Flight 175 Turning And Burning, ...i`ve never seen this before! Options

[dMz]

So is it safe to say that the vertical windows in the towers were 2 feet wide?

Well amazed,

according to the upper left picture at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/spandrel.jpg

(IMG:http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/spandrel.jpg)

that 3'4" "center" minus 13" ~= 27". That's purty durn' close to 2 feet. Let's also keep in mind that this is a "networked" 13-14" structural steel column, times several hundred. And why am I still doing everyone's research/math here? ;)

[amazed!]

You are doing MY math because you're much better at it than I. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

Thanks, and I had thought from my previous thumbnail calculations that 2 feet was close.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[bill]

John Lear a no - planer


911 -Two Patriots
And Two Traitors?
Lear and Keith vs. Dewdney and Eastman
12-13-8

----- Original Message -----

From: Dick Eastman
To: Dr. A.K. Dewdney ; Joseph Keith ; John Lear
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:45 PM
Subject: Two Patriots and Two Traitors? Lear and Keith vs. Dewdney and Eastman


Two Patriots and Two Traitors
Which pair is right about 9-11?




John Lear writes:

From: John Lear
To: oldickeastman@q.com
Cc: 'Jeff Hill' ; 'Scott' ; 'Nico Haupt' ; 'Judy Wood' ; 'Rosalee Grable' ; 'Gerard Holmgren' ; 'Joseph Keith' ; 'Morgan O. Reynolds'
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:20 AM
Subject: no planer list

Dick,

Please include me when you refer to 'no planers'. I am a card carrying and certificated no-planer.


I have a 50 years background in aviation and hold more FAA certificates than any other airman which means I know a lot about airplanes and airplane crashes.

No airplane and specifically no Boeing 767 hit either the north or South tower of the WTC on 911. Neither did Flight 175 approach the south tower at 540 mph. That is a physical impossibility according to a rules of aerodynamics specifically outlined in Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators (NAVAIR 00-80T-80) issued by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations relating to drag and thrust requirements.

I would respectfully request you cease to spout your nonsense about airplanes crashing into the World Trade Center. It didn't happen. It couldn't happen. It's total nonsense.

Merry Christmas and thanks for your anticipated acknowledgment and cooperation.
John Lear



Dick Eastman replies:

Dear John,

Take all the airline pilots and all of the experts on airplane crashes and all of the physicists and all of the engineers in the world -- all of them know something about the WTC and all of them have had some degree of interest in the attacks and interest in this classic case. We are talking about an Everest of experience and a Niagra of analysis -- the weight of your word on this subject must be weighed against the authority of all of that opinion who have not been persuaded by the evidence either that 1) the the holes in the buildings were not made by jetliners; 2) the fifty video recordings of crashes are all cranks; 3) that somehow the south side of the south tower exploded less that one hour after North Tower was hit in New York City and no one captured a plane- less explosion on that side and no witness who was on the south south of the tower and looking at the buildings reported seeing the south side explode without a plane hitting. How do you think the conspirators could get away with not hitting south tower with a plane after so many people and cameras were following the hit on North Tower? And how do you account for the airplane debris at the base of the crash?





Do you think Lear Jets would be in danger if you came out agreeing with Dr. A. K. Dewdney and Dr. Steven Jones that the collapse of the towers and the pre-crash bombs and the multiple missiles at the Pentagon are the real proof of false-flag terrorism and that "no- planes" is merely a red-herring disinformation psy-op to confuse, distract and discredit the real investigators by association with a deliberately absurd and perfectly transparent hoax.

Seems like Lear Jets is weathering the economic cyclone pretty well. I guess your customers aren't too adversely affected by the Kleptastrophe. By exactly what servicer are you buying this protection for your Dad's company? Is your letter to me you way of reminding the new administration of the valuable service you still provide and that that service is still needed to neutralize justice seekers like me? Do you need to remind them of what an important
favor your "no-plane" smoke-screen is to them?

Let this letter be the verdict of all reasonable people in the question of John Lear, patriot or traitor.

If an honest investigator had your resources the world would know the truth by now.

You have the money to stage a four-way debate, John -- allowing both sides to freely distribute unedited videos of the proceedings after it is over. Why don't you? Or don't you care about the issue that much?

Yours sincerely,
Dick Eastman


Joseph Keith writes:

From: Joseph Keith
To: oldickeastman@q.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 7:02 AM
Hey Dick,

... Dick, are you the same guy that used to claim that airliners could meld right into steel and concrete building if the flew fast enough!!! Please advise me!!!

Joseph M. Keith
Tustin, CA

http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&..._planer_resigns


Dick Eastman's reply to Joseph Keith:

From: Dick Eastman
To: Joseph Keith
Cc: Barb Honegger ; Carol A. Valentine
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:14 AM
Subject: Re: Obama

Look at a picture of the WTC at night to see how much glass was combined with the air and steel and light (lots of air bubbles) concrete.

The no-planes hit the towers is disinformation to hide the multiple conclusive lines of real evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, that the Pentagon was bombed before the less-than 50' foot object hit the wall as the 757 in American Airlines livery flew over the building and landed at Reagan International just one mile beyond.

I know the originators of the no-planes deception -- Webfairy and Holmgren -- and I have caught them in many deliberate misrepresentations of the evidence. I also know Haupt and I am a very old aquaintance of Morgan Reynolds -- and I have shown that these two also are frauds.

Dr. Judy Wood I am accusing of involvement in the shooting murder of a graduate-student 9-11 researcher who I think learned too much about her involvement in this black-op disinformation campaign when in her office -- he was shot in the head twice when walking down the sidewalk with two women -- the women were not harmed.

Your name sounds familiar -- another "no-planer" most likely. I'm too frazzled by economic events to keep track of all of you.

At any rate, you have the answer to your question.

Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington


http://www.rense.com/general84/dsse.htm

[tumetuestumefais...]

Maybe it would sound weird, but designedly I think an airplane could "melt" into WTC building.

As Amazed pointed out, there was much space of windows there and the box columns of the perimeter were strong and heavy enough to "chunk" the plane like a "gigantic potato chopper". As some say, the planes are just flying "biercans". So the outer columns of WTC would just shred'n'rip them into strips'n'chunks of metal which most probably would continue their journey into the inside of the building. The fact, that the hole in the WTC2 was much less wide (<30meters) than the B767 wingspan (46,5 meters) actually supports this my assumption - the outer ~7 meters of wingtips could just not break the outer columns - it is not a speculation, it is a fact that they were not broken, we don't need Gage to confirm this - but the wingtips would not bounce out - their remains would - in such a speed - just continue (a bit slowed then) their movement into the inside of the building ("flow around" the outer collumns - if I should use the "terminology" of the popmechanics (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) ) - and it would be in a good accord with the conservation of momentum law. With all the respect Rob, it would have nothing with an "arc strongeness" even going back to Romans or that you always bump your head in it. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) The entering edge of a jetliner wing - if it would face a steel column of a centimeter steel at such a speed - would just be instantly shredded as everything else of the plane except engines and landing gear legs. I think we can take it for granted. As Skyarcher showed it can be pretty damaged even if it hits a bird.

Also with all respect, I must say what Skyarcher uses for support of the NPT are in my opinion mostly just unconvincing speculations which can sometimes even well serve to support a complete opposite. So I don't wonder it was moved in non-public when the authenticity of the video was so questioned... I think the video C.I.A. posted can well show a real plane entering that "wall" (which in fact on most of its surface was windows) of that real building.

But I think we should come back to the original amazement of Amazed. - Could a civil plane be so banked and sharply descending and turning when allegedly flying at such a speed ?? Would the airframe, not speaking about the alleged pilots withstand the forces? I'm not an aviation engineer, but if I remember it well, you've counted the G's recently for the "north path" hypothesis. So I would suggest to do the same for the final maneuvre of "UA175" in the next volume of the Pandora Black Box. - Maybe it would be an interesting question to be answered... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) (Some in my opinion serious modellings of the "UA175" final flightpath based on videos did eg achimspok> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4vqOPXxwGo - it looks to me like a pretty sharp bank'n'turn in such a speed)

[tumetuestumefais...]

But I think we should come back to the original amazement of Amazed. - Could a civil plane be so banked and sharply descending and turning when allegedly flying at such a speed ?? Would the airframe, not speaking about the alleged pilots withstand the forces? I'm not an aviation engineer, but if I remember it well, you've counted the G's recently for the "north path" hypothesis. So I would suggest to do the same for the final maneuvre of "UA175" in the next volume of the Pandora Black Box. - Maybe it would be an interesting question to be answered... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) (Some in my opinion serious modellings of the "UA175" final flightpath based on videos did eg achimspok> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4vqOPXxwGo - it looks to me like a pretty sharp bank'n'turn in such a speed)

I mean the last § was respectfully addressed to Rob.

[rob balsamo]

Good question tume... i'll be looking into it for the next film...

Try to get me some numbers you think are reasonable in terms of bank angle, speed, possible "pull up" radius.. etc. PM them to me though... dont post them here as the lurking spin machine will be in full force.

[painter]

Lordy, I can't believe someone resurrected a question about the OP video AGAIN! WE've gone over this SO many times here in this forum. NPT/VF, etc. all culminating with everyone just deciding to believe or not believe whatever the hell they want. WHICH IS COMPLETELY FINE with the perps because they don't care what we think one way or the other so long as our debates never bursts the "reality bubble" they have so carefully constructed in the collective American mind.

@ skyarcher (or what ever): You are wasting your time. This is old news here. We've been over this many times in the last two years. Yes the military has the capacity to interfere with video and audio broadcasts as they occur. Yes, the images of the plane "melding" into the building are problematic. The up shot is, none of us have either the data, time, money, software, computing power or expertise in structural engineering and fluid dynamics to generate an accurate model of this event to determine more conclusively whether or not what was presented was faked. The rest of it is just speculation and is useless. We're beyond that now. We're no longer interested in opinions. As has been pointed out to you several times, when you find witnesses that will go on public record regarding what they saw or didn't see on 9/11, then we'll take what you're saying more seriously. That, or get us a million dollar grant to create those computer models we need.

[BaNoyes]

How many different videos and pictures are there of this? Too many to count, I reckon.

The most unusual part for me is and always has been why the aircraft was descending and turning.

I think the reason is that it was a drone having locked on to some homing signal just in the last few seconds. It almost missed the building completely, and does not appear to have involved the center core structure.

The aluminum airframe was shredded by the steel building.

"The aluminum airframe was shredded by the steel building."
nothing shows this "shredding,nothing, nothing on the ground,but an incorrect engine

The aluminum airframe was shredded by the steel building,but
the explosion took place some secs later INSIDE the building!

The plane was a cartoon