See other 9/11 Articles
Title: How 9/11 Was Done
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://physics911.net/how-911-was-done/
Published: Sep 3, 2012
Author: http://physics911.net/how-911-was-done/
Post Date: 2012-09-03 14:09:24 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 13600
Comments: 674
How 9/11 Was Done For additional notes see the accompanying blog 911notes.blogspot.com. Prologue Read the following two screens of text to learn what happened at 9/11. 9/11 was a master plot, concocted by a handfull of Israelis and dual passport Americans and carried out by the resources of the Mossad. Larry Silverstein leases a nearly worthless dinosaur WTC building complex (worthless due to the asbestos the buildings were stuffed with and needed to be cleaned up, the cost of which may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves) weeks before 9/11, makes sure it is over insured against terrorist acts and hires an Israeli security firm. From that moment on the coast is clear to let a team of demolition experts from the Israeli army led by Peer Segalovitz into the WTC buildings. These charges plus detonators had been prepared at the premises of the Urban Moving Systems company, a Mossad front. During the weeks before 9/11 these prepared charges were loaded into vans, driven into the basements of WTC Twin Towers next to the elevator shaft, unloaded into the elevator, and lifted onto the roof of the elevator through the opening in the elevator ceiling. Next the elevator moved from floor to floor while charges where being attached to the columns as displayed in this video from 0:22 onwards. The detonators of these charges were radiographic controlled and finally detonated from WTC7 on the day of 9/11. Fast backward, Hamburg 54 Marienstrasse, july 2000, 22:40. Mohamed Atta, Al Shehhi and Jarrah (who were later blamed of being the pilots of flight 11, 175 and 93 respectively), who share the apartment hear the ringing of the door bell. Jarrah opens the door, 5 masked men make their way into the apartment with drawn pistols. The 3 Arabs are forced to lay on the ground. Their passports are confiscated, next the 3 men are made unconscious with some liquid and strangled to death afterwards. The bodies are carried out of the apartment into a van and driven off towards a desolate spot at the boarding of the Elbe river outside Hamburg, 1 kilometer north of Borstel and disposed of into the river with a bag filled with stones tied to their feet. The 3 passports are now in the possession of the agents of the Mossad, who carried out the raid on the apartment and 3 Arabs have vanished without anybody knowing that they are dead. Not long after the raid the 3 passports are given to 3 Israeli agents who were selected on having some resemblance with the 3 Arabs just killed. They make for America soon afterwards in the summer of 2000 and start laying a trail at flight schools, posing with the stolen identities from the 3 Arabs killed. Years earlier the israeli Michael Goff working for PTech, an Arab owned software company that develops key enterprise software for many government institutions like NORAD and FAA, using his secure channel with another israeli Amit Yoran, somehow manages to give Israeli army computer programmers access to this critical computer code. It was due to this manipulation that the hijackings on 9/11 remained unnoticed by the flight controller of NORAD. Once this was in place the planes could be taken over by remote control and flown into the World Trade Center. The hijacking of airliners by remote control had been tested as a dress rehearsal for 9/11 on the Egypt Air flight 990 that crashed into the Atlantic on October 31, 1999. Now everything was in place to commit the crime of the century. On the day of 9/11 the Israeli stand-ins for the ‘Arab hijackers’ showed up at the predestined departure airports to make sure they were captured on surveillance camera’s. The crucial point here is that the security at both the departure airports was in hands of an Israeli firm Huntleigh-USA, a subsidiary of the Dutch based but Israeli owned ICTS led by a fellow named Menahem Atzmon. And this is crucial: Atzmon used to be a colleague of Olmert in 1998. So there you have the link between the 9/11 operative level (an airport security firm) and the highest level of Israeli politics. What happened on the morning of 9/11 was that after the Israeli stand-ins were captured on camera, they left the airport via a side entrance and the show could begin. Minutes after the planes became air born somebody somehow was able to send a signal to the planes, causing the control panels to be disabled and the flight destination altered. What happened was that an anti-hijack system was activated (code word ‘home run’) and the regular pilot was put out of control. This pilot will probably have tried frantically to regain control of his aircraft. It is not very likely he will have told his passengers about the new situation since that would only cause panic. The passengers probably suspected nothing and hence had no reason to make any phone calls to their relatives (which were not possible anyway). And while the 9/11 passengers unsuspecting travel towards their immanent deaths, on the ground from a war room Israeli agents carry out phone calls to relatives of the passengers that were still in the air, using voice morphing technology and caller-ID spoofing and thus planted the Arabs-did-it-deception in the public consciousness. The sound samples necessary to carry out the fake telephone calls had been obtained via the israeli infiltration of American telephone networks by Israeli firms like Amdocs and Verint. By the time that the passengers were puzzled as they discerned the New York sky line it was already too late. Meanwhile on the other side of the Hudson river the members of the Israeli team that planted the demolition charges were waiting for things to happen. And while the rest of New York experienced in horror the events that were unfolding that day, the demolition experts were celebrating and high-fiving. The plot had worked out magnificently. *** Please save this page to your local hard drive *** This blog is the verbal expression of an adaptive learning process. Please come back regularly. Core Argument Ok, I admit. Some elements in this story are speculative. I do not know for instance if Atta was killed in Germany or in America. But the story is an coherent educated speculation. It is an attempt to reconstruct the events of 9/11. Myriads of web sites exist that expose the inconsistencies in the official story, that obviously is a fraud. This story offers an integral explanation of what could have happened and in all likelihood more or less did happen at 9/11 as there can be hardly any doubt about who was behind 9/11 if one rejects the official story. Some elements remain vague, like what happened exactly to WTC7, flight77, flight93 or Mohamed Atta. But these questions are of academic interest only. It’s clear who was behind 9/11 and what happened in detail with WTC-1/2 and the planes. That is enough. Here’s where most people got killed. The rest of the plot can be uncovered by a tribunal. In order to prevent that you get swallowed up by yet another 10 meters of screen text here is the core of the argument. The story is based on 2 broadly accepted postulates: 1) WTC was brought down by controlled demolition 2) The ‘dancing Israelis’ on the morning of 9/11 had foreknowledge of things to come These 2 premises are enough to put the Official Conspiracy Theory (Arabs did it) out of business. Premise 2 leads to the preliminary conclusion that the Israelis had foreknowledge because they organized the attacks themselves. Since Israelis are not known to commit suicide attacks we have to assume that the airplanes that crashed into their destinations were remote controlled. If one accepts this as a working hypothesis than there is a lot, I mean really a lot, of material that supports this Israeli Conspiracy Theory that replaces the official Arab Conspiracy Theory. We have the dedicated Zionist Silverstein who leases the WTC complex and over insures it against terrorism (leading to a hansom profit); we know that security at all departure airports and ‘arrival airports’ (WTC) was in Israeli hands (Huntleigh-USA and Kroll Associates, resp.); we know that the owner of Huntleigh-USA, Menachem Atzmon, a convicted criminal, had strong ties to Ehud Olmert, that is the highest level of Israeli politics; we also know that the Israeli secret service can eavesdrop on virtually everybody in the USA via Israeli owned companies like Amdocs and Verint which gave the Mossad the possibility to obtain sound samples of future 9/11 passengers to apply voice morphing to in order to make the fake phone calls on 9/11. And of course there is Dov Zakheim, the real mastermind of 9/11 who was CEO of SPC for 4 years prior to 9/11, a company that produces systems for remote control of airplanes. The same Zakheim that was a member of the Zionist dominated PNAC group, that more or less plotted for a global American empire, and suggested that a ‘New Pearl Harbor‘ (page 51) could speed things up a bit; and finally the same Zakheim that 6 months before 9/11 became supervisor of a group of Pentagon comptrollers that had to sort out what had happened to the 2.3 trillion dollars that were missing from the Pentagon books; many of these comptrollers conveniently got killed on 9/11 and much of the financial data went with them. This is the core of the story. Note: I am not claiming that 9/11 is solved. Of this however we can be certain: WTC controlled demolition, Israelis carried out the operation, no Arab hijackers, mastermind Zakheim, motive PNAC & Clean Break and remote control. I do not care about flight77 or 93, those are details to be solved by crime investigators. The most pressing question is that of remote control: how was that done? Were the original flights 11 and 175 remote controlled themselves or was there a plane swap as some have suggested, including Bollyn? Disclaimer: nobody is guilty until convicted by a court of law. This blog’s intent is to stimulate thinking about 9/11 from a different angle than the official one. From day one the blame has been put at bin Laden and his people without real evidence. Today bin Laden is no longer persecuted for 9/11 according to the FBI website. The theory proposed here might be true or false or contain some truth. In the end it must be an official investigation that determines who is guilty and who is not. This blog is dedicated to Italian ex-president Cossiga who is the highest ranking statesman to date who has openly stated that it was the Mossad who has carried out the 9/11 attacks.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 306.
#1. To: tom007 (#0)
Uhhhh, nahhhhhhh.
Uhhh, yeahhhh. Have you never heard of drones or UAVs? The technology DOES in fact exist (and did prior to 9/11/2001) to fly an airliner remotely. Here's a Boing 720 being flown remotely 17 years before 9/11/2001. Here's a bit more on the Dov Zakheim connection... My hypothesis is that the real planes were hijacked by remotely activated gas cannisters releasing knock out gas (or nerve gas) during flight, disabling or killing passengers and crew. Once the crew was disabled, the plane could be flown to wherever needed, possibily swapped in midair with those which would in fact fly into the towers and the Pentagon. In a swap scenario, a live pilot carrying a gas mask could have been a passenger on the original flight, putting the mask on a precise time. A gas mask may have been stashed under a seat by a ground crew member perhaps. Then the pilot could have flown the plane to a secure location, while the "terror" plane would have been flown to its target remotely. That would explain how those planes acquired that "pod" shown in the above video.
9/11 was flown by human hands.
9/11 was flown by human hands. And the proof of this assertion is? Because the Nightly Nooze said so? Because the White House Spokesliar said so? The U.S. Government has never provided one iota of solid information tying the 19 magickal Ayerabs nor Osama Bin Dead since 2001 to the events of 9/11/2001. None, nada, zeeeeeeeero. It has all been done by assertion and pronouncement repeated over and over and over. BUT, where's the beef?
Point of interest... In testimony by FAA radar controllers who were watching the aircraft on radar, they stated they considered the aircraft to being flown by someone of superior piloting skill because of the maneuvers executed. (humor) Of course the aircraft could have been flown by the American Captain, who was not aboard but rather sitting in a casino in Las Vegas, with a remote joy stick.) Hey, anything is possible, right????
There was no plane.
wud... If someone offers expert proof that there was NO Pentagon involved, I will give up. This is interesting as the government doles out disinformation to con the troops. "Ever since this "no-plane" theory has been planted on the 9-11 truth movement, the corporate media inevitably seizes on it as a means to ridicule those who do not accept the official story of 9-11. One obvious example is the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics, which used the "no-plane" theory to summarily dismiss any and all doubters of the official story as a munch of nuts that all correct-thinking loyal Americans should ever listen to. Which is what the no-plane hoax is intended to do".
That would all be true if.... There was a plane. There was no plane.
There were planes wud, just not the ones they were claimed to have been. In the case of the Pentagon, it more than likely was a cruise missile painted as an American Airlines 757.
freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...ArtNum=148199&Disp=64#C64
I didn't see one.
Did you ever personally see China wud? Just because YOU didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't or isn't there.
Noone saw it. Except on tv.
You are in denial wud. It wasn't just captured on video by MANY news agencies, people in New York actually saw it happen live. That, and the witnesses in Washington saw SOME type of aircraft approaching the Pentagon.
You have what evidence that they "actually" saw it live? I guess a missle might have hit the pentagon, but there's little, if any, evidence of it.
I guess a missle might have hit the pentagon, but there's little, if any, evidence of it. Wud, I know you mean well. Please don't take it as an insult, but if you bothered doing any sort of research into 9/11 you'd know that it's 99.8% likely that planes hit the WTC towers, and some sort of cruise missile hit the Pentagon. If you contemplate the fact that those who are involved with the actual events of that day are actively covering up this information that we are talking about here with false paths, you'd consider the strong possibililty that the "no planes" idea is flat out improbable, unlikely, and more than likely one of those false leads. There is enough 100% pure scientific data to crucify the perps without jumping to questionable theories with little or no collaborating evidence. Sure, IF there were no planes well that'd be one hell of an exercise in deceipt on the part of hundreds of witnesses and news crews. But there is enough tangible evidence to demonstrate that the events of that day were in no way related to 19 Arab "terrorists", but were in fact part of a large scale military/espionage operation played out by the Israeli Mossad, Pakistani ISI, and the highest levels of the US government. There is no need to follow bizarre stories which do not follow logic or probability, and which have no basis in scientific reality.
Well said, but what evidence do you have that planes hit the wtc?
Do you have any bonafide evidence that all of the witnesses are lying and that all of the impact videos are faked? There is ample evidence indicating planes hit the towers. Eyewitnesses and video for starters. Entrance holes in the towers and exterior jet fuel explosions are next on the list.
There is ample evidence indicating planes hit the towers. Eyewitnesses and video for starters. Entrance holes in the towers and exterior jet fuel explosions are next on the list. Is it actually news to you that there is ample evidence online of alleged 9/11- witnesses lying, FL? That's a topic that's been discussed here before with evidence presented, I'm fairly sure, and I think it was also pointed out that none of them were under oath. Many were MSM, guv and Military employees (groups that are generally not viewed so unskeptically by the politically savvy as impeccable sources across-the-board in matters other than 9/11). Many were only ever "seen" or "heard from" in the form of printed words and could very possibly have been complete fabrications (so as to enhance the official storyline or for purposes of insurance fraud, for instance). Do you have any bonafide evidence that they are all actual persons who can be fully trusted and none are invented characters? Tania Head is one fake-witness person that even the MSM has aknowledged was fraudulent. Fake impact video, fake entrance holes in buildings that explode inward, exterior fuel explosions -- stuff of the film FX industry for many, many years that's like elementary to them. How about the WTC Towers and their bizarrely non-stick, teflon-pan-like surfaces?: No molten metal adhering to the building as it supposedly poured from windows. No significant damage to the side of the Tower that was closest to high- velocity projectiles and debris being propelled in its direction profusely from the adjacent one that went down first. Yet, we're told to believe that other buildings farther away in the WTC-complex vicinity were burned and destroyed from such. Why do Planes-believers typically hopscotch over simple observations of anomalies like that for more than decade, as if they can't see it or can just dismiss it out of hand by insistently asserting high-tech, glitch-free, remote control implementation or caveman-directed hijackers?
Is it news to you that there are limits to what is probable and what isn't? Do you think a significant part of the population of New York city would collectively lie about what they saw on 9/11? Were the fireballs faked too in your mind? How about the people jumping out of the towers, were they fake?
Do you think a significant part of the population of New York city would collectively lie about what they saw on 9/11? Yep, simple logic says if there were no planes then there would have been many, not just a few, but many people proclaiming that they saw and heard no planes. Where are these people? No planers are not thinking about the illogical points in their positions. Nuts. Even if somehow the government and media managed to pretend there were planes and keep people quite about it, I see no benefit to it to accomplish their plans. It would be much easier to just crash the planes into the buildings.
Exactly. It's one thing to suggest the videos MAY have been manipulated, but to state unequivocally that "no plane" hit the towers, with no real evidence of such a claim, is beyond reason. It ignores the fact that EVERY camera crew had to have known that what they were capturing on video was not what was being broadcast, and the reporters had to know they were fabricating a story out of thin air so to speak. There would have been a large number of people in the vicinity of the towers, looking up, who would have stated that they didn't see a plane but only an explosion in the 2nd tower. In reality, more than a few people witnessed the plane as it approached the tower, and a good number actually saw it impact. I am not aware of ANY actual witness who claims they saw the entrance hole appear for no reason, ie. nothing hit the tower. I HAVE read that survivors in the WTC actually saw the 2nd plane approach. Again, for the "no-plane" story to have any basis in fact, ALL of the news media on the scene would had to have been in on the scheme and executed their deception flawlessly, before, during, and after the event. It is MUCH easier to take control of an aircraft remotely and fly it into a tower, than to pull off such a large scale act of deception, where the world believes jet airliners hit the towers, yet in reality they were created in a studio and broadcast to the world in unison at the exact proper time, in league with every news crew and witness in the City of New York.
It's not really easier than CGI. Your main evidence of remote control seems to be that Zakheim is involved in it but he would have benefited from drone war contracts anyway without wasting expensive planes. The fact that the technology exists isn't evidence that it was used. You need to prove first that planes were used before asserting they were remote controlled. Alleged Flt. 93 suggests that it wasn't used in that scenario or was able to be over-ridden somehow.
You need to first prove planes were NOT involved, as that is what was reported, witnessed, and recorded on video. You would also need to prove a massive conspiracy involving the witnesses, news crews, and the networks where they prerecorded the WTC and superimposed the aircraft and the fireballs, along with the smoke, and have it match what was happening in real time on 9/11/2001. I don't think the technology exists even today to pull that off live, clean as a whistle with no signs of tampering.
You would also need to prove a massive conspiracy involving the witnesses, news crews, and the networks where they prerecorded the WTC and superimposed the aircraft and the fireballs, along with the smoke, and have it match what was happening in real time on 9/11/2001. I don't think the technology exists even today to pull that off live, clean as a whistle with no signs of tampering. The burden of proof isn't really on No Planes researchers to prove a negative 4 times. Nevertheless, that nearly impossible mathematical feat has already been demonstrated many times, here and elsewhere, for those willing to review the technical analysis of Videographers as well as that of Architects and Engineers, etc. Perhaps you're under your mistaken impression because of G.W. Bush's ploy to invade Iraq by demanding evidence of non-existent WMDs there. The burden of proof about planes is on those making the assertions of planes -- the government and those like you who extrapolate from it.
For starters, for your "idea" to be feasible, ALL network news stations, foreign news crews, and any bystander who happened to be looking at the towers would ALL had to have decided beforehand that they were going to hoodwink the world and produce the biggest fraudulent story of all time. You can start by telling me how these "news guys" had control of the population of New York City in order for everyone and anyone who witnessed the events to fall in line with their bogus video. You can also tell me HOW honest news reporters and camera men could be made to go along with such a lie. Incredible claims require incredibile evidence. It is not an incredible claim to state planes hit the towers, because that is what people saw, and what news cameras recorded. It IS an incredible claim to state that nothing like that actually happened, that is was all faked. Care to explain how those external fireballs were created, or were those "fake" too? How about the entrance holes, were they ALSO faked? Was the smoke faked? Were there even any explosives used, or were those fake too? Maybe the towers simply fell on their own, right? And BTW, care to post anything from Architects and Engineers for Truth which states there were no aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks? One more thing. Your little GIF file tells a lie, in that the outer shell of the WTC towers was made of ALUMINUM, NOT STEEL. From World Trade Center Construction So are you willing to admit that the person who created that GIF file is lying and misleading his audience, and that you shouldn't try to use that as "evidence" of what it is you're selling here?
From World Trade Center Construction So are you willing to admit that the person who created that GIF file is lying and misleading his audience, and that you shouldn't try to use that as "evidence" of what it is you're selling here? Are you joking? The WTC buildings were made of steel by the tons. Are you insinuating that a thin, aluminum veneer means they weren't steel structures?; or that anodized aluminum would make it so an aluminum plane could possibly melt through the steely structure like the ABC "Butter Plane"? I hope not.
The CORE was steel, the FLOORS were concrete supported by steel, but the exterior skin was made of ALUMINUM and glass. Got a problem with that? Sure there were steel columns, but between those column was ALUMINUM. What it comes down to is that the outer walls were NOT solid steel. As far as an object travelling at high velocity, have you ever shot a gun? Lead is softer than steel, yet a high power rifle bullet such as a .308 will slice through steel as if it were butter. So no, it's not physically impossible for a high speed massive object to slice through glass, aluminum, and SOME steel columns.
Also this is incorrect. If it were correct, bullet proof vests would be useless and DU rounds would of never been engineered. Maybe if it is a wafer thin sheet of steel, maybe then it might rip through like butter....
Oh and BTW, DU rounds were invented in order to penetrate through heavily armored vehicles such as tanks.
As good as of a digression as that is I would still point out that all the planes in the news footage lack any discernible wake.... Which is not possible. Leaving the only other option no mater how unlikely... If their is no wake then their is no plane.... and that is to say nothing of the dare devil helicopter pilots that can fly through the fire smoke with out blowing the smoke everywhere..... Amazing that last part....
What do you mean "wake"? Boats leave wakes, not planes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_turbulence or http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryd...acts/TF-2004-14-DFRC.html or www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Wake_Vortex_Turbulence Did you tell someone else here to learn physics buster? ALSO when you say B) Yes it IS possible to "lose" radar contact if the transponder is turned off. There are blind spots in the radar grid, where if the plane is not chirping its transponder, and it is flying through a radar blind spot, it will not appear on FAA screens. You have not really done enough 911 research... US commercial craft are radar reflective, their are no blind spots on the east coast (never mind the rest of the US) and when A plane turns off it's transponder, the computer reading that transpondence tells every Air traffic controller monitoring the pertaining air space of the blip... so instead of the one jockey watching his plane EVERY jockey now gets to watch the plane. The system was set up to be full proof for a reason. You should get more intimate with it before shooting off at the hip. Alas..... You seem to have a closed made up mind and choose to exist here for the soul sake of argument against that which challenges your made up mind. I mean if it did not challenge you it would not bother you... wouldn't be worth a response.... so it is a challenge I suppose.... You .... been incorrect, a few times... which means your willing to go at this conversation from an emotional place of passion rather than logic. And you don't seem to be willing to pay attention to the details of anybodys postings in this thread beyond refuting them or ignoring them ...... the attempt at understanding is not being made on your part. Sad that.
Show me a vid where the plane flies through smoke smartass.
I gave you three different links already....the nasa link in particular should be good and instructive... Not my fault if you wont click a link..... HERE A plane flying through smoke
Hey bud, I mean Flight 175 (or whatever aircraft it actually was) which hit the South Tower, not some NASA plane in a demonstration of vortices. YOU are claiming that particular aircraft didn't leave a vortex. Well no shit, it WOULDN'T have if it didn't fly through smoke.
PHYSICS!!!!! THE WAKE FOLLOWS THE PLANE!!!! OMG Fire does not stop the wake vortex of a plane... AGAIN IF A PLANE CRASHES ITS WAKE VORTEX WILL FOLLOW IT INTO THE FIRE AND SWIRL IT UNTIL THEIR IS NO MORE FIRE OR THE WAKE DISSIPATES.. I hope the caps helped you catch what you seem to have missed previously.
So let's see. You believe that all the news reporters, camera crews, bystanders, firemen, police, television networks (US and foreign), conspired to fabricate a tale of planes striking the towers. They produced footage fabricated in a studio, and they all played along with the lie in real time as events unfolded. According to you, FAA controllers had positive identification and knew the whereabouts of the planes at all times, so they must have seen where the aircraft actually were, before and after the alleged impacts. So THEY must have been in on it too. And they did this all without anyone leaking any part of the plot, and they all pulled it off flawlessly. And oh yeah, it was all directed by bin Laden and his merry crew of 19 (some of whom are still alive to this day), because they hate our "freedom", right?
According to you, FAA controllers had positive identification and knew the whereabouts of the planes at all times, so they must have seen where the aircraft actually were, before and after the alleged impacts. So THEY must have been in on it too. And they did this all without anyone leaking any part of the plot, and they all pulled it off flawlessly. And oh yeah, it was all directed by bin Laden and his merry crew of 19 (some of whom are still alive to this day), because they hate our "freedom", right? OK I can no longer say you are incorrect.... Now you are just lying to be a jerk. Seriously. Putting words into other peoples mouths.. why... to laugh? to be sarcastic? to shoot them down? That is a form of lie. You are lying when you put words into other peoples mouths. Making up shit for lols... sheesh...... you know what fuck you. If you wanna believe in fairy tails and magical super planes thats fine but you could do every one else the favour of avoiding paraphrasing because you don't know who to do it honestly.
FAA Radar, Transponders & the Plane Swaps
Some excerpts from: The Comment section of: 9-11 Airplane Affidavit By John Lear, Son Of Learjet Inventor We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories Monday, March 27th, 2006 The two American Airlines Boeing 767s in question—tail numbers N334AA and N644AA—were deregistered January 14, 2002, but without evidence they were involved in the alleged flights. The two United Airlines aircraft that allegedly crashed that day—tail number N612UA for Flight 175 and N591UA for Flight 93—were deregistered four years later on September 28, 2005, despite a requirement that destroyed aircraft be deregistered within 24 hours. the [Pentagon] aircraft performed an acrobatic 270 degree (or 330 degree according to The 9/11 Commission Report) dive from 7,000 feet (an altitude known to the FAA despite the transponder off) Reported altitude with transponder off...would you care to give your opinion on that anomaly, FL? 9-11 Commission Report: The Most Ridiculous Conspiracy Theory Of All Time - State of the Nation 2012
9/11 Airplane Affidavit By John Lear, Son Of Learjet Inventor 0 By John Rolls Jerry V. Leaphart #jl4468 Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C. 8 West Street, Suite 203 Danbury, CT 06810 (203) 825-6265 – phone (203) 825-6256 – fax 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: I. 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 2 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/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546355. shtml) 3 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 4 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. 5 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: 6 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. 7 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 8 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. 9 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 10 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, triples. 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). 11 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/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA063&rpt=fa ** www.content.airbusworld.c...DF-tcds/PW/PW4000_FAA.pdf 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. 12 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/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.html.) 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 13 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 14 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 15 This is the page for the Boeing 767-200 Type Data Certificate information from which was used in this affidavit: http://. This is the page that shows how dive tests are conducted: www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-335.html This is the page for the type data certificate for the engines used on UAL175 www.content.airbusworld.c...DF-tcds/PW/PW4000_FAA.pdf 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/en/reports/.../01factual/rep1_06_01.asp 16 PICTURES AND ARTICLE HERE:
This person firstly tries to cow all readers with his "accomplishments". Utterly amazing that the government never called him as an expert witness, unless of course they suspected he was a bit of a bullshit artist. Stating opinions against visual facts is asinine.
I do not know what happened that day, Cyni. You would do me a great service, sir, if you would kindly disprove this assertion: No Boeing 767 could attain that speed [540 mph] at 1000 feet.
Check fully authenticated by crew and black box that a B707 flew on its back and in vertical dive that exceeded ALL parameters of the aircraft, full load of passengers, yet it landed safely. I would have to revisit the accident report to see what the highest speed attained was. Secondly and most importantly, I suspect the aircraft NEVER REACHED THAT SPEED. He did not say it ever did, just that it was impossible. That in no way proves or disproves what we saw happen. This part really floors anyone that ever spent any time in aviation.... 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: For one that is a self proclaimed expert, note he claims no aeronautical education at all, zip in education, something that is rather odd. I read his claim long ago and few people bought into it.
#308. To: Cynicom (#306)
(Edited)
I have no more first hand knowledge of what a 707B did on its back during testing that I have of what Marilyn Monroe did on hers during the course of her career. But this does not answer the question about 767s. (707s were built to dual purpose civilian/military specs.) It is also important to know how fast whatever aircraft that hit the WTC/Pentagon were flying when they hit. There's a question that seems like it should be readily settled but is fraught with technical complications. Here's what one poster said on a thread at a site where the technical considerations are examined at a level somewhat beyond what we're doing here as most of posters have relevant qualifications: Trust me on this...the aviation aspects of the events on 9/11 are a very complex, intertwined, multilayered set of events that are partially simultaneous...and ALL events are affected by the intricacies of TIME...or...what happened when...and what else happened at that time...and what happened earlier...and what happened later. Its a FOURTH DIMENSION NIGHTMARE...to try and figure all of this out...and we are only about 10% of the way there. http://911blogger.com/news/2010-06-24/nasa-flight-director-confirms-911- aircraft-speed-improbable Trying to get hold of what happened on the day in question by focusing on the aircraft is kind of like attempting to capture a tiger by grabbing it by the tail. You are likely to suffer minor bites and scratches. I try to avoid going there.
This reminds me of another pro Israel shill I debated some years back. When I cited Ha'aretz (Israel's largest newspaper) as a source his only reply was, "Well, Ha'aretz is losing subscribers", as if this was some measure of the paper's veracity. And he didn't explain why the fact that all print media are shrinking because of the internet wouldn't also account for a loss of subscribers. I was supposed to assume that any loss of subscribers was the result of the paper disagreeing with him on that point of contention before he ever took exception to it! I'd be interested to see the documentation and numbers to help define the term "few". And just who does that type of analysis, anyway?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOnce this was in place the planes could be taken over by remote control and flown into the World Trade Center.
#20. To: Cynicom, *9-11* (#1)
Uhhhh, nahhhhhhh.
#22. To: FormerLurker (#20)
Have you never heard of drones or UAVs?
#64. To: Cynicom, randge (#22)
Have you never heard of drones or UAVs?
#65. To: Original_Intent, randge, Christine (#64)
9/11 was flown by human hands.
#66. To: Cynicom (#65)
imagine
#67. To: wudidiz (#66)
#68. To: Cynicom (#67)
#70. To: wudidiz (#68)
There was no plane.
#72. To: FormerLurker (#70)
#73. To: All, *No Planers* (#72)
There were planes
#74. To: wudidiz (#73)
I didn't see one.
#76. To: FormerLurker (#74)
Just because YOU didn't see it doesn't mean it wasn't or isn't there.
#77. To: wudidiz (#76)
Noone saw it. Except on tv.
#114. To: FormerLurker (#77)
It wasn't just captured on video by MANY news agencies, people in New York actually saw it happen live.
#120. To: wudidiz (#114)
You have what evidence that they "actually" saw it live?
#127. To: FormerLurker (#120)
if you bothered doing any sort of research into 9/11 you'd know that it's 99.8% likely that planes hit the WTC towers
#147. To: wudidiz, *9-11* (#127)
(Edited)
Well said, but what evidence do you have that planes hit the wtc?
#149. To: FormerLurker, *9-11* (#147)
Do you have any bonafide evidence that all of the witnesses are lying and that all of the impact videos are faked?
Little to no smoke damage seen where much would be expected.
#150. To: GreyLmist (#149)
Is it actually news to you that there is ample evidence online of alleged 9/11- witnesses lying, FL?
#184. To: FormerLurker (#150)
(Edited)
Is it news to you that there are limits to what is probable and what isn't?
#186. To: RickyJ, *9-11* (#184)
(Edited)
Yep, simple logic says if there were no planes then there would have been many, not just a few, but many people proclaiming that they saw and heard no planes. Where are these people? No planers are not thinking about the illogical points in their positions.
#189. To: FormerLurker (#186)
It is MUCH easier to take control of an aircraft remotely and fly it into a tower, than to pull off such a large scale act of deception, where the world believes jet airliners hit the towers, yet in reality they were created in a studio and broadcast to the world in unison at the exact proper time, in league with every news crew and witness in the City of New York.
#191. To: GreyLmist (#189)
You need to prove first that planes were used before asserting they were remote controlled.
#198. To: FormerLurker, *9-11* (#191)
You need to first prove planes were NOT involved, as that is what was reported, witnessed, and recorded on video.
#203. To: GreyLmist, *9-11* (#198)
The burden of proof isn't really on No Planes researchers to prove a negative 4 times. Nevertheless, that nearly impossible mathematical feat has already been demonstrated many times, here and elsewhere, for those willing to review the technical analysis of Videographers as well as that of Architects and Engineers, etc. Perhaps you're under your mistaken impression because of G.W. Bush's ploy to invade Iraq by demanding evidence of non-existent WMDs there. The burden of proof about planes is on those making the assertions of planes -- the government and those like you who extrapolate from it.
After the steel structure was in place, the crew attached the outer "skin" to the perimeter -- anodized aluminum, pre-cut into large panels.
#210. To: FormerLurker (#203)
Your little GIF file tells a lie, in that the outer shell of the WTC towers was made of ALUMINUM, NOT STEEL.
After the steel structure was in place, the crew attached the outer "skin" to the perimeter -- anodized aluminum, pre-cut into large panels.
#229. To: GreyLmist (#210)
Are you joking? The WTC buildings were made of steel by the tons.
#234. To: FormerLurker (#229)
As far as an object travelling at high velocity, have you ever shot a gun? Lead is softer than steel, yet a high power rifle bullet such as a .308 will slice through steel as if it were butter.
#238. To: titorite (#234)
DU rounds would of never been engineered
#240. To: FormerLurker (#238)
Oh and BTW, DU rounds were invented in order to penetrate through heavily armored vehicles such as tanks.
#242. To: titorite (#240)
As good as of a digression as that is I would still point out that all the planes in the news footage lack any discernible wake....
#252. To: FormerLurker (#242)
What do you mean "wake"? Boats leave wakes, not planes.
#253. To: titorite (#252)
Did you tell someone else here to learn physics buster?
#254. To: FormerLurker (#253)
Show me a vid where the plane flies through smoke smartass.
#256. To: titorite (#254)
gave you three different links already....the nasa link in particular should be good and instructive... Not my fault if you wont click a link.....
#258. To: FormerLurker (#256)
Well no shit, it WOULDN'T have if it didn't fly through smoke.
#259. To: titorite (#258)
(Edited)
#262. To: FormerLurker (#259)
So let's see. You believe that all the news reporters, camera crews, bystanders, firemen, police, television networks (US and foreign), conspired to fabricate a tale of planes striking the towers. They produced footage fabricated in a studio, and they all played along with the lie in real time as events unfolded.
#268. To: titorite (#262)
The following is to provide some basic background information on how the FAA radar system and aircraft transponders to better understand "Holes in the Radar".
http://www.the-movement.com/Radar/Radar.htm
How Radar Works
Radio waves are transmitted into the air, reflected by an object in the path of the beam and received by the radar antenna. The object can be a plane, rain, terrain (mountains, hills), tall buildings, etc. The range is determined by measuring the time it takes (at the speed of light) for the radio wave to go out to the object and then return to the receiving antenna. The direction of a detected object from a radar site is determined by the position of the rotating antenna when the reflected portion of the radio wave is received.
Reflected radio waves are shown on a radarscope as "blip". Its called a target.
FAA Radar System
The FAA has two basic types of surveillance radar systems:
1) Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR)
ASR provides relatively short- range radar coverage in the general vicinity of an airport for handling terminal area traffic. It can precisely determine aircraft locations on a radarscope. The ASR can also be used as an instrument approach aid. ASR is not important with regards to the flights on 9/11.
2) Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR)
ARSR is a long-range radar system designed primarily to provide a display of aircraft locations over large areas. It shows the range and angle from the radar of a target. It does not show the altitude. ARSR is also called primary radar.
Primary radar transmits a signal (radio waves) from the radar antenna and this signal is reflected or "bounced back" from an object (such as an aircraft). This reflected signal is then displayed as a "target" or a "blip" on the controller's radarscope.
ARSR is very important with regards to the flights on 9/11.
Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System (ATCRBS)
Transponders are also called beacons.
ATCRBS (pronounced at-crabs) has three main components:
1) The Interrogator. In the ATCRBS, the interrogator, a radar beacon transmitter-receiver, scans in synchronism with the primary radar and transmits radio signals which request all transponders within range to reply. This is called secondary radar. The secondary radar antenna is a small radar that sits above the big primary radar antenna. The replies are then combined with the primary returns (the radarscope "blips") and both are displayed on the same radarscope.
For all commerical aircraft the blip is labeled with the transponder code (4 digits) and the altitude of the aircraft. Private planes may respond only with the transponder code.
2) The Transponder. This radar beacon transmitter-receiver is in the aircraft. It automatically receives the signals from the interrogator and replies with a code. These replies are independent of, and much stronger than a primary radar return (the "blip").
3) The Radarscope. The radarscope used by the controller displays returns from both the primary radar system and the ATCRBS. These returns, called targets, are what the controller refers to in the control and separation of traffic.
Important Note: Secondary radar has greater range than primary radar. This means that when an aircraft is beyond primary radar range it may be within secondary radar range -- producing no return (no "blip") on the radarscope -- but can receive transponder information.
Transponder Information
Commercial aircraft transponders have three modes used in the USA:
1) Mode A: The 4-digit code which identifies the flight. The FAA assigns the code for each flight. The pilot enters the code into the transponder before takeoff.
2) Mode C: Altitude information. The transponder receives altitude information from the aircraft's instruments. The altitude information is calculated automatically. Altitude data is important to maintain vertical seperation between aircraft. (Note: I was in an airliner that had a close call with another airliner which passed only 1000 feet directly underneath my plane at a right angle. One or both flights were off course. Thats why vertical seperation is important.)
3) Mode S: Other data. A variety of information can be transmitted to the FAA using this mode. More information on Mode S will be posted later.
Commercial aircraft always transmit Mode A and Mode C together -- providing the 4-digit flight code and altitude data.
How the Plane Swaps Were Made
When an aircraft is beyond primary radar range, the FAA air traffic controller (or military radar operator) cannot "see" the aircraft. There is no radar return. No "blip" on the radarscope. But, it may receive the transponder information. Turn off the transponder and the plane disappears. If the airplane is beyond secondary radar range also, the controller receives no transponder information. The plane disappears.
Three of the planes on 9/11 entered some of the very few areas in the northeast USA where there is no primary radar coverage. These two "holes in the radar" were the closest to the three takeoff airports (Newark, Boston Logan, Dulles).
It is unknown if secondary radar covered the "holes". However, if a transponder is turned off when a plane is in the "hole", the plane "disappears".
The three planes entered the "holes" and could not be "seen" by FAA radars. Then the transponders were turned off and the planes completely disappeared. Thats when the planes were swapped. Also, there were long radar holes that would allow the approach of the drones to effect the plane swaps.
Thats why Flight 11 from Boston (target: WTC 1), Flight 93 from Newark (target: unknown, crashed in Pennsylvania) and Flight 175 from Dulles (target: Pentagon) flew so far to the west -- they had to get into the radar holes for the plane swaps.
Flight 175 from Boston (target WTC 2) did not fly so far west into any of the radar holes. It changed transponder codes once, perhaps twice. It is not clear how the plane swap was made, except that it switched off its transponder very close to Flight 93 before 93 was "hijacked".
More to come ...
#300. To: FormerLurker, *9-11*, *No Planers* (#268)
There is evidence [my note: that two of] the alleged flights were not scheduled that day. If they were not scheduled how could anyone book a flight on them?
by Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. was Gate 26 or 32 used for the unscheduled flight 11?
#302. To: GreyLmist, FormerLurker, titorite, RickyJ, Cynicom, HOUNDDAWG, randge, tom007, Original_Intent, christine, *9-11*, *No Planers*, *Black Ops - Psyops*, *Out There* (#300)
#304. To: wudidiz (#302)
#305. To: Cynicom (#304)
#306. To: randge (#305)
Replies to Comment # 306. Check fully authenticated by crew and black box that a B707 flew on its back and in vertical dive that exceeded ALL parameters of the aircraft
#465. To: Cynicom, randge, christine (#306)
I read his claim long ago and few people bought into it.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 306.
