9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job

[Kyle Burnett]

Jim, would you please quote whatever you believe best substantiates the impossible speed claim, so I can address specifically?

[James H. Fetzer]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed

9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed
For Immediate Release

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

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.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.

Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available only at http://pilotsfor911truth.org. Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, Dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow. [URL="http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html"]
[/URL]
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.
Comments? Discuss here.



[1] http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Altimetry.as...ntAirspeed, http://www.csgnetwork.com/machonecalc.html (Equivalent Airspeed and Mach One Calculator to convert Mach into True Airspeed based on altitude/temp and then into Equivalent Airspeed)
[2] http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/ins...0251.shtml

[James H. Fetzer]

• All Blog Posts
  
• My Blog
  
• Edit Blog Posts
  
• Add
  
• Optionsâ–¼
  

John Lear's Affidavit in the Judy Wood lawsuit against NIST and its contractors

• Posted by James H. Fetzer on July 27, 2009 at 7:35pm
  
• View My Blog
  

This affidavit was the subect of "The Real Deal" interview with John Lear today:

John Lear swears and affirms as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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,
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...rld/main546355. 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.
>>>>>

For more, http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/john-lears-affidavit-in-the

[James H. Fetzer]

Barry's Conspiracy World
Exploring Conspiracy Truth

The "No Plane" Theory

To the uninitiated, this seems like the most idiotic crock of crap. Let's take a look at the facts of the morning of 9/11 and see how this "silly" idea came about.

No one saw a plane crash in PA. There was very little wreckage at the "crash site." There were no pieces over two feet long. There were no bodies. There was not "one drop of blood." There was no black box. There was a second debris field 8 miles away. This is very odd and if anything would give credibility to the idea that the plane was shot down, however, there was also very little debris present at the second location.

No one saw a commercial plane hit the Pentagon. Some witnesses thought they may have seen what appeared to be a small passenger plane or missile.

There were no flight manifests for Flights 11 and 77. To many aviation experts, this means that the flights never existed. These flight numbers are for the planes hitting the north tower and the Pentagon.

Let's say for a moment that there were no planes at the Pentagon and in PA. If that is the case, why would there necessarily be any planes at the WTC? Well, people saw them and heard them. There is video of the planes hitting the towers. That's tough to get around. But what did they see? And what did they hear?

They saw a Boeing 767 fly over New York city at 580mph. This is a problem. The maximum speed of the Boeing 767 at sea level is 360mph. That's not a 20 mph difference, but a 220 mph difference! Given that drag varies on the square of the velocity and the power required to push through that drag varies on the 4th power of the velocity. A discrepency of 220 mph is enormous! Pushing a large aircraft an extra 220mph at sea level is not a trivial matter. This amounts to an increase in power of 674% -- above full power! This could not be accomplished by dive bombing the plane, which was not the case as the speed was taken while the plane was at a level cruise. (The 767 would most likely break apart if somehow it was powered to cruise at 580mph at sea level -- sea level being an enormous difference from a 40,000ft cruising altitude, where the air density is less than 25% of air at sea level.)

Let's examine the footage of the planes striking the WTC.


"Fight 175" entering the South Tower

Editor's note: See, for example, the Hezarkhani footage: http://killtown.blogspot.com/search/label/No-Planes

Flight of the Hologram

If you look closely, the plane passes into the building rather like a phantom. Also, quite significant is the fact that when it hits the building, there seem to be numerous explosions along the surface of the building. Not metal and glass crashing, but explosions. Furthermore, they don't seem to be timed exactly -- they fire off at slightly different moments, which don't really coincide with the plane hitting the building. Why would there be numerous small explosions from a plane hitting a building? (I'm not talking about the big ball of fire explosion, but the small explosions along the surface. These explosions seem to be making the Wyle E. Coyote cut-out on the face of the building.)

Another obvious question is "What could else it possibly be? It looks like an airplane!" Well, examine this link and scroll down to Topic 7: Hologram Technology. Most people are not familiar with the above top secret classified holographic technology which can project solid looking objects from fast flying fighter planes. Witnesses heard a plane overhead, but it is not impossible that they heard a missile and when couple with the image of a plane, assumed it was a plane. It would be fairly simple to add in a sound effect of loud low frequency rumble, that when added to the sound of a cruise missile, closely models the spectral make-up of a Boeing 767.

Hologram Technology

There have been anecdotal reports of people giving speeches on stage at business conferences, while engaging the audience. Several minutes into the speech, the actual person walks out and stands next to his hologram which has duped the audience. A friend of aviation legend John Lear was driving in the California desert and spotted an enormous military cargo plane flying overhead. He found it odd that such a plane would be flying at such a location -- out in the middle of nowhere. He looked up and it vanished into thin air. The witness felt that this must have been a test run of holographic technology.

WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE?

This is seemingly a huge problem with the whole "no plane" theory. Real people died on 9/11. There is no denying that. However, the passenger lists are actually supportive pieces of evidence to the idea of "no planes." The 4 planes all had low loads -- less than 200 people total were onboard, including the crew. It turns out that many of the names were employees of Boeing and other military contractors or were in the military itself. The government set up a compensation fund for families of the victims of 9/11. Each family would receive $2 million compensation. Only a small percentage of the families entitled to money came forward to collect! For one plane of 40 victims, only 6 families tried to claim the $2 million! Moreover, six of the alleged hijackers were seen after 9/11. One of them spoke in length with his father the next day. Another hijacker was interviewed on the BBC on 9/12! One must ask, "How can a pilot fly a plane into a building and do an interview on the BBC the next day?!"

Passenger lists

So what happened to the people? It would be fairly simple for CIA operatives or black ops NSA security to pick up the crews and the few actual passengers from the planes.

Considering the 9/11 attacks as a whole: What would be the most effective way to carry out the operation? If the goal was to bring down the world's biggest office buildings in grand fashion (while making it look like an enemy attack), would you want to use commercial airplanes? Hell no! Even if you wanted to fly the planes into the towers and THEN implode them with tons of nano-thermite, you still would not want to use planes for such an operation. (Tests of the WTC dust has shown it contains nano-thermite). Experienced pilots have testified that it would be extremely difficult to achieve a center hit with the plane. You would need a totally reliable pilot who could be counted on for a suicide flight. By all accounts, the hijackers were not very capable pilots. If just one of the planes just nicked the edge of the tower, it would look enormously fake to still implode the building.

There is also the problem of the flight path of the plane that hit the Pentagon. The plane made a nearly 360 degree sharp turn and decent, which would have been difficult even in a large military jet. This maneuver would not have been possible in a Boeing 767. Furthermore, the alleged pilot to this craft Hani Hanjour, was not competent to fly a Boeing 767 at any speed. He could barely fly a Cesna in flight school. Here is one of many articles on "pilot extraordinaire" Hani Hanjour.

Pilot extraordinaire

Pilots for Truth examined the flight data recorder for Flight 77 and found it to be faked. If an accurate barometer reading had been used for the data, the flight would have passed over the Pentagon at an altitude of 273 feet. There is a run through simulation of Flight 77 on the Pilots for 911 Truth site.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

There are many more reasons why the idea of airplanes does not hold water. Pilots for Truth realize the many problems with this notion. So I ask, "If there were no planes, what happened?" That is a great question. So far, the evidence suggests that cruise missiles were flown into the Pentagon and WTC 1 and 2. (Of course nothing hit WTC 7 -- it imploded seemingly by itself.) The cruise missiles projected a hologram of a Boeing 767 over NYC. They didn't bother projecting anything over the Pentagon. Flight 93 most likely never took place. "Let's roll" was some creative writing, as was "Hi mom, it's your son Mark Bingham. You know who I am? [I'm about to crash and die.]" It turns out that cell phone calls from planes were not possible in 2001.* The Flight 93 calls could have been faked with available Voice Morphing Technology.**

Nearly 3000 people died for a false flag to justify a false war. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. simply wanted to proceed with military control of the Middle East.

* The calls from Flight 93 were made from an altitude between 34,300 feet and 40,700 feet. Canadian scientist and mathematician A.K. Dewdney determined that cell phone calls at an altitude of 20,000 feet could be completed at a rate of less than 1 in 100 in 2001. Higher altitudes would have been more difficult. The chances of two callers making successful calls would have been less than 1 in 10,000. According to reports, there were 9 cell phone calls from Flight 93 at an altitude of over 30,000 feet.

** As reported in the Washington Post in 1999, William Arkin wrote "By taking just a 10 minute digital recording of anyone's voice" voice morphing experts can "clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile."

The original of this article, http://barryb911.blogspot.com/2011/05/no...heory.html, has just appeared on Barry Berman's blog.

[Charles Drago]

WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE?

This is seemingly a huge problem with the whole "no plane" theory. Real people died on 9/11. There is no denying that. However, the passenger lists are actually supportive pieces of evidence to the idea of "no planes." The 4 planes all had low loads -- less than 200 people total were onboard, including the crew. It turns out that many of the names were employees of Boeing and other military contractors or were in the military itself. The government set up a compensation fund for families of the victims of 9/11. Each family would receive $2 million compensation. Only a small percentage of the families entitled to money came forward to collect! For one plane of 40 victims, only 6 families tried to claim the $2 million! Moreover, six of the alleged hijackers were seen after 9/11. One of them spoke in length with his father the next day. Another hijacker was interviewed on the BBC on 9/12! One must ask, "How can a pilot fly a plane into a building and do an interview on the BBC the next day?!"

Passenger lists

So what happened to the people? It would be fairly simple for CIA operatives or black ops NSA security to pick up the crews and the few actual passengers from the planes.

Hi Jim,

Good to see you hereabouts again. Hope all is quite well with you and yours, my friend.

The whole People Problem disturbs me greatly. I'm in a bit of a time crunch, so let me get to what for me is the nitty-gritty:

1. Have the passenger manifests been published?

2. If so, have all names been verified as those of living people on 9/11/01?

3. If so, have efforts been made to determine the true status of each? Dead? If so, when and how? Alive? If so, where? Would not one living "victim" blow the op?

4. Have all the victims' families been interviewed?

For starters?

These surely are imposing tasks, and I do not criticize anyone for not having accomplished them. But the People Problem seems to be a make-or-break point of the hologram hypothesis.

I'll close with this wholly unsupported speculation regarding the Pentagon and Pennsylvania ... how shall I refer to them? ... projectiles:

Might one or both -- regardless of whatever they were -- been taken down by a still-secret weapon that could have reduced them to tiny particles?

Or should I just beam the hell out of here?

Best,

Charles

[Kyle Burnett]

Jim, I've read the article and affidavit you linked previously, but didn't see anything in either which rightly substantiates their claims of impossible speed. Can you not single out anything from them as best substantiating the claim?

[James H. Fetzer]

Charles,

Greetings, my friend! I (almost) always appreciate your posts. A member of Scholars some time back did a study of the 19 who allegedly made phone calls from the planes. He discovered that only one of their names appeared on the Social Security Death Index and none of their survivors had received money from the survivors fund: NONE. That sounds (almost) unAmerican to turn down free bucks!

Elias Davidsson has shown the government has never proven any of the hijackers were aboard any of those planes. John Lear has observed that pilots must submit an "envelope" of flight data and passenger lists (or at least numbers aboard) before a commercial carrier can pull away from a terminal. None has even been presented. Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.), has observed that, of the millions of uniquely indentifiable components parts, the government has yet to produce even one.

David Ray Griffin has shown that all of those phone calls--including those alleged to have been made by Barbara Olson to her husband Ten--were faked. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, although one appears to have flown over it. There are no indications of a Boeing 757 having crashed at Shanksville--none! Even the hit on the North Tower by Flight 11 appears to have been staged, as Leslie Raphael has explained.

Indeed, I have FAA Registration data showing that the planes used for AA #11 and for AA #77 were not deregistered until 01/14/2002 and that those used for United #175 and United #93 were not deregistered until 09/28/2005. That's a long time to be still in operation for planes that were supposed to have been destroyed on 9/11. And of course a half-dozen of the alleged terrorists survived 9/11 and were in contact with family and others.

Moreover, I have print outs of CNN's casualty lists, which show no names of any Arab persons much less any Islamic terrorists. When I have pointed this out, the response (from government apologists) has been that those were VICTIMS lists, but how could anyone have known who was and was not a TERRORIST at that point in time. This is a nice papering over of important evidence.

The stand-down of the US Air Force on 9/11--where Webster Tarpley has listed seventeen (17) anti-terror drills that took our planes out of action for response--appears to have been intended to either preclude an interception or, even more plausibly, to prevent the discovery that these were "phantom flights". Read "More Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11" and tell me if you can figure out a more adequate explanation.

Jim

ON PLANES OR NO PLANES:

Elias Davidsson, "There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/There-i...1-366.html

David Ray Griffin, "Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=16924

Leslie Raphael, "Jules Naudet's 9/11 Film was Staged"
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

"New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11"
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Pro...9-132.html

"What Didn't Happen at the Pentagon"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/01/...tagon.html

"Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...196607580#

Flight Data Expert Confirmation: No Evidence Linking FDR Data to American77
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/Dennis-Cimi...7-FDR.html

Killtown on Shanksville,
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2010/10/gue...r-mon.html

WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE?

This is seemingly a huge problem with the whole "no plane" theory. Real people died on 9/11. There is no denying that. However, the passenger lists are actually supportive pieces of evidence to the idea of "no planes." The 4 planes all had low loads -- less than 200 people total were onboard, including the crew. It turns out that many of the names were employees of Boeing and other military contractors or were in the military itself. The government set up a compensation fund for families of the victims of 9/11. Each family would receive $2 million compensation. Only a small percentage of the families entitled to money came forward to collect! For one plane of 40 victims, only 6 families tried to claim the $2 million! Moreover, six of the alleged hijackers were seen after 9/11. One of them spoke in length with his father the next day. Another hijacker was interviewed on the BBC on 9/12! One must ask, "How can a pilot fly a plane into a building and do an interview on the BBC the next day?!"

Passenger lists

So what happened to the people? It would be fairly simple for CIA operatives or black ops NSA security to pick up the crews and the few actual passengers from the planes.

Hi Jim,

Good to see you hereabouts again. Hope all is quite well with you and yours, my friend.

The whole People Problem disturbs me greatly. I'm in a bit of a time crunch, so let me get to what for me is the nitty-gritty:

1. Have the passenger manifests been published?

2. If so, have all names been verified as those of living people on 9/11/01?

3. If so, have efforts been made to determine the true status of each? Dead? If so, when and how? Alive? If so, where? Would not one living "victim" blow the op?

4. Have all the victims' families been interviewed?

For starters?

These surely are imposing tasks, and I do not criticize anyone for not having accomplished them. But the People Problem seems to be a make-or-break point of the hologram hypothesis.

I'll close with this wholly unsupported speculation regarding the Pentagon and Pennsylvania ... how shall I refer to them? ... projectiles:

Might one or both -- regardless of whatever they were -- been taken down by a still-secret weapon that could have reduced them to tiny particles?

Or should I just beam the hell out of here?

Best,

Charles

[James H. Fetzer]

From Pilots:

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.

From John Lear's affidavit:

>>>>> 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.

Plus Pilots new documentary, "9/11 Intercepted", confirms the impossible speed and that a plane at that altitude and speed would have been unmanageable in flight and come apart physically. It appears to me that you are playing games by wanting me to summarize these sources so you can trivialize them. That suggests to me that you are not a serious student of 9/11 but want to obfuscate the data. I suggest you consider the other proofs I have advanced as well, since you seen to be avoiding them like the plague for the sake of distracting a point that has already been proven.

Jim, I've read the article and affidavit you linked previously, but didn't see anything in either which rightly substantiates their claims of impossible speed. Can you not single out anything from them as best substantiating the claim?

[James H. Fetzer]

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:53:12 -0700 [09/26/2009 07:53:12 PM CDT]
From: "John Lear"
To: "'Michael Morrissey'" , pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Cc: [Show addresses - 23 recipients]
Subject: RE: John Lear on Pilots Forum

Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon for the simple reason that April Gallop was sitting at her

desk about 40 feet from the hole. She saw no airplane, missile or drone and smelled no jet fuel,

kerosene or any kind of gas. She reached beside her desk and grabbed her 6 month old son an climbed

out the alleged hole made by an alleged airplane. She has been harassed by Army Intelligence and recently

filed a suit against the U.S, Government.


In addition I am an expert in reading Flight digital Data Recorders and it is my opinion that Flight 77 was flown by

professionals and overflew the Pentagon by about 200 feet.


As to Shankvilles based on the debris there is no possibility that a large commercial airliner crashed into the alleged

mining pit. I am a certified Federal Mine Safety and Health Instructor and based on that and my aviation background

there is not possibility that an airplane crashed at that reclamation site.


As to Flight 93 getting shot down it would have been impossible to hide the wreckage of such a

crash from the public or the media because of the size of the debris field.


As to the WTC crashes it would be impossible for an airplane to hit the WTC and not have at least half of it fall back into the street.

At least the tail section should have broken off and fallen into the street. Remaining in the wreckage of the tower should have been at

least 3 P&W 4062 engines, weighing 4 tons each which simply could not have burned completely up. There were large forgings

including the wing fuselage forgings, wheel bogeys, struts and vertical horizontal tail assembly which simply could not have disappeared.

2 commercial airliners could not have totally disappeared inside the wreckage of both WTC towers.


The fact that there has not been one single piece of 4 airliners with over 9 million stamped, engraved or painted with serial and production

numbers along with 300 miles of wire is proof that no airplanes crashed anywhere on 911. In the history of flight there has never been

an airplane crash, the known site of which contained no parts of the airplanes. I have investigated 3 Learjet crashes as part of the NTSB team,

all three of which went straight in from altitude and there were plenty of parts left and in all three cases large parts of the tail remained. Both the

757 and the 767 are much larger and should have left much larger parts than the smaller Learjet.

John Lear

[James H. Fetzer]

. . . which are at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com:

MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2009

John Lear
No planes crashed on 9/11

http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/Jim%20F...%20Oct.mp3

POSTED BY TOTAL AT 11:27 PM 1 COMMENTS
MONDAY, JULY 27, 2009

John Lear
9/11 airplane research

http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20f...search.mp3

POSTED BY TOTAL AT 11:38 PM 0 COMMENTS