Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[purpleronnie]

Unless I 've got this completely wrong , the onus is on the government now to prove him wrong ,

 

Unlike any other form of statement, an affidavit becomes truth in law, if it is not rebutted.  It will now be up to critics of the theory to present their evidence and analysis to rebut the statement point by point.  If they do not – or cannot – then the US government will be obliged to admit that the account given by the 9/11 Commission is wrong.

 

 

I doubt we'll be hearing too much about it in the msm though . 

Nah the onus is on the crazy conspiracy theorists to prove it. 

 

I don't believe planes hit the WTC buildings it was a lazer shot from an alien spaceship from jupiter...now its up to the government to prove me wrong....I bet they can't.

[Zingari]

you keep getting it the wrong way round ronnie ,

if anyone claims that a laser from jupiter hit the WTC ,  the onus is on them they to prove it ,Not the other way round . Now if the official story is that unmodified 767 planes hit the pentagon , the onus is now on them to prove it  is at least a physical possibility .

 

No one has to prove what actually  did hit the WTC to call the official story false if the planes are indeed incapable or physically  limited from performing such feats ascribed to them   . A new investigation would be needed for that.

[purpleronnie]

 

 

Unlike any other form of statement, an affidavit becomes truth in law, if it is not rebutted.  It will now be up to critics of the theory to present their evidence and analysis to rebut the statement point by point.  If they do not – or cannot – then the US government will be obliged to admit that the account given by the 9/11 Commission is wrong.

 

 

 

It's not accepted as truth in law until it's accepted by the court as so. That means it can be challenged before it's accepted. Just making the affidavit is meaningless. It's only a statement that you claim as true that is witnessed.

[Smudge]

 

Quite so , witnesses can be decieved in many ways ( intentionally or otherwise) If the named planes are physically incaple of performing such aeronautical feats , it doesn't matter how many witnesses saw them do it , they can't have been the unmodified 767's  such as AA 11 and UA 175.

What they must have witnessed would have to be some other craft .

 

It's like saying that if a bus with a 70 mph speed limiter leaves the garage and   is later said to have been stolen and travelling along the M1 causing mayhem at 140 mph  by witnesses,  then that is what happened . But that's nonsense , because if the bus isn't capable of those speeds and on top of that it's limited mechanically from  doing so ,    we must consider the alternative that we  looking at two very different vehicles.  

don't just take ronnies word for it , think about it for yourself   

 

On an airplane there are four types of speed. Indicated airspeed (KTAS) measures the relative air mass as it goes into the pitot tube. True Airspeed (TAS) is the airspeed measurement with all the variables taken out , such as temperature, altitude and relative wind. This is more in line with speed over the surface.  The other two aren't relevant to this discussion.

 

The redline on the airspeed indicator sets the maximum "recommended" speed for that aircraft over which, structural damage may occur. Various surfaces have different limitations but I understand 1.5 times the redline is the absolute maximum. The redline speed of a 767 is 350 knots as read on the KTAS or 402 miles per hour.

 

As you know, it usually takes longer to fly East to West across the Atlantic because of the prevailing West to East Winds, that I think demonstrates the difference in speeds over the water.

 

I don't know about so called "governors" on planes since I've only piloted general aviation aircraft. Even if these things were in place, they wouldn't work if the plane is maxed out at a higher altitude, flying downwind and losing altitude at a very high rate of descent.

[purpleronnie]

 

 Now if the official story is that unmodified 767 planes hit the pentagon , the onus is now on them to prove it  is at least a physical possibility .

 

 

why?

[Zingari]

why?

 are you serious ?

because if the named planes are incapable of such feats ascribed to them  , they can't possibly have performed the feats

it must therefore have been planes that could  

[purpleronnie]

 are you serious ?

because if the named planes are incapable of such feats ascribed to them  , they can't possibly have performed the feats

it must therefore have been planes that could  

I'm posting about aliens firing lazers from jupiter and you ask me that.

 

seriously though.

 

This is where you need to show that this is true. Evidence shows the plane in the building. Modified or otherwise was not a claim of the "official story".

 

Asking to prove a negative.....the troofer fall back position for claim that gets debunked.

[Smudge]

 

Taken from pilots 9 11 truth;

 

Linky please, 

[Zingari]

I'm posting about aliens firing lazers from jupiter and you ask me that.

 

seriously though.

 

This is where you need to show that this is true. Evidence shows the plane in the building. Modified or otherwise was not a claim of the "official story".

 

Asking to prove a negative.....the troofer fall back position for claim that gets debunked.

Firstly i'm not asking them to prove anything , Lear is , and hes asking them to "positively" demonstrate the the planes are capable of the manoeuvres they have supposed to have achieved .

this is not in any way trying to prove a negative . 

 

Linky please, 

just google "pilots 911 truth" , you'll find anything you want to dispute on the official site and maybe you can convince John Lear,  Rob Balsamo, Russ Wittenburg etc etc ( all very experienced pilots both military and commercial)   where they are all mistaken , good luck   i can't remember the actual page it's a pretty big site now with lots of info and threads     

 

[Smudge]

Firstly i'm not asking them to prove anything , Lear is , and hes asking them to "positively" demonstrate the the planes are capable of the manoeuvres they have supposed to have achieved .

this is not in any way trying to prove a negative . 

 

just google "pilots 911 truth" , you'll find anything you want to dispute on the official site and maybe you can convince John Lear,  Rob Balsamo, Russ Wittenburg etc etc ( all very experienced pilots both military and commercial)   where they are all mistaken , good luck   i can't remember the actual page it's a pretty big site now with lots of info and threads     

 

It's interesting to me that you haven't responded to my view about even controlled planes diving at over redline speed. if they dropped from 5000 feet to 1000 in a short space of time, the airplane engines being throttled back, won't stop it from gaining momentum. They don't have air brakes that work in that way.

[Zingari]

It's interesting to me that you haven't responded to my view about even controlled planes diving at over redline speed. if they dropped from 5000 feet to 1000 in a short space of time, the airplane engines being throttled back, won't stop it from gaining momentum. They don't have air brakes that work in that way.

they weren't diving though , they were in level flight on the films i've seen , they didn't dive bomb and then level off did they ?

 

ps i'm not too sure about the restrictions put on 757 and 767 aircraft . i would imagine the plane has some limitations put on it to " stop breaking grandmas neck" but i will say i'm not too sure . 

but it still remains a problem that many pilots insist the aircraft would become uncontrollable at that speed/ altitude even if they were capable of doing it before they broke up. 

 

as i said before , maybe you could convince Lear et al where they are wrong  because more are taking notice of them that they are of me , so stop the lies  at source . 

[purpleronnie]

Just instruments of 911 truth played after googling and repeating the 911 truth lies you accept with no proof, no evidence....amusing nonetheless.

 

911 Truth , an oxymoron if ever there was.

 

I think I'll give this thread a miss for a while, or until new evidence comes out proving the conspiracy theorists correct.....which won't happen of course.

[MooseBreath]

http://www.pprune.org/questions/181534-b-757-767-autopilot.html

Professional airline pilots describe the person who wrote zingys latest theory as a "fruitcake"

[sphericalfox]

http://www.pprune.org/questions/181534-b-757-767-autopilot.html

Professional airline pilots describe the person who wrote zingys latest theory as a "fruitcake"

 

They only refer to the autopilot element of the theory. Not one mention about the physics or capability of amateur pilots managing the manoeuvres that were implemented that day.

[MooseBreath]

They only refer to the autopilot element of the theory. Not one mention about the physics or capability of amateur pilots managing the manoeuvres that were implemented that day.

That's true, but it doesn't exactly bode well for the rest of the theory does it? I thought I'd look to see if there were any pilot forums discussing the theory and that was the first link I looked at from my first search. Doubtless there's numerous more discussions out there which debunk the rest of the theory.

[sphericalfox]

That's true, but it doesn't exactly bode well for the rest of the theory does it? I thought I'd look to see if there were any pilot forums discussing the theory and that was the first link I looked at from my first search. Doubtless there's numerous more discussions out there which debunk the rest of the theory.

 

I'm interested to read some more, but specifically about the whether a true professional pilot believes that an amateur could pull off what they did.

[danny.]

Seen this Zingari?

[Beliall]

That was interesting. Certainly food for thought.

[Zingari]

Seen this Zingari?

Yes , that's interesting enough stuff alright , I enjoyed it there may be something in it , but  personally I really like to try and keep to what couldn't have happened , rather than speculate too much on what did ,as we really don't know what advanced technology the MIC etc have . it's pretty sure they have stuff well advanced of what we know about . There is a minefield of alternative theories, and it becomes mind boggling.

 

Regardless of any speculative theories , I still maintain light sheet aluminium wings  can't scythe through heavy steel girders( however fast it's flying)  and the resultant fire can't bring down heavy steel framed buildings. Until i see this demonstrated i'll remain very skeptical of the official story. As Lear states in the affidavit , the plane couldn't pierce the steel structure in that way and there would be debris on the outside fallen to the ground .

[The Doctor]

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.

 

Oh dear - he's aware there is no dark side of the moon right?

[Smudge]

they weren't diving though , they were in level flight on the films i've seen , they didn't dive bomb and then level off did they ?

 

ps i'm not too sure about the restrictions put on 757 and 767 aircraft . i would imagine the plane has some limitations put on it to " stop breaking grandmas neck" but i will say i'm not too sure . 

but it still remains a problem that many pilots insist the aircraft would become uncontrollable at that speed/ altitude even if they were capable of doing it before they broke up. 

 

as i said before , maybe you could convince Lear et al where they are wrong  because more are taking notice of them that they are of me , so stop the lies  at source . 

Here are the numbers on the second plane as issued by the FAA, the time is expressed in aviation "zulu" time which is GMT.

 

It shows he dropped 14438 feet in 2.60 minutes that's an average of 5553' per minute. In the last 22 seconds, he dropped 2000' which equals a dive of 10000 feet per minute which is anything but straight and level as you state. 

 

You can see the speed and angle of descent every 12 seconds.

 

As to the second point regarding controllability, the plane didn't deviate much in the last twenty miles and even so, the navigation system can be dialed in to exact fixed points and altitude if necessary. 

 

Edit, more detailed information

[Beliall]

Everything thats been said asks a lot of questions. Most shocking one being , is it really possible we live in a world where a government would murder thousands of its own people just for some oil? I hope not.

[AndyElZorro]

 

 

 I still maintain light sheet aluminium wings  can't scythe through heavy steel girders

 

Just like a sheet of paper can't pierce through much thicker human skin?

 

I was there and saw this play out. I am seriously worried about your continued delusions and theories.

[danny.]

 

Yes , that's interesting enough stuff alright , I enjoyed it there may be something in it , but  personally I really like to try and keep to what couldn't have happened , rather than speculate too much on what did ,as we really don't know what advanced technology the MIC etc have . it's pretty sure they have stuff well advanced of what we know about . There is a minefield of alternative theories, and it becomes mind boggling.

 

Regardless of any speculative theories , I still maintain light sheet aluminium wings  can't scythe through heavy steel girders( however fast it's flying)  and the resultant fire can't bring down heavy steel framed buildings. Until i see this demonstrated i'll remain very skeptical of the official story. As Lear states in the affidavit , the plane couldn't pierce the steel structure in that way and there would be debris on the outside fallen to the ground .

 

 

It was particularly the first couple of minutes or so with the video footage I found interesting, how there was no plane on the wide angle and it did look like there was a mask over the top of the footage. The ball thing? God knows. I do wonder why the footage was edited though.

[OzFox]

 

 

 

Regardless of any speculative theories , I still maintain light sheet aluminium wings  can't scythe through heavy steel girders( however fast it's flying)  and the resultant fire can't bring down heavy steel framed buildings. Until i see this demonstrated i'll remain very skeptical of the official story. As Lear states in the affidavit , the plane couldn't pierce the steel structure in that way and there would be debris on the outside fallen to the ground .

 

 

Christ, there's no pleasing some people is there? It was demonstrated twice in the space of a couple of hours in front of thousands of witnesses. And recorded on dozens of video cameras so you can watch it over and over at your leisure.  

 

There was plane debris everywhere. They only found part of an undercarriage recently, wedged between two buildings (one of which was the mosque)