possibility. [NIST claims a descent from horizontal angle of 10.6 degrees for AA11 at impact and 6 degrees for UA175; see page 276 of 462 in NCSTAR 1-2].

That an alleged hijacker could overcome all of these difficulties and hit a 208 foot wide building dead center at the north tower and 23 feet east of dead center at the south tower is simply not possible. At the peak of my proficiency as a pilot I know that I could not have done it on the first pass. And for two alleged hijackers, with limited experience to have hit the twin towers dead center on September 11, 2001 is total fiction. It could not happen.

IV.

10. No Boeing 767 airliner(s) exceeded 500 mph in level flight at approximately 1000 feet on 9/11 as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors because they are incapable of such speeds at low altitude.

11. One of the critical issues of the 'impossible' speeds of the aircraft hitting the World Trade Center Towers alleged by NIST as 443 mph (385 kts. M.6, American Airlines Flight 11) and 542 mph (470 kts. M.75, United Airlines 175) is that the VD or dive velocity of the Boeing 767 as certificated by the Federal Aviation under 14 CFR Part 25 Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Transports of 420 kts CAS (Calibrated Air Speed) makes these speeds achievable. This is unlikely.

12. The 'Dive Velocity' VD is 420 knots CAS (calibrated airspeed)(483 mph). Some allege that this speed, 420 knots (483 mph) is near enough to the NIST alleged speeds that the NIST speeds 443 (385 kts.) mph and 542 mph (471 kts.), could have been flown by the alleged hijackers and are probably correct.

13. In fact VD of 420 knots (483 mph) is a speed that is a maximum for certification under 14 CFR Part 25.253 High Speed Characteristics and has not only not necessarily been achieved but is far above VFC (390 kts. 450 mph) which is the maximum speed at which stability characteristics must be demonstrated.(14 CFR 25.253 (b).

14. What this means is not only was VD not necessarily achieved but even if it was, it was achieved in a DIVE demonstrating controllability considerably above VFC which is the maximum speed under which stability characteristics must be demonstrated. Further, that as the alleged speed is considerably above VFC for which stability characteristics must be met, a hijacker who is not an experienced test pilot would have considerable difficulty in controlling the airplane, similar to flying a bucking bronco, much less hitting a 208 foot target dead center, at 800 feet altitude (above mean sea level) at the alleged speed.

15. Now to determine whether or not a Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 could even attain 540 miles per hour at 800 feet we have to first consider what the drag versus the power ratio is.

Drag is the effect of the air pushing against the frontal areas of the fuselage and wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Drag also includes the friction that is a result of the air flowing over these surfaces. If there was no drag you could go very fast. But we do have drag and there are 2 types: induced and parasite. Assume we are going really fast as NIST and the defendants claim, then we don't have to consider induced drag because induced drag is caused by lift and varies inversely as the square of the airspeed. What this means is the faster you go the lower the induced drag.

What we do have to consider is parasite drag. Parasite drag is any drag produced that is not induced drag. Parasite drag is technically called 'form and friction' drag. It includes the air pushing against the entire airplane including the engines, as the engines try to push the entire airplane through the air.

16. We have two other things to consider: induced power and parasite power.

Induced power varies inversely with velocity so we don't have to consider that because we are already going fast by assumption and it varies inversely.

Parasite power however varies as the cube of the velocity which means to double the speed you have to cube or have three times the power.

17. So taking these four factors into consideration we are only concerned with two: parasite power and parasite drag, and if all other factors are constant, and you are level at 800 feet and making no turns, the parasite drag varies with the square of the velocity but parasite power varies as the cube of the velocity.

What this means is at double the speed, drag doubles and the power required to maintain such speed is cubed.

The airspeed limitation for the Boeing 767 below approximately 23,000 feet is 360 kts [414 mph] or what they call VMO (velocity maximum operating).

That means that the maximum permissible speed of the Boeing 767 below 23,000 feet is 360 knots and it is safe to operate the airplane at that speed but not faster.

18. While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test it is only done so within carefully planned flight test programs. We can safely infer that most commercial 767 pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below 23,000 feet.

19. The alleged NIST speed of 443 mph (385 kts,) for American Airlines Flight 11 would be technically achievable. However the NIST speed of 542 mph (470 kts) for United Airlines Flight 175 which is 50 kts. above VD is not commensurate with and/or possible considering:

(1) the power available,* **
(2) parasite drag (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(3) parasite power (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(4) the controllability by a pilot with limited experience. 14 CFR Part 25.253 (a)(b)
* www.ntsb.gov...
** www.content.airbusworld.com...

20. Therefore the speed of the aircraft, that hit the World Trade Center, as represented by NIST, particularly that of United Airlines Flight 175 is fraudulent and could not have occurred.

21. One more consideration is the impossibility of the PW4062 turbofan engines to operate in dense air at sea level altitude at high speed.
The Boeing 767 was designed to fly at high altitudes at a maximum Mach of .86 or 86/100ths the speed of sound. This maximum speed is called MMO, (Maximum Mach Operating). Its normal cruise speed, however, is Mach .80 (about 530 mph) or less, for better fuel economy. (The speed of sound at 35,000 feet is 663 mph so 530 mph is Mach .7998 see www.grc.nasa.gov...)
The fan tip diameter of the PW4062 which powered UAL 175 was 94 inches, over 7 feet in diameter making it, essentially a huge propeller.
This huge fan compresses enormous amount of air during takeoff to produce the thrust necessary to get the airplane off of the ground and into the air.

At high altitudes, in cruise, where the air is much thinner and where the engines are designed to fly at most of the time, the fan and turbine sections are designed to efficiently accept enormous amounts of this thin air and produce an enormous amount of thrust.

But at low altitudes, in much denser air, such as one thousand feet, where the air is over 3x as dense as at 35,000 feet, going much faster than Vmo or 360 knots, the air is going to start jamming up in the engine simply because a turbofan engine is not designed to take the enormous quantities of dense air at high speed, low altitude flight. Because of the much denser air the fan blades will be jammed with so much air they will start cavitating or choking causing the engines to start spitting air back out the front. The turbofan tip diameter is over 7 feet; it simply cannot accept that much dense air, at that rate, because they aren't designed to.

So achieving an airspeed much over its Vmo which is 360 knots isn't going to be possible coupled with the fact that because the parasite drag increases as the square of the speed and the power required increases as the cube of the speed you are not going to be able to get the speed with the thrust (power) available.

It can be argued that modern aerodynamic principles hold that if an aircraft can fly at 35,000 ft altitude at 540 mph (~Mach 0.8), and for a given speed, both engine thrust and airframe drag vary approximately in proportion to air density (altitude), that the engine can produce enough thrust to fly 540 mph at 800 ft. altitude.

That argument fails because although the engine might be theoretically capable of producing that amount of thrust, the real question is can that amount of thrust be extracted from it at 540 mph at 800 ft.

22, To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540 mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust required and it's not possible because of the engine fan design which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into it.

23. I am informed that the lawsuit for which this affidavit is intended is in its preliminary, pre-discovery phase. I am further informed that actual eyewitness statements cast considerable doubt on the jetliner crash claims, irrespective of the media-driven impression that there were lots of witnesses. In fact, the witnesses tend, on balance, to confirm there were no jetliner crashes. I am also informed that information that will enable further refinement of the issues addressed in this affidavit will be forthcoming in discovery including, without limitation, the opportunity to take depositions and to request relevant documentation (additional information). When that additional information is obtained, I will then be in a position to offer such other and further opinions as, upon analysis, that additional information will mandate.

24. At this stage, it cannot properly be assumed, much less asserted as factual, that wide-body jetliners crashed into the then Twin Towers of the WTC. Any declaration that such events occurred must be deemed false and fraudulently asserted, video images notwithstanding.

Notes:

1. On any chart plotting velocity versus either drag or thrust required or power required the parasite value rises sharply after 300 kts,

2. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust or power required the curves rises sharply after 250 kts
.
3. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust required at sea level, the curve rises dramatically above 200 kts as does the curve for power required.

I swear the above statements to be true to the best of my knowledge.

_/s/ John Olsen Lear___________
John Olsen Lear
1414 N. Hollywood Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89110-2006
Subscribed and Sworn to before
me this 24 day of January 2008.
/s/ Connie Jones______________
Notary Public/Appt Exp. 11/22/09
Certificate #94-2650-1

This is the page for the Boeing 767-200 Type Data Certificate information from which was used in this affidavit:

This is the page that shows how dive tests are conducted:
www.flightsimaviation.com...

This is the page for the type data certificate for the engines used on UAL175
www.content.airbusworld.com...

This is the page that shows the type of engine used on the MD-11 that crashed into the ocean. (photo attached)
www.bst.gc.ca...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
If you will simply watch the first fifteen (15) slides of my Powerpoint, "Was 9/11 an 'inside job'?", you will see why your comparisons are faulty analogies. You don't seem to understand the intricate lattice structure consisting of 47 massive core columns and 236 external support columns, which were connected by steel trusses that were filled with 4-8" of concrete. An aluminum airplane is relatively fragile and cannot overcome the massive resistance poses by a 500,000 ton building. Think about a car traveling at high speed and hitting an enormous tree. Would you think it would melt through the tree? Cut some holes in the tree, if you like. Only certain parts of the plane would have passed into the building, including the engines. But the fuselage would have crumpled, the wings and the tail broken off, and seats, bodies, and luggage fallen to the ground. None of that happened, which tells us that we are dealing with an imaginary plane and not a real one. The question is not whether video fakery is taking place but how it was done, whether it was by using CGIs, using video compositing, or using a sophisticated hologram. That is the interesting question. That what we are seeing is not real ought to be obvious to everyone who has studied this by now.

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
By Newton's third law, the impact of a plane flying more than 500 mph hitting a stationary 500,000-ton building would have the same effects as a 500,000-ton building moving more than 500 mph hitting a stationary plane. One of us has not been giving this matter the thought that it deserves. The question is important to know how we know we are seeing a fantasy, which is clearly the case.

reply to post by wmd_2008
 



edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-2-2011 by JimFetzer because: (no reason given)


WOW again lack of knowledge shots you in the foot, its not impacting with a 500,000 ton object all the components are bolted together it is not ONE SOLID MASS!!!!!! it only has to produce enough force to shear the connecting bolts to cause problems I would stick to what you know about, which with regards to construction is NOT A LOT!

With regards to the floof the trusses were not filled with concrete the space frame trusses had steel decking on top the concrete is then poured on top of that! Floor concrete was 4" thick on most floor with a few floors 6" thick and it was not as dense as STRUCTURAL CONCRETE used for walls or foundations.
edit on 7-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: floor info added.

edit on 7-2-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



WOW again lack of knowledge shots you in the foot, its not impacting with a 500,000 ton object all the components are bolted together it is not ONE SOLID MASS!!!!!! it only has to produce enough force to shear the connecting bolts to cause problems I would stick to what you know about, which with regards to construction is NOT A LOT!


And neither is the plane..
I wonder bwhich one had the most mass per volume??



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


This is the the hard of learning PHYSICS pupils Jim and backinblack using your FLAWED LOGIC explain this.

How does a 22,000 lb plane do this much damage to a 365,000 ton building traveling at 200mph hitting solid repeat SOLID MASONRY using your LOGIC EXPLAIN!!!! see pic below!

Solid steel floor beam bent NOT a spaceframe a SOLID STRUCTURAL STEEL SECTION!!!!

Please explain because if you can ALL building design will have to CHANGE!!!!



This link also gives a more accurate weight for the twin towers not the 500,000t guess

www.physforum.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



This is the the hard of learning PHYSICS pupils Jim and backinblack using your FLAWED LOGIC explain this.


And here's me thinking I just asked a reasonable question..

ie: Which has the most mass per volume, the tower or the plane.?

Are you a PHYSICS expert also WMD ??
Care to tell us your qualifications???


This link also gives a more accurate weight for the twin towers not the 500,000t guess

I read the "forum" and it appears there was no concensus, just differing opinions..



BTW, your link to the image doen't work for me...
edit on 7-2-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



This is the the hard of learning PHYSICS pupils Jim and backinblack using your FLAWED LOGIC explain this.


And here's me thinking I just asked a reasonable question..

ie: Which has the most mass per volume, the tower or the plane.?

Are you a PHYSICS expert also WMD ??
Care to tell us your qualifications???

BTW, your link to the image doen't work for me...


Links work for me 32 yrs this year in construction first job in design drawing office of structural steelwork company!!



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Links work for me 32 yrs this year in construction first job in design drawing office of structural steelwork company!!


And a PHD in physics ??

No mate, the pic isn't loading..
Do you have another link?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by JimFetzer
 


You have posted in full John Lear's affidavit in support of Morgan Reynold's litigation in the US District Court, Southern District of New York but you didn't mention that the case was dismissed with prejudice.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join