30-06-2011, 10:20 PM
Then why don't you contact Pilots for 9/11 Truth and tell them they have their heads where the Sun does not shine? I know Rob Balsamo and have confidence in their competence. That is not true of you. Here's a link to their home page at http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ I find it curious that you are not discussing John Lear's affidavit or "9/11 Intercepted", which both discuss this in some detail.
I am also struck that you have not address the impossible entry of the plane into the building or the fact that, in these videos, the plane passes through its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its whole length in air, which you can verify for yourself using single-frame advance. Look at the Hezarkhani footage: http://killtown.blogspot.com/search/label/No-Planes
Do you really think this is a plane colliding with a massive, 500,000 ton steel and concrete building? Do you understand that it is intersecting with eight (8) floors, consisting of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and external support columns on the other, which were filled with 4-8" of concrete? At 208' across, we are talking about an acre of concrete apiece--and eight (8) of them!
![[Image: 282ercx.jpg]](http://i52.tinypic.com/282ercx.jpg)
What do you imagine would happen if a Boeing 767 had hit just one of these floors suspended in space? We know the damage that can be done by a tiny bird weighing a few ounces when hit by a commercial carrier. What about an acre of concrete on a steel truss? I don't know why you are pursuing this, Kyle, because you are not going to overcome the laws of aerodynamics, engineering and physics.
Notice, too, the relative spacing of the narrow windows, which were eighteen inches wide with the support columns separated by a meter, so they were less than 50% of the space between them. And of course the vertical space between floors was windowless. Which means that much less than 50% of the facade was made of glass. The plane should have crumpled and dropped to zero velocity.
While the engines might have been expected to enter the buildings, the wings and the tail should have broken off, with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. None of that happened. So I think that your preoccupation with an issue that Pilots and John Lear have already settled is curious by itself, I am even more surprised at your apparent lack of interest of multiple other indications of fakery.
I am also struck that you have not address the impossible entry of the plane into the building or the fact that, in these videos, the plane passes through its whole length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its whole length in air, which you can verify for yourself using single-frame advance. Look at the Hezarkhani footage: http://killtown.blogspot.com/search/label/No-Planes
Do you really think this is a plane colliding with a massive, 500,000 ton steel and concrete building? Do you understand that it is intersecting with eight (8) floors, consisting of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and external support columns on the other, which were filled with 4-8" of concrete? At 208' across, we are talking about an acre of concrete apiece--and eight (8) of them!
What do you imagine would happen if a Boeing 767 had hit just one of these floors suspended in space? We know the damage that can be done by a tiny bird weighing a few ounces when hit by a commercial carrier. What about an acre of concrete on a steel truss? I don't know why you are pursuing this, Kyle, because you are not going to overcome the laws of aerodynamics, engineering and physics.
Notice, too, the relative spacing of the narrow windows, which were eighteen inches wide with the support columns separated by a meter, so they were less than 50% of the space between them. And of course the vertical space between floors was windowless. Which means that much less than 50% of the facade was made of glass. The plane should have crumpled and dropped to zero velocity.
While the engines might have been expected to enter the buildings, the wings and the tail should have broken off, with bodies, seats, and luggage falling to the ground. None of that happened. So I think that your preoccupation with an issue that Pilots and John Lear have already settled is curious by itself, I am even more surprised at your apparent lack of interest of multiple other indications of fakery.
Kyle Burnett Wrote:James H. Fetzer Wrote:The impossible speed has been established on multiple grounds: No Boeing 767 could have flown that fast at that altitude, as Pilots for 9/11 Truth and John Lear, among others, have confirmed.The problem is, when I look at what you point to as confirmation, I don't find anything which even comes close. To start with, here is what you quoted from Pilots For 9/11 Truth:
Quote:Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.The haphazard mixing of units and lack of citations for claims of fact aside, I've yet to find anything in the articles you linked our otherwise to support the notion that EA990 is a valid benchmark for the maximum equivalent airspeed for 767s. Rather, left to search for the circumstance of EA990 on my own, I've found competing hypothesizes on the details of why it went down, but none which contradict the general sequence of events recounted in this diagram. Specifically, plane went into a dive and the engines were throttled down before peak speed was achieved in what was essentially a free fall, which is a vastly different situation than planes being accelerated in controlled flight into targets as can be seen in the many videos of the WTC attacks and as recounted by many witnesses. So, on what basis can one justify using EA990 as a benchmark here?