Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers US Will Have To Rebut Or Accep

Freewill

Platinum Member
Oct 26, 2011
31,158
5,072
1,130
I assume that this has been posted before, did not see it if it was. What was the verdict? It would be nice if he said what we saw on the video was not what we saw and explain what it was we saw.

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.
  • The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
  • 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 at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.
  • No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine 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.
Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth THE INTERNET POST
 
Some of these kooks that worked in our government, is rather scary. Hopefully that is why he is ex, they saw him losing it and let him go- not that he was a kook while working for the govt.
 
Ya cause after all those films of it happening, the eye witness statements and all that were faked, right?

Does not seem plausible so why do you think he is saying what he said? Other then his speculation about how a plane should react in an accident? What about the parasitic power?
 
Ya cause after all those films of it happening, the eye witness statements and all that were faked, right?

Does not seem plausible so why do you think he is saying what he said? Other then his speculation about how a plane should react in an accident? What about the parasitic power?

Probably just his way of saying his foil hat is on too tight.
I don't what bug is up his arse but I have often noticed that many 9/11 CTs are also very keen on blaming the Jooos.
 
‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.
But It can, and does, at a cruising altitude of 35 or 38 thousand feet where the air is thinner.

It can't at lower altitudes because as mentioned, the air is too thick and the parasitic drag is too high.

A jet turbine engine will also have trouble sucking in air at 1,000 feet at those speeds too.

By the way the VMO (Never Exceed Speed) for a 767 is 360kts.

Vne = Prop Planes
Vmo = Turbines
 
Ya cause after all those films of it happening, the eye witness statements and all that were faked, right?

Does not seem plausible so why do you think he is saying what he said? Other then his speculation about how a plane should react in an accident? What about the parasitic power?

Probably just his way of saying his foil hat is on too tight.
I don't what bug is up his arse but I have often noticed that many 9/11 CTs are also very keen on blaming the Jooos.

He is just not another 911 truther, so it would seem
 
NIST says the 767 was doing 451 mph when it impacted the towers but it can't attain that speed unless at altitude.

Ok.
 
‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.
But It can, and does, at a cruising altitude of 35 or 38 thousand feet where the air is thinner.

It can't at lower altitudes because as mentioned, the air is too thick and the parasitic drag is too high.

A jet turbine engine will also have trouble sucking in air at 1,000 feet at those speeds too.

By the way the VMO (Never Exceed Speed) for a 767 is 360kts.

Vne = Prop Planes
Vmo = Turbines

The max air speed is the same as the speed limit on the highway. It might be 55 MPH but your car sure can go faster. Obviously a 767 can go faster, now are we talking Air Speed or Ground Speed?
 
Well sure it can go faster... for a while... before it destroys itself. Imagine trying to flya giant airliner into a building at Vne while the whole plane is shaking and lurching (or whatever it does) Now imagine doing that with only training on Cessna's and Simulators.

I saw this video a few days ago and one thing really caught my attention. I'm an FAA Certified Aircraft Mechanic and I have worked on twin turbo props and smaller Regional Jets at a SoCal Regional Airline before (I'm out of that industry now).

John Lear mentioned Stick Shakers at high speeds would interfere with the ability to fly the plane. Well, he is a Gov't Pilot with many thousands of hours in many types of planes but from my experience, stick shakers are for low speed and stall events not high speed. Now maybe the 767 does have High Speed shakers but I haven't found any evidence that it does.

Maybe someone else can?
 
But of course, as RGS pointed out, many people saw the planes hit the towers. So if no planes actually hit then there must be a way to project say, a giant 3D Hologram into the sky like "Project Bluebeam" that the US Gov't has been working on for decades.

 
But of course, as RGS pointed out, many people saw the planes hit the towers. So if no planes actually hit then there must be a way to project say, a giant 3D Hologram into the sky like "Project Bluebeam" that the US Gov't has been working on for decades.



If the planes did not hit the WTC, the following would have had to occur.

Something looking like a plane hit the WTC or was a holograph. At the exact same time at the same place the hologram was projected when up in flames. a hologram of the cutout of the airplane would have had to be projected for an hour. Of course the huge amount of those involved would have to be sworn to secrecy. The manifest of the planes would need to be faked along with fake dead people and people willing to file law suits.

Just too big, I am thinking that a 767 can go that fast, we saw one do it.
 
I saw both planes hit with my own eyes.

It happened.
And I believe you when you say so.

The events of 9/11 are not in question good Doctor. Exactly what happened, how they happened and the Official Explanation is in question.

Fair Enough?
 
Perhaps the planes were holograms and the explosions were real? I don't know.

Then we get into how a 110 story building can "pancake" itself all the way to the ground when the top portion of one of the buildings fell off to the side. "Pancake" is the official NIST Explanation.

But If the top portion fell off to the side, what made it "pancake" the rest of the way? Can you tell me?

If both buildings really did pancake then this is a fake photo (courtesy Popular Mechanics):

911-south-tower-collapse.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 911-south-tower-collapse.jpg
    911-south-tower-collapse.jpg
    51.3 KB · Views: 80
I assume that this has been posted before, did not see it if it was. What was the verdict? It would be nice if he said what we saw on the video was not what we saw and explain what it was we saw.

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.
  • The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
  • 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 at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.
  • No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine 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.
Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth THE INTERNET POST

Nice strawman. Assert an incorrect stat then rip it apart and seem to stupid people that you're right.

" The UA jet was clocked a 311mph, and the AA 757 at the Pentagon 345mph. "
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top