FACEBOOK
TWITTER
9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about “Absurdities”
9/11: An Open Letter to Anthony Lawson about “Absurdities”
Re: “9/11: The Absurdity of the No-Planes-in-New-York Theory”
Anthony,
Just for the record, you and I have gone round and round over this for years–where you have saved up every exchange we ever had so you could cull them for quotes taken out of context, exaggerate my positions, and suppress information about my actual views. As an example, you claim I have a lot of articles with similar names, but you doesn’t actually cite the most important among them,
“New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11″
Moreover, you love to shade the truth. Joe Keith, for example, actually designed the shaker system for Boeing, which is used to determine when a plane is going to come apart in flight. You suppress the information that the speed of the plane in the videos (of 560 mph) appears to have been a lapse by using its cruising speed at 35,000 feet as if it could be attained at 700-1,000 feet as well, where the air is three times as dense and the turbines cannot suck the air through them, which causes them to function as brakes.
"Fight 175" entering the South Tower
Nor do you mention that Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed that this was an aerodynamically impossible speed for a Boeing 767, where you loves to talk about “special planes”. But no matter how “special”, no plane could have entered the building in violation of Newton’s laws. A real plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, while seats, bodies, and luggage fell to the ground. The engines would have made it into the building, but not most of the rest of a highly fragile aluminum “flying beer can”.
Your claims are preposterous. An obvious study to have cited, were you actually an honest broker, would have been Pilots’ study,
“9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed”
You know better than you pretend, where my most recent articles were published at Veterans Today, which apparently enraged you. I do not understand your proprietary interest in all this, but it clearly exists–and his arguments, when properly understood and placed in context minus the exaggerations and distortions–are without merit. See, for example,
But most of all, “9/11 Intercepted” from Pilots for 9/11 Truth, which shows that a Boeing 767 would have been unmanageable and fallen apart at the speed shown in those videos.
How many of these studies have you actually read, Anthony? Because they provide a framework and background for understanding video fakery:
Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11″
David Ray Griffin, “Phone Calls from the 9/11 Airliners”
"Flight 11" approaching the North Tower
Leslie Raphael, “Jules Naudet’s 9/11 Film was Staged”
Jim Fetzer, “New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11″
Killtown, What didn’t happen at Shanksville
Your article and video are full of partial evidence and half-truths, which I fear is a form of deliberate misinformation. The number of those who would have have to be “in on it” regarding the Naudet video, for example, is grossly exaggerated. Most of those involved in something like this have no idea that what they are doing is not on “the up and up”.
I notice you do not mention a study by Leslie Raphael, “Jules Naudet’s 9/11 Film was Staged”, which supports the opposite conclusion, where I have already explained to you why it was important that the shot be OUT OF FOCUS to not give away the missing plane. Something was flying by, but it does not appear to have been a Boeing 767.
Your reliance upon the Eric Salter study is especially revealing. Whether what Salter is alleged to have found is 8% or even 18% deceleration, that is not going to explain why it the plane’s velocity did not fall to zero. The plane was intersecting with eight (8) floors of steel trusses connected to the core columns at one end and the external support columns at the other, which, of course, were also filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which, at 208′ x 208′, represents an acre of concrete apiece.
As I explain in “More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity” (with a diagram), they would have created enormous horizontal resistance. The windows were only 18″ wide and the support columns were a meter apart. There were no windows between floors, so most of the facade was steel, which is far more dense than aluminum. The video is a fantasy.
As I have challenged you before without receiving any response, how would it be possible for the plane–in both Hezarkhani and Faribanks’ videos–to pass through their own length into the building in the same number of frames they pass through their own length in air? This is a perfect example of how you skip over and exclude evidence you don’t like.
That result proves that the videos are fake (because it would be impossible unless those 500,000 ton buildings provided no more resistance to the plane’s trajectory than air) but also demonstrates that there was no deceleration and that Stalter’s study is wrong. And of course you ignore that it was necessary to fake the plane
(1) to insure that it actually hit the building, which many members of Pilots were unable to accomplish with repeated trials;
(2) that it penetrate completely inside of it in order to create the false impression of a cause for the buildings’ collapse; and,
(3) only then “exploded”, which had to be precisely coordinated in time to account for the explosions in the sub-basements.
Those occurred 14 and 17 second BEFORE reverberations from those alleged impacts, as I have explained in “Seven Questions about 9/11″ and “9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job”, in case you missed it, which is easily accessible and includes the following data table:
Which raises obvious questions about what you think you is doing here and why you commit so many straw man, special pleading, and ad hominem arguments. But on this point we can agree: There certainly is a lot of disinformation out there!
Jim
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=127803
Posted by Jim Fetzer on Aug 3 2011, With 0 Reads, Filed under Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
COMMENTS
To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback
Fetzer, you are amazingly dishonest. You respond by again asking me yet again to propose an argument, and ignore the argument I just posed to you yet again for the nth time regarding Kinetic Energy. This is getting really exhaustive, Jim.
I am saving your quote for posterity:
“I have refuted every argument you have produced against me. And if that is not the case, then show it by reproducing the argument you think I have not refuted. It appears to me that you are a fraud. Either put up or shut up.”
You are too funny. How can you have refuted every argument I have produced when you have not addressed a SINGLE argument I have produced?
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
Didn’t see that Jim? Alright, here it is again:
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
KINETIC ENERGY
What do I have to do to get you to address this principle, Jim? Do I have to offer you money? How about $100. If I give you $100 will you address the issue of KINETIC ENERGY regarding the ability of one object to penetrate another object, specifically the ability of the plane to impact the WTC tower?
So, what will it take, Jim? $100? $1000? What is your price?
Actually, never mind. I’m too exhausted to play this game with you, Jim. I’m done wasting my time with someone who is that stubbornly dishonest because I already know what kind of BS response you will give, and it will not include the words “kinetic energy” anywhere in the entire comment, I am sure of it. So, I’m putting you on ignore, Jim.
At this point, if anyone here ever sees Jim actually honestly address any of my arguments that I have posed to him on this thread then please let me know. You can email me through my wordpress handle linked to my name. I will certainly not hold my breath or waste anymore time on this thread waiting for that to happen.
How many times do I have to explain to you the design of the Twin Towers. Newton formulated three laws of motion which pertain to kinetic energy, in case you haven’t noticed. All three are violated by the image seen in the plane. I have explained this many times. I cannot imaging how anyone who has read this thread could have failed to notice that the argument about equal distance/equal times equals equal speed concerns mass in motion. That the plane passes through its own length into the building in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air proves fakery in two ways: that would be impossible unless the building provides no more resistance to the path of a plane in flight than air; and it also proves no deceleration (or loss in kinetic energy), where the velocity of the plane should have fallen to zero (for most of its mass), while some parts would have passed into the building. But there was no loss in kinetic energy: no crumpling, no loss of wings or tail, no bodies, seats, or luggage falling to the ground. It simply passes into this massive building with the same momentum it passes through air. I guess you don’t understand the relationships between mass and velocity and resistance. Go back to the diagram showing that the plane would have intersected with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete (or an acre of concrete apiece). There were eight of them. What would happen if a plane in flight were to intersect with just one of them? I am afraid you have really not thought this through. I agree it’s time for you to give it a rest. I will give you my address so you can send the check.
Oh Keenan
REality check
A plane compared to a WTC tower equals a baseball compared to a Humvee.
Do the math.
Kinetic energy?
You are saying the buildings themselves were dropped?
Learn the damned language.
g
Oh Gordon
REality check
A bullet to your body equals a baseball compared to a Humvee.
Do the math.
Kinetic energy?
You are saying your body itself was dropped? Obviously such a small bullet could never penetrate through your body which is at least a hundred times the mass of the bullet.
Learn the damned language.
k
Keenan, Gordon will respond, but I think you are making a blunder in comparing small, dense objects like bullets to large, flimsy objects like airplanes. A Boeing 767 could no more penetrate completely into a massive building of the design of a Twin Tower any more than a car could pass through a massive tree. Both would collide and break apart, as you no doubt are aware in the case of car crashes. Planes hitting buildings are about as fragile as cars hitting trees, which is a far more appropriate analogy than your comparison with small bullets.
Gordon,
You again have refused to answer any of my questions. Are you taking lessons from Fetzer?
You make a series of incoherent insults and criticisms about me and my writing and my website without citing anything specific. You have completely lost me regarding your critique of my web site. You mentioned Oklahoma City and that I should “go back to OK City…and build from there”. Huh? What the heck are you talking about? Do you know how to make a coherent point?
You really seem like you have been drinking heavily or something. I’m having a hard time understanding what you point is.
Instead of answering any of my questions yet again, you instead spew a series of insults, including:
Your writing is bizarre
You are harder than hell to understand and communicate with….
and are not very effective at either science or police work
Your forte is circular rhetoric
and provide no specific examples for any of theses insults/criticisms
My respect for you, Gordon, just dropped a few notches here today. I seriously hope that sometime in the near future you will send me an apology and let me know that these embarrassing comments of yours today were due to your being very inebriated or something and that you are not normally this imbecile-sounding.
You have a lot of nerve, Keenan. You have repeatedly published ignorant posts attacking me and parroting the views of Anthony Lawson. If anyone owes anyone an apology here, it is you and Anthony who owe me apologies–by the dozens! Get serious. You are out of line.
Keenan
You work hard as a writer. You keep up a website. These are good things.
All of this is both laudable and allowed.
You are now inserting yourself between, perhaps the only professional around…me….and the pack of amateurs the government has convinced to fight with each other over nanothermite and airplanes.
Frankly, I can see why other professionals leave 9/11 alone or why they have all FLED the 9/11 truth movement.
I stay because I am severely OCD.
I quit nothing and never give up…I am a fucking pitbull.
What should be feared is if I decide some of those in the movement are worse than those who are responsible for 9/11.
Years ago, one of the top named guys, a hero to you, was identified as assigned to 9/11 truth by the DIA. He is a HUGE nanothermite supporter.
Initially, I loved the idea, its elegance.
Soon I saw it as deception and its peddlers as deceivers.
Now, years later, only total pigheaded morons could see anything else.
Riddle me this, where the farg is this nanothermite game going?
Timeline it?
What is the project?
Who is running it?
Goals?
Describe real proofs?
What has passed the UNWASHED as “peer reviewed” publications have been minor propaganda pamphlets peddled by government spies to humiliate any of us still hanging around.
I am done with it, no more time to be wasted, no more phony science, not the government, not anyone else.
I am sick of trying to get along with cry babies, mamas boys and losers.
Can I be clearer?
If I wanted to hand with losers and fargheads, I would have taken the Israeli’s money or become a birther/tea partier…
which many among us ARE.
g
Wow. The first thing that comes to mind is the disconnect between the good quality of writing of the articles I have read on VT over the last couple of years and your convoluted, inarticulate comments on this thread. Strange…
Your post is a kind of rambling all over the place. But I’ll address a few of your points:
“…perhaps the only professional around…me”
Are you claiming to be the only professional in this movement?
“Years ago, one of the top named guys, a hero to you, was identified as assigned to 9/11 truth by the DEA. He is a HUGE nanothermite supporter.”
Sounds like you are making lots of assumptions about my beliefs regarding who my heros are and my views on nanothermite. Can’t you name names here?
You may be surprised, then, to discover that I believe that A&E911T has been heavily infiltrated and that I am skeptical of the nanothermite promoters.
I would like to know how do you determine someones credibility, and is fact checking and verification of claims important to you? Does the scientific method and the peer review process have any validity to you at all? When do you require people to back up their claims with data and calculations?
Keenan, you are taking for granted that I am wrong about various points, when the evidence suggests that you are the one who is wrong. Even if you were right about Joe Keith, his argument is what matters. And you have never said a word about that, so far as I am aware. So I think you need to give more thought to “Joe’s Law”, which I have posted more than once in this thread.
Joe Keith has actually offered $5,000 to anyone who can show that he is wrong about his argument. If Anthony Lawson could do that, he could pocket a nice sum. So why hasn’t Anthony collected $5,000?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t13291.html
Jun 6 2008, 04:30 PM
Joe’s Law
Joe’s Law. It’s immutable. I named it after myself. If it weren’t immutable, I wouldn’t have put my name on it! Before I explain, let me paraphrase what some historically famous people have said. Thomas Jefferson once declared: “Truth needs no defense, only lies need to be protected”. The famous German philosopher Schopenhauer once explained: “Truth goes through three stages; first it’s violently opposed, then it’s highly ridiculed, and finally it’s accepted as an obvious fact”. Adolph Hitler once wrote: “Little people tell only little lies. They don’t dare tell big lies because they justifiably think that nobody would believe them. However, when big people, or Governments, tell big lies, little people believe them because they think that nobody would say something so outlandish unless it was an absolute truth”.
At present we are faced with refuting probably the biggest lie of all time: 19 Arabs armed with box cutters hijacked four airliners and crashed three of them into buildings, but were thwarted in the fourth airliner by passenger herorics. Oh, I forgot, they were led by tall bearded Arab who lived in a cave in Afghanistan whose intel improvised a stand down by the U. S. Air Force’s NORAD. And, unfortunately, a great many of the little people believe this BIG LIE. In defending this lie, The Media is putting THE TRUTH through its second stage, the ridicule stage. But, of course, this lie really needs defending! If it had any semblance of truth it could stand on its own.
Now, let me get on by explaining Joe’s Law. Joe’s Law is a consolidation, into one law, of Isaac Newton’s three laws of motion, which are: 1. An object in motion remains in motion until acted upon by a force. 2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force until the force is removed. 3. Every action creates an opposite an equal reaction. I concocted Joe’s Law in order to destroy the BIG LIE and get to the truth. Thusly, Joe’s Law states: “AIRPLANES DON’T MELD INTO STEEL AND CONCRETE BUILDINGS, THEY CRASH AGAINST THEM!” By now, I suspect that you have figured out that I formulated Joe’s Law for the expressed reason to expose the televised fakery of the 9/11/01 debacle.
So, here’s how to apply Joe’s Law in order to find the truth:
Buy a DVD of this 9/11/01 debacle. Any DVD of that catastrophic event will do. However, my favorite one is: In Memoriam, New York City, 9/11/01. I like this one because Mayor Rudy Giuliani is the narrator, which gives it good official credibility; and the alleged crash of United Flight 175 is forthcoming in about four minutes, so you don’t have to waste a lot of time waiting. Play the DVD, and when the plane first comes into view, hit the pause button on your remote and then do the following: Mark the screen at the tip of the plane’s nose and then use your remote’s single step button to advance the plane while you count the frames it takes for the airliner to fly its own length. Then just keep hitting the single step until the plane just touches the tower, and then count the steps it takes for the plane to be completely absorbed into the tower, all the while noticing what happens to the immediate environment during each single step.
Wow! What astounding truth you will become aware of! You will learn that the plane takes the same number of frames to fly its own length through thin air as it does to fly through the steel and concrete tower, thus violating Newton’s first and second laws of motion. You will see a plane that seemingly flies directly into the face of a half million ton building without decelerating. You will also notice that the plane causes no damage to itself or the tower as it melds into it; and even though the plane enters at an angle, the leading wing causes no reaction as it first strikes the tower, thus violating Newton’s third law of motion. In fact, you will see no reactions whatsoever caused by the plane smoothly gliding into the building. You will also notice that no objects are falling during this smooth entry. Thus, Joe’s Law, which is absolutely immutable, appears to have been violated(1). This result can only be described as TV fakery!
Now, you may ask: “What good does proving TV fakery do? We already know that 9/11 was an inside job”. Well, here’s what it does. It not only shows U. S. Government complicity, but it also shows the co-complicity of The Establishment Media. And, because of this The Media has, albeit not so cleverly, designed a last resort method to protect itself. It claims to have proof that all videos which show frontal WTC2 vies of Flight 175 entering the tower were taken by freelance reporters and sold, along with all rights, to their networks. The name of these freelancers are: Michael Hezarkhani(2), Evan Fairbanks(3), and Luc Couchesne(4). The Media’s defense will be: “We didn’t fake these videos, we merely bought them, believing them to be actual videos of the catastrophe as it occurred!” The question now is: When this fakery is exposed, will the little people still believe THE BIG LIE?
For those of you searching for the truth, I am offering a reward of $5000 to anyone who can provide me with a video of an airliner that crashes into WTC2 without violating Joe’s Law. Proof of date of origination must be provided.
(1) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=72wfcpR_cnI A video showing that Joe’s Law is immutable.
(2) http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=tM3BUDkz-NY Michael Hezarkhani video, real time
http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=8uaDPp-91iE Michael Hezarkhani video, slow motion.
(3) http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9GXR_FNuqOA Evan Fairbanks video, real time and slow motion.
http://video.google.com:80/videoplay?docid…999054184235899 Evan Fairbanks, slow motion.
(4) http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ZaiWEVdQQ Luc Courchesne video, real time.
http://uk.youtube.com:80/watch?v=9mxlmkkUvtI Luc Courchesne video, real time and slow motion.
Regards,
Joe Keith
Tustin, CA
In reply to Joe:
Joe’s Law is just your personal little sound bite, but has nothing whatsoever to do with science. If you cared at all about science, Joe, you would have discussed the effects of Kinetic Energy, which explains how a smaller less massive object can have an increasing power to penetrate a larger more massive object as its velocity is increased.
Your and Fetzer’s little sound bite regarding the way “the plane takes the same number of frames to fly its own length through thin air as it does to fly through the steel and concrete tower, thus violating Newton’s first and second laws of motion,” completely omits the effect of Kinetic Energy. You guys also don’t provide any calculations to back up your claims that Newton’s laws are violated.
You also forget to mention the fact that the tower is mostly empty air and the plane is passing through MOSTLY EMPTY AIR when it enters the tower and only a relatively tiny bit of concrete and steel.
But people have already explained this over and over again and you guys just keep pretending that you have never heard of this little thing called Kinetic Energy.
If you guys were at all interested in the truth, you would be taking an academic, scholarly approach and you would provide data and calculations to back up your bull shit claims. But you can’t. Because your claims are…well…bull shit.
Keenan, I have responded to this. Do you understand Newton’s laws? The building posed massive resistance. (Take a look at the diagram showing it impacting with eight (8) floors consisting of steel trusses filled with 4-8″ of concrete, which represented enormous HORIZONTAL resistance.) The plane does not even slow down. You like to compare it with a bullet, when there is no basis for such a comparison. A bullet is a small, dense object. An airplane is a large, empty shell. I’ve translated this into the language of kinetic energy, which is simply energy (or mass) in motion. The plane could not possibly have passed through those eight floors without a collision taking place in which the plane would have crumpled, its wings and tail broken off, and bodies, seats, and luggage fallen to the ground. That did not happen. You not only have not refuted “Joe’s Law” but don’t even seem to understand why it is important. Go back and reread my post about kinetic energy, because your lack of understanding of classical mechanics is tedious and boring.
(PilotsFor911Truth.org) – Since our article on WTC Aircraft Speed Analysis was written, more evidence has been gathered to reflect the research provided by Pilots For 9/11 Truth and in the film “9/11: World Trade Center Attack”. A more thorough understanding and explanation of why V speeds are established based on wind tunnel tests performed by the manufacturer is also available virtually making the need to gather documents from Boeing based on wind tunnel testing, moot. We already have their results of such tests in the form of the V Speeds they have established through wind tunnel testing required by definition as outlined in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics and all other related text.
The Argument – Reported speeds/control for the reported aircraft claimed -
“impossible”
“improbable”,
“The Elephant In The Room”
The Evidence
Data –
NTSB
Boeing – Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard in this recording saying 500+ mph at 700 feet is impossible.
(Interviewer asks -) “So there’s no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?”
Boeing Spokesperson – (Laughs) “Not a chance…”
Limits set by the
manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing
(IMG:http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f178/myphotos1960/767_V-G_Diagram_Illustrated_Guide_To_Aerodynamics.jpg)
The above is for a 767, reduce the speeds by 10 knots for a 757.
The speeds are based on the weight ranges in the A1NM Type Certificate data sheet which also give an altitude range.
VD = 420 KCAS to 17,854 ft/.91M above 23,000 ft, linear variation between these points.
The above diagram is good from sea level, up to almost 18,000 feet. Above that, the Vg diagram moves to the left. In other words, structural failure speeds are less in terms of Indicated at higher altitudes. Real pilots can see this as they climb. The Vmo indicator (Barber pole) actually moves to a lower airspeed once you climb above the crossover altitude. The reason for this is the aircraft is no longer limited by raw dynamic pressure, rather it is now becoming limited by the effects of Mach (both drag related, which is why EAS is calculated using Mach number and good to above Mach 2). A good explanation of this is shown here.
http://www.biggles-software.com/software/7…_40_vmo_mmo.htm
NASA Research
Precedent –
EA990 –
China Air 747SP
TWA 727
Simulator Reconstruction
Modified DC-8
All suffered in flight structural failure, crash and/or lost control and needed 10′s of thousand of feet to recover, well below Vmo+150…. or was modified to exceed it’s manufacturer’s set limits in the case of the DC-8.
Numerous verified experts –
Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, DC-8, L-1049, Learjet 24/25, L-188
Ground Instructor, Advanced Ground Instructor, Instrument Instructor, Flight Engineer Turbojet
Aircraft Dispatcher
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, My Aviation Expert LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
Commander Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international Captain with American Airlines.
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds
Command time in:
- N644AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 77)
- N334AA (Aircraft dispatched as American 11)
John Lear
Son of Bill Lear
(Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation)
More than 40 years of Flying
19,000+ TT
23 Type ratings
Flight experience includes 707, DC-8, 727, L10-11
Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
–USAF Accident investigation Board President
–Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
–Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
–Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
–Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways
Guy S. Razer, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time
F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop
Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch
USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor
NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator
USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot
Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea
All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer
Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor
MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
Dwain Deets
MS Physics, MS Eng
Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988)
Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics
Associate Fellow – American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Included in “Who’s Who in Science and Engineering” 1993 – 2000
Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
- Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace Technology
37 year NASA career
Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford
United States Marine Corps (ret)
A-4 Skyhawk, KC-130 (10,000+ Hours)
S-2, T-1, F9F, F-11, OV-10, T-2J
303 Combat Missions
Captain Paul A. Trood
B737-800/400 Captain
Qantas Airways
Australia
Experience: 18,000 flight hours
Jim Mustanich
ATP 20,000+ hours
Typed in CE-500, DHC-7, EMB-110, BA-3100
Aircraft flown include Boeing 727,737, Douglas DC-9, MD-80
United Air Lines, American International Airlines, Air Pacific Airlines, West Air Airlines
6-7 years corporate flying in Cessna Citations
Factory demo pilot for Cessna Citations
Ted Muga
Naval Aviator – Retired Commander, USNR
A/C experience – Grumman E-1 and E-2 ( Approx, 3800 hours )
Pan American World Airways – Retired Dec. 1991 ( that’s when PanAM went bankrupt )
Flight Engineer/First Officer — Boeing 707 & Boeing 727 ( approx. 7500 hours )
Col Robert Bowman
President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies
Executive Vice President of Millennium III Corporation
retired Presiding Archbishop of the United Catholic Church
101 combat missions in Vietnam
directed all the “Star Wars” programs under Presidents Ford and Carter
recipient of the Eisenhower Medal
George F. Kennan Peace Prize
President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace
Society of Military Engineers’ ROTC Award of Merit (twice)
Six Air Medals
Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech
chaired 8 major international conferences
one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security
independent candidate for President of the US in 2000
http://thepatriots.us
John Panarelli
friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski – Capt. AA #11
ATP: L-300, B-737, DC-10, DC-8, FE, TT=approx. 11,000 hours
USAF-C141-IP, Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery
Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo
More listed here – http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
Evidence for those who make excuse for the government story –
Opinion
“Because the govt told me so”
Aircraft Forensic Evidence – N/A
For those who make excuses for the government story –
Please let us know when you find one verified pilot (or precedent) willing to support your claims that a standard Boeing 767 can maintain control and stability at Vmo+150, Va+220 –and pull G’s– out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G’s cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25′ margin for error – for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn’t control a 172 at 65 knots. Please let us also know when you have any type of evidence for your argument other than opinion or “Because the govt told me so…”.
Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow. The need for a new investigation has never been more apparent.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.
can’t we rent some simulator time?
are we all totally broke, dependent on microsoft programs which tell us the control surfaces are not designed for such flight?
my own list of pilots well exceeds this…along with our oft published tests on the b52
however…..this is all an exercise in curiousity, no more
none of it leads to prosecution, executions for Bush and his thousands of little helpers, the overthrow of Israel’s kabal and bringing the dead back to life
g
I would gladly donate to such an effort! The Citizenry will not be immune to the effect of all this killing if they continue to go along with these horrific, murderous wars based on lies!!
IMPEACH Obama for the murder of Osama lookalike # 6, and complicity in the coverup of 9/11. NOW!
anything as long as bush does free….i do love him so
LOL!
Children, Children take some time out and cool down.
You’re all just speculating. Let’s look at a bullet. When it hits an object it decelerates, and when all is done, you find the whole entire intact but deformed bullet. You can’t claim it was a bullet with bullet wings and bullet rudder and bullet horizontal stabilizers and then when asked where is the bullet, you say “Well what do you expect, an airplane is mostly air and it just vaporized on impact!” You can’t have it both ways.
Let’s instead take on the facts as we know them rather than argue over guesses and uneducated hypotheses.
The Facts are:
— There were explosions in the basements of those towers >BEFORE< the real or fake aircraft impacts.
— In the history of buildings made of Concrete and Steel There has never been any buildings that self-demolished because of fire alone, much less turn almost completely into powdered dust in mid air, before even hitting the ground.
— The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) says that fires alone were responsible for the demolition and the aircrafts hitting the buildings are responsible for the start of the fires. Since that is the OCT, by default we can be fairly certain that fires did not do it, and the alleged Boeing aircrafts did not hit the buildings, although some other aircraft might have.
— On that very day there were Israeli agents driving parking and exploding car bombs all over the city of New York. By chance we heard of a few, so we can confidently guess that there must have been dozens more that never got reported.
— We were told that many cell phone calls were made from the airplanes, but then six years later the FBI admitted in a court that those Cell-Phone call claims were all lies. So who made the Phone Calls? Where the phone callers fake or the phone call receivers fake, or both? The phone calls were made to prove that the alleged airplanes where in fact in the air and they did in fact hit the buildings. So we can be certain that whatever hit the buildings, if any, was not the alleged commercial Boeing aircrafts.
— The Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) says that 19 cave men trained in the desert caves of Afghanistan came to US, did a "Suicide Hijacking" and called the United States Airforce and told them to stand down for the duration of their supposed attacks. Then after having killed themselves, many of these cave men, miraculously came back to life a few weeks later! Since that is the OCT, we can be certain that the alleged 19 cave men or hijackings or the alleged airplanes were not involved in this 911 magic show.
— Many of the High officials of the US government including those commanding the airforce, NORAD, FAA, and so on were later praised for a job well done! What job? Letting the alleged airplanes get through all the layers of US defenses and even going out of their way to help make the event take place??
These are the Facts, everything else is guess work. We know that The Official Conspiracy Theory claims are 100% lies and at times they are the opposite of the truth. We know that Israelis where intimately involved in the entire 911 incident from planning to execution to the cover up.
So rather than squabbling over what color airplane hit which building, why don't you all stick to the facts and stay away from the details that are at this time UNKNOWN to us all. We should demand to get some kind of real investigation done by some honest third party, such as several engineers and architects and criminal investigators from Iran. Let some group of investigators selected by an honest man such as Ahmadinejad or Chavez come to America and investigate this crime to find the fine details. Until then, lets stick to the facts and away from the speculation business. Speculation is okay, but keep reminding yourselves that you are now Speculating and stay away from believing your own speculations, as if they were proven facts.
As a reminder the facts are:
—- For the most part, the Israeli's and many American Jews planed and carried out the 911 attacks in the US.
—- All of what you have been told as the official story of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust are Lies and in most cases they are the opposite of the truth. In fact the Jews were deliberately and systematically killing everyone else, and not the other way around. 911 was their 21st century way of following in that age old tradition of starting wars that only benefit them and kill and maim everyone else.
—- Most of what has been told to you as "Historical Facts" are lies. That includes all the religions: Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and all the rest of them. Don't be gullible. Religious Gullibility is the "Gateway Drug" for the population and it is used to make the people more prone to believe other Official Conspiracy Lies.
Do you emotions if I quotation a great offer of one’s content articles or assessments as lengthy as I offer credit score ranking and means back again even now once more for your blog? My site on the net is inside the precise exact very same spot of wish as yours and my folks would undoubtedly benefit from some making use of the particulars you offer here. be sure you permit me know if this okay with you. Thanks! w ayshe16akd u.. amersom.AUG.
If I understand you correctly, the answer is “Yes!” You have my permission to repost my stuff. Let me know where it goes so I can keep track. Thanks!
Joe Keith sent a link to a nice study of the fakery involved in the Hezarkhani video of the South Tower: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882537/cnn_fake_sept_11_video_pumpitout_calls_wq2rx_michael_hezarkhani/ Anyone who hasn’t taken a good look at this issue might benefit from watching it make some key points.
I thought this quote was really fitting “Nothing can stop the man with the right mental attitude from achieving his goal; nothing on earth can help the man with the wrong mental attitude.” – Thomas Jefferson