purpleronnie Posted 29 December 2013 Posted 29 December 2013 It seems that most posters believe the official story of the collapse of WTC7 WTC7 fell as a result of fire damage started by debris from Twin Tower collapse and the resulting deliberate choice to not fight fires - consequence of resource limitations. So those are the prima facie causes. The scientific method is based on hypotheses being progressively improved. Those are the prima facie hypotheses and NO ONE has ever put forward a sustainable better hypothesis requiring CD. Simple as that. because of the so called "proof" offered by the NIST computer generated theory of progressive collapse. NIST is not the reason. BUT it supports the real reason which I have just outlined. This is continually being offered up as absolute proof There is no absolute proof in the scientific method - only "best hypothesis produced so far". BUT the best hypothesis is scientifically equivalent to what lay persons refer to as "proof' - it is the best "proof" available. Genuine questions Given that the total collapse of a steel building was unprecented and unquestionably resembles a CD , False premise - multiple points where it doesn't resemble CD - in fact the only resemblance is that it fell downwards. Which is not a big surprise. did you believe it was due to fire before the report came out The facts of collapse are facts. Independent of "reports". The facts are historic - predate the reports by several years. Reports written after the event cannot change history. Therefore the reports are irrelevant to what actually happened. if so , why ? Scientific method of forming hypotheses based on evidence plus reasoning. Why did you believe the story between the years 2001 and 2008 before the report was even published? The evidence was the same 2001-2008. My acceptance of evidence and my conclusions are not weakened because NIST also formed some of the same conclusions. What "proof" did you have then ? Most of the same proof we still have. The reports are not relevant. The facts haven't changed. Surely if you believed it collapsed due to fire between those years , It isn't "believed" - it was reasoned hypothesis based on evidence in those years. There has not been a supportable pro CD hypothesis. Situation unchanged. Fire induced so called "natural collapse" at WTC1, 2 and 7
Zingari Posted 29 December 2013 Author Posted 29 December 2013 I'm not sure that the best possible explanation is one that has never happened before or since and can only be proved possible with a computer model with the data used unavailabe to independent researchers . What significant differences do the collapse of wtc 7 to other other bottom down controlled demolition collapses ? Bearing in mind there are many ways for them to occur due to the required result . ie if you want a building to topple in a specific direction , this also can be achieved. It's quite easy to see other CD collapses that look very similar. but there are none that even remotely look like it due to fire ( this is because there hasn't been any because as NIST admit , it's unprecedented) So you are insisting that because there are minor differences with other CD collapses (?) means its certainly not CD , but unquestionably accept its quite the same as a fire induced collapse even though that's never happened before ?
purpleronnie Posted 29 December 2013 Posted 29 December 2013 I'm not sure that the best possible explanation is one that has never happened before or since and can only be proved possible with a computer model with the data used unavailabe to independent researchers . Incorrect. All the data needed to run the simulations is in the report What significant differences do the collapse of wtc 7 to other other bottom down controlled demolition collapses ? Bearing in mind there are many ways for them to occur due to the required result . ie if you want a building to topple in a specific direction , this also can be achieved. well not many, because of......gravity. It's quite easy to see other CD collapses that look very similar. but there are none that even remotely look like it due to fire ( this is because there hasn't been any because as NIST admit , it's unprecedented) That's because it doesn't happen very often. So ..... So you are insisting that because there are minor differences with other CD collapses (?) means its certainly not CD , but unquestionably accept its quite the same as a fire induced collapse even though that's never happened before ? Nope, I am saying there is no reason to believe the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. We'll listen as soon as someone comes up with a narrative that includes CD that fits better then what was seen.
Zingari Posted 29 December 2013 Author Posted 29 December 2013 Incorrect. All the data needed to run the simulations is in the report regarding all available data, click on this AE911 link http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/761-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-1.html and scroll down to the link " NIST will not release the input data because doing so might "jeopardize public safety" and read the letter.
purpleronnie Posted 29 December 2013 Posted 29 December 2013 Incorrect. All the data needed to run the simulations is in the report regarding all available data, click on this AE911 link http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/761-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-1.html and scroll down to the link " NIST will not release the input data because doing so might "jeopardize public safety" and read the letter. I'm sure NIST does not want every Tom, Dick and Harry to be able to play with this data. If you are a competent engineer however, they did give you all the data need to reproduce the simulations. AE 9/11 has none (and they will never spend the money to do the work). what specific data is missing?
Zingari Posted 29 December 2013 Author Posted 29 December 2013 I'm sure NIST does not want every Tom, Dick and Harry to be able to play with this data. If you are a competent engineer however, they did give you all the data need to reproduce the simulations. AE 9/11 has none (and they will never spend the money to do the work). what specific data is missing? How the fook do I know if its missing ? It's obviously important for AE911 to verify the tests or they wouldn't be asking for it. You claimed it was all available and it clearly isn't , so what data relating to the collapse of a building by fire is being withheld because it might jeopardize public safety? You tell me if you're so confident it doesn't matter.
purpleronnie Posted 29 December 2013 Posted 29 December 2013 How the fook do I know if its missing ? exactly. :xmaslaugh: It is all available, read the report. Do you want me to point out every piece of data? Do you need me to quote the sections in the report? I can't help it if you fell for their lies.
Zingari Posted 29 December 2013 Author Posted 29 December 2013 exactly. :xmaslaugh: It is all available, read the report. Do you want me to point out every piece of data? Do you need me to quote the sections in the report? I can't help it if you fell for their lies. First you said it was all available , then you said it's understandable if they hold some back from every tom dick and harry , now it is all available. ( it sort of implies that whatever they say is good enough)
purpleronnie Posted 29 December 2013 Posted 29 December 2013 First you said it was all available , then you said it's understandable if they hold some back from every tom dick and harry , now it is all available. ( it sort of implies that whatever they say is good enough) What part of "competent engineer" do you not get? Specifically, what data is missing that they need to reproduce the simulation? There is none.
Zingari Posted 29 December 2013 Author Posted 29 December 2013 What part of "competent engineer" do you not get? Specifically, what data is missing that they need to reproduce the simulation? There is none. Sorry ronnie , but you're going to have to spell it out for me Why was any part of the data (3370 files) relating to a "fire induced collapse" withheld even for a day ? What possible jeopardy is the public in if independent researchers know this data ? why the secrecy ? is it just to get tongues wagging and encourage conspiracy theories ? sorry to be a pain , but i really really don't get it :xmassad:
Kyle_Le_Don Posted 30 December 2013 Posted 30 December 2013 Are there any other conspiracy threads going? I'm in haha
Merging Cultures Posted 30 December 2013 Posted 30 December 2013 Are there any other conspiracy threads going? I'm in hahaIs there a Princess Diana one?Or there could be ones for 7/7, Lee Rigby's Murder, Stephen Lawrence etc... I'll start: 7/7 and Lee Rigby's murder were done by the government to distract the public from news about a Minister claiming £1.29 for a pork pie and £2.57 for a pint from Weatherspoons. Sorry Zing :-)
Strokes Posted 30 December 2013 Posted 30 December 2013 Is there a Princess Diana one? Or there could be ones for 7/7, Lee Rigby's Murder, Stephen Lawrence etc... I'll start: 7/7 and Lee Rigby's murder were done by the government to distract the public from news about a Minister claiming £1.29 for a pork pie and £2.57 for a pint from Weatherspoons. Sorry Zing :-) A minister in wetherspoons, could only be a labour guy surely.
Merging Cultures Posted 30 December 2013 Posted 30 December 2013 Is there a Princess Diana one? Or there could be ones for 7/7, Lee Rigby's Murder, Stephen Lawrence etc... I'll start: 7/7 and Lee Rigby's murder were done by the government to distract the public from news about a Minister claiming £1.29 for a pork pie and £2.57 for a pint from Weatherspoons. Sorry Zing :-) A minister in wetherspoons, could only be a labour guy surely.Or a Tory so embarrassed to be caught in a 'spoons it led to such a massive cover up.But show me the proof.
purpleronnie Posted 30 December 2013 Posted 30 December 2013 Sorry ronnie , but you're going to have to spell it out for me Why was any part of the data (3370 files) relating to a "fire induced collapse" withheld even for a day ? What possible jeopardy is the public in if independent researchers know this data ? why the secrecy ? is it just to get tongues wagging and encourage conspiracy theories ? sorry to be a pain , but i really really don't get it :xmassad: Don't apologise zingybaby. It's not really about the data files it's about the methodology used to run the FEA. Using this information it wouldn't be hard to figure weaknesses in other structures and possibly make them targets. The point is moot for qualified engineers. They can duplicate the FEA. Like I said the structural data is in the report. AE doesn't want the data files, they only want to complain that they can't get them.
The God Emperor Posted 30 December 2013 Posted 30 December 2013 Zing seems pretty determined to shift the blame onto the US government, and its pretty convenient that he was no where to be the seen the day the towers fell.
OzFox Posted 31 December 2013 Posted 31 December 2013 Oh forget it, Oz. This is frustrating me no end, because we're simply talking past one another. If you read the initial reply, I state exactly the same thing: The debris caused the fire (according to NIST), which turned out to be the primary cause for the collapse. What I had a beef with was the fact you mentioned the STRUCTURAL DAMAGE DONE BY THE FALLING DEBRIS was also of significant importance, when the report quite clearly stated that it was of very little importance and that the building would've collapsed either way. Both of you will probably argue that I put way too much importance on rhetoric here, but seeing as 90% of this thread is down to constant misunderstanding, misuse of terminologies and baseless arguments, I find it pretty obvious that rhetoric is alpha and omega here... I was jerking your chain. The 9/11 Commission Report barely mentions the collapse of WTC7. Presumably they took the idea of it being blown up deliberately about as seriously as I do. Or....big conspiracist drum roll...the commission members and their staff were all being manipulated by mysterious government forces
sphericalfox Posted 5 March 2014 Posted 5 March 2014 Not sure of the purpose of this. Is he doing it deliberately to prove that hijackers couldn't have flown the planes, and/or forcing the 9-11 commission report to be thrown out, or does he genuinely believe that planes didn't hit the twin towers? http://neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers
JadeFalcon Posted 5 March 2014 Posted 5 March 2014 has that fanny not seen the videos of the planes hitting ? maybe he has a book coming out very soon that he wants to make some money off of
Zingari Posted 6 March 2014 Author Posted 6 March 2014 Not sure of the purpose of this. Is he doing it deliberately to prove that hijackers couldn't have flown the planes, and/or forcing the 9-11 commission report to be thrown out, or does he genuinely believe that planes didn't hit the twin towers? http://neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers Good find that spherical , i doubt if there will be much about it in the msm and hopefully John Lear hasn't signed his own death warrant with it as i wouldn't be surprised if he had an accident or a sudden heart attack . Here is as much of the affidavit as i can find if anyone is interested enough to read what he says . AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEVADA : COUNTY OF CLARK : JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am 65 years of age, a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with over 19,000 hours of flight time, over 11,000 of which are in command of 3 or 4 engine jet transports, have flown over 100 different types of aircraft in 60 different countries around the world. I retired in 2001 after 40 years of flying. 2. I am the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, and hold more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. These include the Airline Transport Pilot certificate with 23 type ratings, Flight Instructor, Flight Engineer, Flight Navigator, Ground Instructor, Aircraft Dispatcher, Control Tower Operator and Parachute Rigger. 3. I flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983. 4. During the last 17 years of my career I worked for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor. I was certificated by the FAA as a North Atlantic (MNPS) Check Airman. I have extensive experience as command pilot and instructor in the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Lockheed L-1011. 5. I checked out as Captain on a Boeing 707 in 1973 and Captain on the Lockheed L-1011 in 1985. 6. I hold 17 world records including Speed Around the World in a Lear Jet Model 24 set in 1966 and was presented the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controller’s Association) award for Outstanding Airmanship in 1968. I am a Senior Vice-Commander of the China Post 1, the American Legions Post for “Soldiers of Fortuneâ€, 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. 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) 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. 9. My opinion, based on extensive flight experience both as captain and instructor in large 3 and 4 engine aircraft is that it would have been impossible for an alleged hijacker with little or no time in the Boeing 767 to have taken over, then flown a Boeing 767 at high speed, descending to below 1000 feet above mean sea level and flown a course to impact the twin towers at high speed for these reasons: A. As soon as the alleged hijackers sat in the pilots seat of the Boeing 767 they would be looking at an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) display panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of ‘hard’ instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. Had they murdered the pilot with a box knife as alleged there would be blood all over the seat, the controls, the center pedestal, the instrument panel and floor of the cockpit. The hijacker would have had to remove the dead pilot from his seat which means he would have had electrically or manually place the seat in its rearmost position and then lifted the murdered pilot from his seat, further distributing blood, making the controls including the throttles wet, sticky and difficult to hold onto. Even on a clear day a novice pilot would be wholly incapable of taking control and turning a Boeing 767 towards New York because of his total lack of experience and situational awareness under these conditions. The alleged hijackers were not ‘instrument rated’ and controlled high altitude flight requires experience in constantly referring to and cross-checking attitude, altitude and speed instruments. Using the distant horizon to fly ‘visually’ under controlled conditions is virtually impossible particularly at the cruising speed of the Boeing 767 of .80 Mach. The alleged ‘controlled’ descent into New York on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of ‘controlled’ flight. Its takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the “EFIS†(Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent. The Boeing 767 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls. http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/911-affidavit-by-john-lear-son-of.html
sphericalfox Posted 6 March 2014 Posted 6 March 2014 Good find that spherical , i doubt if there will be much about it in the msm and hopefully John Lear hasn't signed his own death warrant with it as i wouldn't be surprised if he had an accident or a sudden heart attack . Here is as much of the affidavit as i can find if anyone is interested enough to read what he says . AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEVADA : COUNTY OF CLARK : JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am 65 years of age, a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with over 19,000 hours of flight time, over 11,000 of which are in command of 3 or 4 engine jet transports, have flown over 100 different types of aircraft in 60 different countries around the world. I retired in 2001 after 40 years of flying. 2. I am the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, and hold more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. These include the Airline Transport Pilot certificate with 23 type ratings, Flight Instructor, Flight Engineer, Flight Navigator, Ground Instructor, Aircraft Dispatcher, Control Tower Operator and Parachute Rigger. 3. I flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983. 4. During the last 17 years of my career I worked for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor. I was certificated by the FAA as a North Atlantic (MNPS) Check Airman. I have extensive experience as command pilot and instructor in the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Lockheed L-1011. 5. I checked out as Captain on a Boeing 707 in 1973 and Captain on the Lockheed L-1011 in 1985. 6. I hold 17 world records including Speed Around the World in a Lear Jet Model 24 set in 1966 and was presented the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controller’s Association) award for Outstanding Airmanship in 1968. I am a Senior Vice-Commander of the China Post 1, the American Legions Post for “Soldiers of Fortuneâ€, 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. 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) 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. 9. My opinion, based on extensive flight experience both as captain and instructor in large 3 and 4 engine aircraft is that it would have been impossible for an alleged hijacker with little or no time in the Boeing 767 to have taken over, then flown a Boeing 767 at high speed, descending to below 1000 feet above mean sea level and flown a course to impact the twin towers at high speed for these reasons: A. As soon as the alleged hijackers sat in the pilots seat of the Boeing 767 they would be looking at an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) display panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of ‘hard’ instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. Had they murdered the pilot with a box knife as alleged there would be blood all over the seat, the controls, the center pedestal, the instrument panel and floor of the cockpit. The hijacker would have had to remove the dead pilot from his seat which means he would have had electrically or manually place the seat in its rearmost position and then lifted the murdered pilot from his seat, further distributing blood, making the controls including the throttles wet, sticky and difficult to hold onto. Even on a clear day a novice pilot would be wholly incapable of taking control and turning a Boeing 767 towards New York because of his total lack of experience and situational awareness under these conditions. The alleged hijackers were not ‘instrument rated’ and controlled high altitude flight requires experience in constantly referring to and cross-checking attitude, altitude and speed instruments. Using the distant horizon to fly ‘visually’ under controlled conditions is virtually impossible particularly at the cruising speed of the Boeing 767 of .80 Mach. The alleged ‘controlled’ descent into New York on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of ‘controlled’ flight. Its takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the “EFIS†(Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent. The Boeing 767 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls. http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/911-affidavit-by-john-lear-son-of.html I appreciate that this has nothing to do with WTC7, but I didn't want to start a new thread. I'm interested to know what his angle is. I doubt it's money given his lineage, but could be wrong. His points on the pilots are not only fair and reasonable from a pretty weighty expert on the subject, and I suppose the points about the plane debris raises some questions, but the number of witnesses throughout the entire of Manhattan and beyond surely can't all have been drugged surely, or is he suggesting that it simply wasn't a Boeing 767? Something modified? I don't know. He's not a semi-professional crackpot like other conspiracy theorists plate up, so I'm interested to know his angle and hear more about where this goes (if he doesn't beforehand)
purpleronnie Posted 6 March 2014 Posted 6 March 2014 Good find that spherical , i doubt if there will be much about it in the msm and hopefully John Lear hasn't signed his own death warrant with it as i wouldn't be surprised if he had an accident or a sudden heart attack . Here is as much of the affidavit as i can find if anyone is interested enough to read what he says . AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEVADA : COUNTY OF CLARK : JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am 65 years of age, a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with over 19,000 hours of flight time, over 11,000 of which are in command of 3 or 4 engine jet transports, have flown over 100 different types of aircraft in 60 different countries around the world. I retired in 2001 after 40 years of flying. 2. I am the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, and hold more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. These include the Airline Transport Pilot certificate with 23 type ratings, Flight Instructor, Flight Engineer, Flight Navigator, Ground Instructor, Aircraft Dispatcher, Control Tower Operator and Parachute Rigger. 3. I flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983. 4. During the last 17 years of my career I worked for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor. I was certificated by the FAA as a North Atlantic (MNPS) Check Airman. I have extensive experience as command pilot and instructor in the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Lockheed L-1011. 5. I checked out as Captain on a Boeing 707 in 1973 and Captain on the Lockheed L-1011 in 1985. 6. I hold 17 world records including Speed Around the World in a Lear Jet Model 24 set in 1966 and was presented the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controller’s Association) award for Outstanding Airmanship in 1968. I am a Senior Vice-Commander of the China Post 1, the American Legions Post for “Soldiers of Fortuneâ€, 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. 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) 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. 9. My opinion, based on extensive flight experience both as captain and instructor in large 3 and 4 engine aircraft is that it would have been impossible for an alleged hijacker with little or no time in the Boeing 767 to have taken over, then flown a Boeing 767 at high speed, descending to below 1000 feet above mean sea level and flown a course to impact the twin towers at high speed for these reasons: A. As soon as the alleged hijackers sat in the pilots seat of the Boeing 767 they would be looking at an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) display panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of ‘hard’ instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. Had they murdered the pilot with a box knife as alleged there would be blood all over the seat, the controls, the center pedestal, the instrument panel and floor of the cockpit. The hijacker would have had to remove the dead pilot from his seat which means he would have had electrically or manually place the seat in its rearmost position and then lifted the murdered pilot from his seat, further distributing blood, making the controls including the throttles wet, sticky and difficult to hold onto. Even on a clear day a novice pilot would be wholly incapable of taking control and turning a Boeing 767 towards New York because of his total lack of experience and situational awareness under these conditions. The alleged hijackers were not ‘instrument rated’ and controlled high altitude flight requires experience in constantly referring to and cross-checking attitude, altitude and speed instruments. Using the distant horizon to fly ‘visually’ under controlled conditions is virtually impossible particularly at the cruising speed of the Boeing 767 of .80 Mach. The alleged ‘controlled’ descent into New York on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of ‘controlled’ flight. Its takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the “EFIS†(Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent. The Boeing 767 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls. http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/911-affidavit-by-john-lear-son-of.html RADAR proves John Lear is wrong. Lear thinks we have based on the dark side of moon, aliens live with us, and we go to Mars. John Lear will tell you he is a BS artist.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.