John Lear Affidavit (To Chump, w/ Love)

[Parker2112]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS, on behalf of :
The United States of America :
Plaintiff, : ECF CASE
vs. :
: 07 CIV 4612 (GBD)
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS :
INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al :
January 28, 2008
Defendants. :

AFFIDAVIT

STATE OF NEVADA :
COUNTY OF CLARK :
JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

I.

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
2

Legions Post for "Soldiers of Fortune", 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.

II.

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, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546355. shtml)
3

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
4

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.
5

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.

[Parker2112]

III.

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:
6

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.
7

B. As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the cockpit. The 'clacker' is a loud clacking sound, designed to be irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning, impossible because of the noise and distraction.
C. Assuming, however, that the alleged hijacker was able to navigate into a position to approach the WTC tower at a speed of approximately 790 feet per second the alleged hijacker would have about 67 seconds to navigate the last 10 miles. During that 67 seconds the pilot would have to line up perfectly with a 208 ft. wide target (the tower) and stay lined up with the clacker clacking plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 767 maximum stability limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising irregular currents of air.
He would also have to control his altitude with a high degree of
precision and at the alleged speeds would be extremely difficult.
In addition to this the control, although hydraulically boosted, would be very stiff. Just the slightest control movements would have sent the airplane up or down at thousands of feet a minute. To propose that an alleged hijacker with limited experience could get a Boeing 767 lined up with a 208 foot wide target and keep it lined up and hold his altitude at exactly 800 feet while being aurally bombarded with the clacker is beyond the realm of possibility. [NIST claims a descent from horizontal angle of 10.6 degrees for AA11 at impact and 6 degrees for UA175; see page 276 of 462 in NCSTAR 1-2].
That an alleged hijacker could overcome all of these difficulties and hit a 208 foot wide building dead center at the north tower and 23 feet east of dead center at the south tower is simply not possible. At the peak of my proficiency as a pilot I know that I could not have done it on the first pass. And for two alleged hijackers, with limited
8

experience to have hit the twin towers dead center on September 11, 2001 is total fiction. It could not happen.

IV.

10. No Boeing 767 airliner(s) exceeded 500 mph in level flight at approximately 1000 feet on 9/11 as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors because they are incapable of such speeds at low altitude.
11. One of the critical issues of the 'impossible' speeds of the aircraft hitting the World Trade Center Towers alleged by NIST as 443 mph (385 kts. M.6, American Airlines Flight 11) and 542 mph (470 kts. M.75, United Airlines 175) is that the VD or dive velocity of the Boeing 767 as certificated by the Federal Aviation under 14 CFR Part 25 Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Transports of 420 kts CAS (Calibrated Air Speed) makes these speeds achievable. This is unlikely.
12. The 'Dive Velocity' VD is 420 knots CAS (calibrated airspeed)(483 mph). Some allege that this speed, 420 knots (483 mph) is near enough to the NIST alleged speeds that the NIST speeds 443 (385 kts.) mph and 542 mph (471 kts.), could have been flown by the alleged hijackers and are probably correct.
9

13. In fact VD of 420 knots (483 mph) is a speed that is a maximum for certification under 14 CFR Part 25.253 High Speed Characteristics and has not only not necessarily been achieved but is far above VFC (390 kts. 450 mph) which is the maximum speed at which stability characteristics must be demonstrated.(14 CFR 25.253 (b).
14. What this means is not only was VD not necessarily achieved but even if it was, it was achieved in a DIVE demonstrating controllability considerably above VFC which is the maximum speed under which stability characteristics must be demonstrated. Further, that as the alleged speed is considerably above VFC for which stability characteristics must be met, a hijacker who is not an experienced test pilot would have considerable difficulty in controlling the airplane, similar to flying a bucking bronco, much less hitting a 208 foot target dead center, at 800 feet altitude (above mean sea level) at the alleged speed.
15. Now to determine whether or not a Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 could even attain 540 miles per hour at 800 feet we have to first consider what the drag versus the power ratio is.
Drag is the effect of the air pushing against the frontal areas of the fuselage and wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Drag also includes the friction that is a result of the air flowing over these surfaces. If there was no drag you could go very fast. But we do have drag and there are 2 types: induced and parasite. Assume we are going
10

really fast as NIST and the defendants claim, then we don't have to consider induced drag because induced drag is caused by lift and varies inversely as the square of the airspeed. What this means is the faster you go the lower the induced drag.
What we do have to consider is parasite drag. Parasite drag is any drag produced that is not induced drag. Parasite drag is technically called 'form and friction' drag. It includes the air pushing against the entire airplane including the engines, as the engines try to push the entire airplane through the air.
16. We have two other things to consider: induced power and
parasite power.
Induced power varies inversely with velocity so we don't have to consider that because we are already going fast by assumption and it varies inversely.
Parasite power however varies as the cube of the velocity which
means to double the speed you have to cube or have three times the power.
17. So taking these four factors into consideration we are only concerned with two: parasite power and parasite drag, and if all other factors are constant, and you are level at 800 feet and making no turns, the parasite drag varies with the square of the velocity but parasite power varies as the cube of the velocity.
What this means is at double the speed, drag doubles and the power required to maintain such speed, triples.
The airspeed limitation for the Boeing 767 below approximately 23,000 feet is 360 kts [414 mph] or what they call VMO (velocity maximum operating).
11

That means that the maximum permissible speed of the Boeing 767 below 23,000 feet is 360 knots and it is safe to operate the airplane at that speed but not faster.
18. While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test it is only done so within carefully planned flight test programs. We can safely infer that most commercial 767 pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below 23,000 feet.
19. The alleged NIST speed of 443 mph (385 kts,) for American Airlines Flight 11 would be technically achievable. However the NIST speed of 542 mph (470 kts) for United Airlines Flight 175 which is 50 kts. above VD is not commensurate with and/or possible considering:
(1) the power available,* **
(2) parasite drag (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(3) parasite power (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(4) the controllability by a pilot with limited experience. 14 CFR Part 25.253 (a)(b)
* http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA063&rpt=fa
** http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/Certification_Register/PDF-tcds/PW/PW4000_FAA.pdf
20. Therefore the speed of the aircraft, that hit the World Trade Center, as represented by NIST, particularly that of United Airlines Flight 175 is fraudulent and could not have occurred.
12

21. One more consideration is the impossibility of the PW4062 turbofan engines to operate in dense air at sea level altitude at high speed.
The Boeing 767 was designed to fly at high altitudes at a maximum Mach of .86 or 86/100ths the speed of sound. This maximum speed is called MMO, (Maximum Mach Operating). Its normal cruise speed, however, is Mach .80 (about 530 mph) or less, for better fuel economy. (The speed of sound at 35,000 feet is 663 mph so 530 mph is Mach .7998 see http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.html.)
The fan tip diameter of the PW4062 which powered UAL 175 was 94 inches, over 7 feet in diameter making it, essentially a huge propeller.
This huge fan compresses enormous amount of air during takeoff to produce the thrust necessary to get the airplane off of the ground and into the air.
At high altitudes, in cruise, where the air is much thinner and where the engines are designed to fly at most of the time, the fan and turbine sections are designed to efficiently accept enormous amounts of this thin air and produce an enormous amount of thrust.
But at low altitudes, in much denser air, such as one thousand feet, where the air is over 3x as dense as at 35,000 feet, going much faster than Vmo or 360 knots, the air is going to start jamming up in the engine simply because a turbofan engine is not designed to take the enormous quantities of dense air at high speed, low altitude flight. Because of the much denser air the fan blades will be jammed with so much air they will start cavitating or choking causing the engines to start spitting air back out the front. The turbofan tip diameter is over 7 feet; it simply cannot accept that much dense air, at that rate, because they aren't designed to.
So achieving an airspeed much over its Vmo which is 360 knots isn't going to be possible coupled with the fact that because the parasite drag increases as the square of the speed and the power
13

required increases as the cube of the speed you are not going to be able to get the speed with the thrust (power) available.
It can be argued that modern aerodynamic principles hold that if an aircraft can fly at 35,000 ft altitude at 540 mph (~Mach 0.8), and for a given speed, both engine thrust and airframe drag vary approximately in proportion to air density (altitude), that the engine can produce enough thrust to fly 540 mph at 800 ft. altitude.
That argument fails because although the engine might be theoretically capable of producing that amount of thrust, the real question is can that amount of thrust be extracted from it at 540 mph at 800 ft.
22, To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540 mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust required and it's not possible because of the engine fan design which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into it.
23. I am informed that the lawsuit for which this affidavit is intended is in its preliminary, pre-discovery phase. I am further informed that actual eyewitness statements cast considerable doubt on the jetliner crash claims, irrespective of the media-driven impression that there were lots of witnesses. In fact, the witnesses tend, on balance, to confirm there were no jetliner crashes. I am also informed that information that will enable further refinement of the issues addressed in this affidavit will be forthcoming in discovery including, without limitation, the opportunity to
14

take depositions and to request relevant documentation (additional information). When that additional information is obtained, I will then be in a position to offer such other and further opinions as, upon analysis, that additional information will mandate.
24. At this stage, it cannot properly be assumed, much less asserted
as factual, that wide-body jetliners crashed into the then Twin Towers of the WTC. Any declaration that such events occurred must be deemed false and fraudulently asserted, video images notwithstanding.
Notes:
1. On any chart plotting velocity versus either drag or thrust required or power required the parasite value rises sharply after 300 kts,
2. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust or power required the curves rises sharply after 250 kts.
3. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust required at sea level, the curve rises dramatically above 200 kts as does the curve for power required.
I swear the above statements to be true to the best of my knowledge.
_/s/ John Olsen Lear___________
John Olsen Lear
1414 N. Hollywood Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89110-2006
Subscribed and Sworn to before
me this 24 day of January 2008.
/s/ Connie Jones______________
Notary Public/Appt Exp. 11/22/09

[Parker2112]

Chump: Debunk that or stfu. I didnt say discredit. I said debunk.

[ChumpDumper]

For every lear there are dozens of pilots that say it was possible.

I am sure it has been discusses in the randi forums by several pilots . I am also sure you would never read them.

[TSA]

Interesting stuff to say the least.

I know nothing about what he is talking about technically, but is he correct?

[ChumpDumper]

Wow. Google his name and holograms.

Will look at the meat of it when I am home. I am sure the op can't do it on his own.

[Parker2112]

The weakness in the 9/11 terrorist attack theory is that these guys, who had never been in planes even close to these, managed to fly them with such precision, precision that started hundreds of miles away from the targets, and required full on concentration in the face of the warning alarms that would not allow it, to strike targets that were comparitively microscopic in the grand scheme. Not to mention the planes' limited capabilities.

[Parker2112]

You want the "tin foil hat" crowd to provide your lazy ass with a narrative that all but delivers a guilty verdict. Touche Chump.

[SA210]

Parker owning chump, per par

[Parker2112]

And they struck the targets dead on, 100% accurately, 3 times. With "drone-like" precision. But yeah, I know the MIC would never fathom using drone airplanes to create panic in the populous that follows a Pearl Harbor/Remember the Maine type incident. Who could even fathom bullshit like that?

[AntiChrist]

Wow. Dude lays out an impressive resume and then turns out to be a No-planer?

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[AntiChrist]

John says he became a ‘no-planer’ after realizing the technical impossibility of many of the aspects of the generally accepted hijacker story. He was also briefed by two retired Lockheed-Martin scientist-engineers on the status of secret state-of-the-art holographic projections which he was told projected real-time solid images with light, heat and sound onto thin air.

John says he believes the only reason people are plane-huggers is that they are technologically ignorant and that if they could be briefed on state of the art high-tech that they would graduate to no-planer status.

John has been active in the UFO field since 1985. His research of the cover-up led his to many other cover-ups which are currently called Conspiracy Theories.

Some of Conspiracies he is investigating include:

Alleged cold war
Fukashima
Katrina
TWA 800
USAIR 427
UAL 585
America Airlines 587
Arrow Air (Gander 1985)
Air France 447
Global warming
Osama bin Laden assassination
Kennedy, Oswald
War Against Drugs
Pyramids
911
U.S.S.Scorpion, U.S.S.Thresher
Hiroshima atomic bomb
Siegfried & Roy
Religion
Challenger
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
Newton’s Second Law
Cold Fusion





:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

For every lear there are dozens of pilots that say it was possible.

I am sure it has been discusses in the randi forums by several pilots . I am also sure you would never read them.Parker didn't even try to get a different perspective.

This is why truthers are idiots and liars.
I assume this is John Lear of the Lear Jet. [note from pomeroo: the loon in question, who believes that aliens inhabit the moon, is the son of the inventor of the Lear jet.] It's important to keep in mind that, just because one may be an engineer, does not mean that one's opinions must be accepted without support. That goes for me as well.

Having said that, most of his comments are valid, but they are also irrelevant.

Mr. Lear is correct in stating that at low altitudes, an aircraft would probably be "Q-limited," i.e. limited by dynamic pressure, rather than Mach-limited. However, this is only true for sustained and level flight. The two limits are different. The Mach limit is a limit of control authority, whereas the Q-limit is a limit of thrust versus drag. If you exceed the Mach limit, you are likely to break up or lose control. If you exceed the Q-limit, you will simply slow down until your engines can keep up with the speed. There are other limiting factors, some destructive, such as the thermal or vibrational/frictional limit, but we need not concern ourselves with these.

The reason none of these are relevant is because our aircraft is not in sustained, level flight. It is diving steeply from 20-odd thousand feet, and it needs only to keep these speeds at low altitude for a few seconds. Inertia and gravity become factors that push the aircraft's maximum transient speed well above its maximum sustained speed.
Again, as Egypt Air 990 proves, by demonstration, it is possible for a Boeing 767 to exceed 600 MPH at sea level, for a brief period of time if you do not care about flying the aircraft ever again. The one-sigma upper bound for the highest speed claimed of any of the September 11th aircraft is only 561 MPH (if I remember correctly, see NCSTAR1-2B), according to NIST. There is, therefore, no question whatsoever that the speeds claimed are achievable. The only counter-argument possible is to claim Egypt Air 990 is also a government cover-up.

The comments below regarding dive speed VD are more relevant, since they too consider control limits rather than thrust limits and thus do not only apply in level flight. However, it is still not a good fit to this problem. In a dive that pilots intend to recover from, one would not necessarily go to full throttle and try to increase speed. It is also not true that exceeding VD leads to a "bucking bronco" effect -- it may or may not. What is more likely is that control authority will decrease due to stalling of the control surfaces. The ride may be reasonably smooth. Compare, for instance, the events of China Air 006, which actually managed to recover and land safely, despite breaking the sound barrier and diving at over 30,000 feet per minute.
It is also completely reasonable to expect a Boeing 767 to remain controllable beyond the VD speed, so long as you don't try anything terribly complicated. There is considerable margin in the design. The limiting factor beyond this speed may be survival of control surfaces, etc., rather than the entire aircraft going to pieces immediately. It takes no imagination at all to suppose a 767 could remain flying, and controllable, for only a few tens of seconds outside the normal operating envelope. The limits here are certification limits, not physical limits.

The notion that an individual familiar with aircraft could actually propose the terminal moments of AA175 were physically impossible is hard for me to swallow. I can also only assume that Mr. Lear believes the combined workforce of Boeing, not to mention their competitors, are part of the imagined conspiracy. That is a very large conspiracy indeed.

Thanks,
Ryan Mackey

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121821

Right where I said it would be.

[boutons_deux]

Why People Believe in Conspiracy Theories

Did NASA fake the moon landing?

Is the government hiding Martians in Area 51?

Is global warming (http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=global-warming-and-climate-change) a hoax?

The answer to these questions is, “No,” yet a committed subculture of conspiracy theorists vigorously argues the opposite.

Many scholars dismiss conspiracy theorists as paranoid and delusional. Psychological data bolster their case: people who harbor conspiracist thoughts are also more inclined to paranoid ideation and schizotypy, a mild form of schizophrenia. As conspiracy theory expert Timothy Melley of Miami University has put it, these beliefs are often dismissed as “the implausible visions of a lunatic fringe.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories

[TeyshaBlue]

ohn says he became a ‘no-planer’ after realizing the technical impossibility of many of the aspects of the generally accepted hijacker story. He was also briefed by two retired Lockheed-Martin scientist-engineers on the status of secret state-of-the-art holographic projections which he was told projected real-time solid images with light, heat and sound onto thin air.

John says he believes the only reason people are plane-huggers is that they are technologically ignorant and that if they could be briefed on state of the art high-tech that they would graduate to no-planer status.

John has been active in the UFO field since 1985. His research of the cover-up led his to many other cover-ups which are currently called Conspiracy Theories.

Some of Conspiracies he is investigating include:

Alleged cold war
Fukashima
Katrina
TWA 800
USAIR 427
UAL 585
America Airlines 587
Arrow Air (Gander 1985)
Air France 447
Global warming
Osama bin Laden assassination
Kennedy, Oswald
War Against Drugs
Pyramids
911
U.S.S.Scorpion, U.S.S.Thresher
Hiroshima atomic bomb
Siegfried & Roy
Religion
Challenger
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
Newton’s Second Law
Cold Fusion
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao
:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


Well, he might be on to something with Siegfried & Roy.:lmao

[Blake]

Ok, i haven't read anything yet. I just want to say that I'm willing to lay money down that this thread is a fail for Parker.There's just no way it can't be with a thread title like that.

Will read and confirm a little later.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, i haven't read anything yet. I just want to say that I'm willing to lay money down that this thread is a fail for Parker.There's just no way it can't be with a thread title like that.

Will read and confirm a little later.In short, he believes that holograms hit the towers and the investigators purposely concluded that one of the holograms hit a tower going faster than the recommended operational speed of a 767 so no one would ask any questions about it later.

Common Sense™.

[Parker2112]

That only addresses the theoretical possibility, not the feasibility given the pilots skill level, and it only addresses a single point out of many. Keep grasping for someone else to do it for you Chump.

[Parker2112]

Boutons too intimidated to do anything but wish bad thoughts away, lol...

[AntiChrist]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jCiQVnbwfc


:lol

[boutons_deux]

Boutons too intimidated to do anything but wish bad thoughts away, lol...

you stalking me, too?

[Parker2112]

It doesnt say shit about holograms. P.s. its way too early to start with bullshit, you have yet to pose a single argument Chump!

[AntiChrist]

Can holograms carry jet fuel?

[AntiChrist]

How did they produce the jet sounds for the holograms?

[boutons_deux]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE82r4ycQs4

[Parker2112]

Discrediting, laughing smilies, intimidation, cya...anything to keep bad thoughts away, lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Well, that and the Ryan Mackey rebuttal. Yeah.

[Parker2112]

Lol holographic strawmen...

[Parker2112]

See above. That was a single point, and doesnt prove shit!

[TeyshaBlue]

Actually, there appear to be several points in Mackey's rebuttal.

[ChumpDumper]

Parker didn't read any of it.

He never does.

Parker. It's a long affidavit.

List the points you want debunked so you won't move the goalposts every time I post something. If you are interested in finding the truth, tell me what you actually want to know. You now know that it is entirely possible for a 767 to go that fast and still be controllable at that altitude.

What else do you want to know?

Go.

[Parker2112]

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

Debunk.


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

Debunk.


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.


Go.


No Boeing 767 could attain 540 mph speed at 1000 feet
above sea level because of parasite drag which doubles with velocity and parasite power which cubes with velocity.



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.


Do it to it.


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.

Ditto.


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.


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

have at it.


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.

Phone a friend.


As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the cockpit. The 'clacker' is a loud clacking sound, designed to be irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning, impossible because of the noise and distraction

Truth or dare.


Assuming, however, that the alleged hijacker was able to navigate into a position to approach the WTC tower at a speed of approximately 790 feet per second the alleged hijacker would have about 67 seconds to navigate the last 10 miles. During that 67 seconds the pilot would have to line up perfectly with a 208 ft. wide target (the tower) and stay lined up with the clacker clacking plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 767 maximum stability limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising irregular currents of air.


Doesnt sound very likely to me. Bucking bronco plane haulin' this much ass?


He would also have to control his altitude with a high degree of
precision and at the alleged speeds would be extremely difficult.
In addition to this the control, although hydraulically boosted, would be very stiff. Just the slightest control movements would have sent the airplane up or down at thousands of feet a minute.

These doods pulled off a miracle o wut.



To propose that an alleged hijacker with limited experience could get a Boeing 767 lined up with a 208 foot wide target and keep it lined up and hold his altitude at exactly 800 feet while being aurally bombarded with the clacker is beyond the realm of possibility.

Prove otherwise.


At the peak of my proficiency as a pilot I know that I could not have done it on the first pass. And for two alleged hijackers, with limited8 experience to have hit the twin towers dead center on September 11, 2001 is total fiction.

best of luck on that chump.

next post.

[Parker2112]

I dont guess Mackey touched on more than...oh...5% of those issues? Or less? Get some help. This is THE weak link. These pilots were not capable of striking three bullseyes under these conditions, Allah at the controls scenario notwithstanding. So while you beat the "tin foil hat" crowd with your ameteur engineering analyses and avoid building 7, you have no explanation as to how these ridiculous clown-pilots pulled off crack manuevers three times without even a hint of fail.

Or can you?

[Parker2112]

To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540 mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust required and it's not possible because of the engine fan design which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into it.


go.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's a document from a pilot that focuses on the Pentagon strike.

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

Read it and tell me if it answers any of your basic questions.

[ChumpDumper]

To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540 mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust required and it's not possible because of the engine fan design which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into it.
go.go.See, this is why I say you don't read anything.

I already answered this.


You didn't read it.

You don't read anything.

Why should I give you things to read if you don't read them?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm going to skip his guesses about the structure of the towers because he is in no position to speak about their strength.

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

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.These are all saying the same thing.

He ignores the parts that were recovered, including engines and landing gear.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/World_Trade_Center%2C_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/WtcUA175debris.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Engine_parts_of_flight_175.jpg/775px-Engine_parts_of_flight_175.jpg

He simply underestimates the power with which the plane hit the building since much of the debris was found blocks away. That explains why he thinks sections would just bounce off the building.

Since he gets even the simplest, most wikiable fact of 9/11 like airplane debris wrong -- does that give you any pause about supporting this guys views?

[Parker2112]

you didn't answer shit. you cut and pasted some shit. You know I can cut and paste shit from 9/11 pilots for truth myself. I read the stuff. Did it refute Lear's points specifically? Go. Point for point.

[Parker2112]

Have you even touched the structural strength of the wings? At the Attachment points? I didn't think so. I would say good try, but ...not.

[ChumpDumper]

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 conditionsThere is no evidence the pilots were killed in the manner Lear dreamed up, so he just can't take it as fact.

As the pdf I posted showed, anyone familiar with the autopilot and basic gps navigation could get it going in the right initial direction. These hijackers were familiar with them.

[Parker2112]

Have you addressed recovery of engines?

[Parker2112]

Initial direction does not = dead center at 10 miles a minute. Try again.

[Parker2112]

They were killed with boxcutters. not a dream. not Lear's imagination. How much blood is spilled when you kill a person with a box cutter, chump? Go.

[ChumpDumper]

you didn't answer shit. you cut and pasted some shit. You know I can cut and paste shit from 9/11 pilots for truth myself. I read the stuff..No, you don't. You cut and paste other things and tell me to debunk them but cry foul when I paste an answer and you don't read it.


Have you even touched the structural strength of the wings? At the Attachment points? I didn't think so. I would say good try, but ...not.Why do attachment points matter at the point of impact? The wings are still going 500+ MPH and if they had time to break off that means they would be going faster than the fuselage that was still going inside the building.

[Parker2112]

Lets keep in mind you have acknowledged government conspiracies involving the use of drone aircraft flown by remote control on prior threads. Keep going though.

[Parker2112]

You don't read shit, Chump. When the cone begins telescoping the energy begins to immediately dissipate. Will a hollow piece of aluminum traveling at 500mph slice through a steel beam of this size?

[Parker2112]

No, you don't. You cut and paste other things and tell me to debunk them but cry foul when I paste an answer and you don't read it.

Why do attachment points matter at the point of impact? The wings are still going 500+ MPH and if they had time to break off that means they would be going faster than the fuselage that was still going inside the building. lol wily coyote physics.

[ChumpDumper]

They were killed with boxcutters. not a dream. not Lear's imagination. How much blood is spilled when you kill a person with a box cutter, chump? Go.There is no report on exactly how or where the pilots were killed and Lear has done no experiments on blood spatter in a cockpit.

[ChumpDumper]

Lets keep in mind you have acknowledged government conspiracies involving the use of drone aircraft flown by remote control on prior threads. Keep going though.Lear says they were holograms. Not drones.

Do you believe they were holograms or drones?

[Parker2112]

Given his experience in the cockpit, Id take his opinion over many. Including you.

[Parker2112]

Ive seen a government plan laid out with sigs from all joint chiefs planning loading cia operatives, then replacing the plane with a drone. given that I think clown pilots like these are incabable of ace manuevers like these, drone at a minimum. Waiting on your debunking skills to tell me what Im allowed to believe though.

[Parker2112]

This affidavit never says anything about holograms. Cite? Oh wait...you might want to debunk something first

[Parker2112]

I applaud your efforts thus far. College try and all. You still havent convinced an unbiased jury that clown pilots can do this sort of shit though.

[ChumpDumper]

Given his experience in the cockpit, Id take his opinion over many. Including you.Hoe many men has he murdered in cockpits?


Ive seen a government plan laid out with sigs from all joint chiefs planning loading cia operatives, then replacing the plane with a drone. given that I think clown pilots like these are incabable of ace manuevers like these, drone at a minimum. Waiting on your debunking skills to tell me what Im allowed to believe though.You can believe whatever stupid bullshit you want to.


This affidavit never says anything about holograms. Cite?3jCiQVnbwfc

(Sorry, he calls them holographs, My bad.)


Oh wait...you might want to debunk something firstYou haven't read anything.

[ChumpDumper]

I applaud your efforts thus far. College try and all. You still havent convinced an unbiased jury that clown pilots can do this sort of shit though.You aren't an unbiased jury.

And you didn't read what I posted.

[Parker2112]

So this guy is making it even harder to imagine these clowns could pull this off. They have to dive to reach speed before pulling off a massive pull up, going straight at completely level trajectory? Dude just cast more.doubt on clown pilot success. Sorry bro.

[ChumpDumper]

So this guy is making it even harder to imagine these clowns could pull this off. They have to dive to reach speed before pulling off a massive pull up, going straight at completely level trajectory? Dude just cast more.doubt on clown pilot success. Sorry bro.They had to descend and gravity helped them achieve that speed.

Saying they were going straight at a completely level trajectory is disingenuous at best. Their actions were the actions of bad pilots. Hani Hanjour hit stuff on the ground before hitting the Pentagon. Good drone pilots wouldn't have done those things. Sorry, bro.

[Parker2112]

How did he just not increase difficulty tremendously? Way to prove mycase for me via cut and paste.

[Parker2112]

No error significant to leave debris on the lawn or compromise his aim. Drones get shit done.

[Parker2112]

Lear is making the only feasible case for clown pilots. Your guy shows the possibility, but destroys the feasibility.

[ChumpDumper]

How did he just not increase difficulty tremendously? Way to prove mycase for me via cut and paste.How did he increase difficulty tremendously? You let the autopilot take you to the target area, then you manually line it up to hit the target.


No error significant to leave debris on the lawn or compromise his aim. Drones get shit done.There was plenty of debris on the lawn and the highway. You didn't read about that either.

Have you read anything about 9/11 aside from this John Lear affidavit?

Serious question.

[ChumpDumper]

Lear is making the only feasible case for clown pilots.No. Lear is talking about holographs.
Your guy shows the possibility, but destroys the feasibility.How?

Be specific about his paper.

[Parker2112]

Autopilot wont pull you out of a radical descent meant to push your plane beyond its recommended top speed. I know that. You know that.

[Parker2112]

Do you even understand what your guy is saying here? Speeds r only possible if your descending, and then once your ay speed you can pull your plane out for a short distance while lining up last sec at 10 mp second?

[Parker2112]

so the plane is beyond its rated speed, diving, making all kinds of noise, buzzer going off, bloody controls, and your clown pilots pull up for a last seconds straight away approach with a bucking bronco plane and hit dead on the money two for two? DIDNT HAPPEN THAT WAY. Sorry.

[Parker2112]

More than happy to read your materials and explain the implications to you though, chump.

[Parker2112]

Got stuff to do broseph. Be back tomorrow.

[ChumpDumper]

Autopilot wont pull you out of a radical descent meant to push your plane beyond its recommended top speed. I know that. You know that.It didn't.


Do you even understand what your guy is saying here? Speeds r only possible if your descending, and then once your ay speed you can pull your plane out for a short distance while lining up last sec at 10 mp second?Right. Not really last second tbh. It's not like they weren't trying to crash a plane.


so the plane is beyond its rated speed, diving, making all kinds of noise, buzzer going off, bloody controls, and your clown pilots pull up for a last seconds straight away approach with a bucking bronco plane and hit dead on the money two for two? DIDNT HAPPEN THAT WAY. Sorry.He sure did explain how it could have happened pretty easily, didn't he. Got you a little upset that it wasn't holographs.

There was a Chinese airliner that broke the sound barrier on an uncontrolled descent and they pulled out of it. Fucked up the plane, but that's why there are operational limits (not the same as physical limits).


More than happy to read your materials and explain the implications to you though, chump.I don't expect you to have an open mind about any of it. I expect you to make up shit like blood soaked controls.

[ChumpDumper]

Got stuff to do broseph. Be back tomorrow.You never answered if you agree with Lear that it was "holographs."


Do you think it was holographs?

[Parker2112]

But they didnt have to hit bullseye on such a small target under such horrendous conditions. Could the clowns pull out of such a descent? Yeah. Could they do it and hit dead on target? Hell-fuggin-no.

[ChumpDumper]

But they didnt have to hit bullseye on such a small target under such horrendous conditions. Could the clowns pull out of such a descent? Yeah. Could they do it and hit dead on target? Hell-fuggin-no.In what way are the twin towers and Pentagon small?

Give me some comparisons to things you consider to be larger targets.

[Parker2112]

Even though you you dont think I have a right to question the official propoganda line until I have every thread thread and loose end tied (wtf is wrong with that logic?!?!), I have questions. And holographs are not the answers. But unlike you, Im ok with ambiguity, and accepting what I dont know. You and the crew have a burning need to believe all questions are answered, case closed, gubment doesnt lie, and agents within the gubment never conspire. I know gubment agents conspired to shit like this 50 years ago. You do too, actually. And the technology is much more conducive to those aims now than it was then. And the profits are much richer these days too.

[Parker2112]

Twin towers at 208 ft wide? 767 at 170 ft wide?

[ChumpDumper]

Even though you you dont think I have a right to question the official propoganda line until I have every thread thread and loose end tied (wtf is wrong with that logic?!?!), I have questions. And holographs are not the answers. But unlike you, Im ok with ambiguity, and accepting what I dont know. You and the crew have a burning need to believe all questions are answered, case closed, gubment doesnt lie, and agents within the gubment never conspire. I know gubment agents conspired to shit like this 50 years ago. You do too, actually. And the technology is much more conducive to those aims now than it was then. And the profits are much richer these days too.You have the right to ask questions, but you really should look for answers yourself and not act like a helpless child.

Seriously, if you are taking Lear's affidavit as gospel, you can't think a drone hit the buildings either -- they would have acted just like any plane.

So they weren't planes or drones according to what you believe -- then what do you think actually hit the buildings?

[ChumpDumper]

Twin towers at 208 ft wide? 767 at 170 ft wide?So it's wider than the runway at Bergstrom.

Nice.

Thanks again.

[Parker2112]

Shoving straw into my mouth? I have never said this is impossible. Im saying its undoubtedly impossible for clown pilots to pull off three times flawlessly. Even the Italian pilot you cited said there would be a high probability for error. Drones dont handle bloody controls. They dont have minimal flight hours. They dont give a damn bout no stinking buzzers. They fly as good as the guy behind the joystick...who is not subject to environmental stressors.

[Parker2112]

Landings happen at 540mph? You reaching hard, chump.

[SA210]

:lol no black boxes

[ChumpDumper]

Shoving straw into my mouth? I have never said this is impossible. Im saying its undoubtedly impossible for clown pilots to pull off three times flawlessly. Even the Italian pilot you cited said there would be a high probability for error. Drones dont handle bloody controls. They dont have minimal flight hours. They dont give a damn bout no stinking buzzers. They fly as good as the guy behind the joystick...who is not subject to environmental stressors.The first thing you wanted debunked was Lear's contention that it wasn't a plane of any kind -- drone or not.

I am glad to point out the implications of your posts.


Landings happen at 540mph? You reaching hard, chump.Just showing they aren't the tiny targets you make them out to be.

[Parker2112]

A plane can land itself. A plane cant pull out of descent at 540-580mph and hit a target on cue. Your arguments are less than weak. They are not even comparable.

[ChumpDumper]

A plane can land itself. A plane cant pull out of descent at 540-580mph and hit a target on cue.The paper just proved it could. You incredulity is not an argument.

[Parker2112]

Your working with the short end of the stick defending these clown pilots' capabilities. A for effort. No debunking yet though.

[ChumpDumper]

Your working with the short end of the stick defending these clown pilots' capabilities. A for effort. No debunking yet though.No defense necessary, they didn't have to be good pilots to so this. All their actions show they were pretty bad pilots tbh.

If neither a plane nor a drone hit the buildings, what do you say hit the buildings?

[Parker2112]

I meant autopilot. As in hands free. Not capability. For the record, an experienced pilot with no blood or clacking could pull off this manuever OCCASIONALY. Clown pilots? It would take luck, Allah, and a seasoned pilot to get er done.

[Parker2112]

Straw man bullshit. Who said no drones? Ive shown drones were LIKELY.

[ChumpDumper]

I meant autopilot. As in hands free. Not capability. For the record, an experienced pilot with no blood or clacking could pull off this manuever OCCASIONALY. Clown pilots? It would take luck, Allah, and a seasoned pilot to get er done.Whose word are you taking one this?


Straw man bullshit. Who said no drones? Ive shown drones were LIKELY.Drones are planes made of the same stuff that planes are made of. Lear said they can't be planes.

You painted yourself into a corner -- they can't be planes of any kind if you believe what Lear wrote.

What do you think hit the buildings?

[Parker2112]

Operation Northwoods gave me the plot. Its drones dude. The plot is drones, CIA agents boarding fake flights, a Remember the Maine type incident, and a clear path to unending war. You have asked for loose ends tied up and I just spent two threads setting the table for you. W/ love.

[ChumpDumper]

Operation Northwoods gave me the plot. Its drones dude. The plot is drones, CIA agents boarding fake flights, a Remember the Maine type incident, and a clear path to unending war. You have asked for loose ends tied up and I just spent two threads setting the table for you. W/ love.Drones are planes. What part of that do you not understand? Drones would do the same damage Lear claims is impossible and you accepted that claim.

Lear said no plane hit the buildings, so it you believe Lear, no drone hit the buildings.

[Parker2112]

Drones can be modified anyway you want. Like I said, the technology is 50 years further along than when gubment agents originally concocted this bullshit. That shit could have been a cruise missile dressed like a 767 for all I know.

[ChumpDumper]

Drones can be modified anyway you want.Prove that claim. I'll need a link showing a drone can be modified in such a way and why anyone would bother to make a drone act not like a plane when it hits a building.
Like I said, the technology is 50 years further along than when gubment agents originally concocted this bullshit. That shit could have been a cruise missile dressed like a 767 for all I know.How did they load passengers onto a cruise missile?

[Parker2112]

I believe in the Holy Trinity. I agree with John Lear sometimes.

[ChumpDumper]

I believe in the Holy Trinity. I agree with John Lear sometimes.So you no longer believe what he said about tail and wing section impacts?

OK, that's fine.

[Parker2112]

The drone replaces the actual aircraft midflight. Didnt you read operaion Northwoods? You never read.

[ChumpDumper]

The drone replaces the actual aircraft midflight. Didnt you read operaion Northwoods? You never read.So where does the plane go?

Where do the hundreds of passengers and dozens of crew go?

[Parker2112]

I dont believe a normal unmodified plane would slice through 14" steel like butter, even after it begins to collidescope, slow and break apart....Wile E. Coyote physics nothwithstanding. Bit then again, I dont think it was a normal passwnger plane to begin with.

[ChumpDumper]

I dont believe a normal unmodified plane would slice through 14" steel like butter, even after it begins to collidescope, slow and break apart....Wile E. Coyote physics nothwithstanding. Bit then again, I dont think it was a normal passwnger plane to begin with.Why do engineers all over the globe believe they can?

What do you think should have happened?

You haven't proved that drones are modified to do things like that.

I'm still waiting on that.

[Parker2112]

Read Operation Northwoods for answers to your questions about passengers. They schemed it all out in that pdf. Dont you read stuff?

[ChumpDumper]

Read Operation Northwoods for answers to your questions about passengers. They schemed it all out in that pdf. Dont you read stuff?I did read it. They never said anything about anything like that. They talked about making up charter flights and their passengers. Nothing about taking over real commercial flights and their passengers and crew.

[Parker2112]

Drones can be the size of mosquitos or rockets or commercial airliners. No proof necessary.

[ChumpDumper]

Drones can be the size of mosquitos or rockets or commercial airliners. No proof necessary.So you give up.

It was a nice try, but you still went off the rails pretty quickly.

[Parker2112]

They talked about shooting down drones posed as commercial flights. They had a plan to cover commercial passengers and loading. Go back and read it again.

[Parker2112]

I dont have to pull aviation engineering out of my ass. Although I wouldnt put that past YOU.

[ChumpDumper]

They talked about shooting down drones posed as commercial flights. They had a plan to cover commercial passengers and loading. Go back and read it again.Perhaps you should read it again.
It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama, or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[14] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the United States what has happened to the aircraft instead of the United States trying to "sell" the incident.So again, when were the passengers switched?

The plane never landed.

[ChumpDumper]

I dont have to pull aviation engineering out of my ass. Although I wouldnt put that past YOU.I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to prove that drones are built specifically to look like planes but not act like actual planes when they hit buildings.

[Parker2112]

Not commercial. Chartered. But they took the time to load CIA passengers. If they are willing to sacrifice commercial passengers, drone is not ruled out at.all.

[ChumpDumper]

Not commercial. Chartered. But they took the time to load CIA passengers. If they are willing to sacrifice commercial passengers, drone is not ruled out at.all.Read it again.

They weren't going to sacrifice anybody.

[Parker2112]

My point is that it could have easily been a one off. I dont need another example. Gubment has capable engineers and rocket scientists too. Again...no proof necessary

[Parker2112]

In the 60's. That you know of. We are in the 2000's. And you have no idea whether they would sacrifice anyone to the cause of perpetual war or not.

[ChumpDumper]

My point is that it could have easily been a one off.It gets less easy the more you try to explain it.
I dont need another example. Gubment has capable engineers and rocket scientists too. Again...no proof necessaryWhy do you demand proof from everybody else?

[Parker2112]

Sleep tight chump.

[ChumpDumper]

In the 60's. That you know of. We are in the 2000's. And you have no idea whether they would sacrifice anyone to the cause of perpetual war or not.You have no idea either. Just wild speculation you feel you don't have to prove is even possible.

[Parker2112]

Debunking is not proof of anything else than error. Why do you demand proof before questions can be asked (fucked up logic!?!?!?!)?

[ChumpDumper]

Debunking is not proof of anything else than error. Why do you demand proof before questions can be asked (fucked up logic!?!?!?!)?I asked for proof of a claim you made.

That was the question.

[Parker2112]

Prove that clown pilots were capable of these feats under the xonditions laid out by Lear, or forever stfu.

Thats sarcastic but its an application of your very own logic as applied to the tin foil crowd. And its bullshit both ways

[ChumpDumper]

Prove that clown pilots were capable of these feats under the xonditions laid out by Lear, or forever stfu.
Thats sarcastic but its an application of your very own logic as applied to the tin foil crowd. And its bullshit both waysWhen did i ever tell you to stfu?

I want to you keep talking. You are beginning to realize how ridiculous Lear's arguments are. You're the one trying to shut down the conversation by saying no proof is necessary for your claims.

[Parker2112]

Did Einstien prove the theory of relativity before he proposed? Or proposed before proof? Y or N.

[ChumpDumper]

Did Einstien prove the theory of relativity before he proposed? Or proposed before proof? Y or N.Please stay on topic.

We're talking about your theory.

What happened to the passengers? Where were the planes switched?

[SA210]

Debunking is not proof of anything else than error. Why do you demand proof before questions can be asked (fucked up logic!?!?!?!)?

:lmao That's his elementary tactic where he can try best to feel better and pretend to win something. Making his own rules and assumptions and then asking questions based on them. hahaha

[Parker2112]

Lear doesnt argue drones. I do. Lear provides overwhelming evidence that discredits clown pilots as being capable of going 3 for 3. Try and keep all these facts straight going forward.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao That's his elementary tactic where he can try best to feel better and pretend to win something. Making his own rules and assumptions and then asking questions based on them. hahahaYour tactic is not talking about the actual subject and only talking about me.

[ChumpDumper]

Lear doesnt argue drones. I do.I asked you about your drone theory.

[Parker2112]

The truth is, 1) clown pilots pulling off three strikes of extreme difficulty with 100% success is extremely extremely unlikely. Do you argue this? And, 2) beyond that we are limited to conjecture. Of which I dont have time for at the moment. I have a couple more INTERESTING thead topics to drop.

[ChumpDumper]

The truth is, 1) clown pilots pulling off three strikes of extreme difficulty with 100% success is extremely extremely unlikely. Do you argue this?Explained in the pdf I posted. Define "extremely, extremely."
And, 2) beyond that we are limited to conjecture. Of which I dont have time for at the moment.You have time for it until you are questioned about it. Then you get flustered and try to change the subject.

Lear had time for conjecture. He said they were holographs.

You cited a man who said the buildings were hit by holographs.

[Blake]

why is there no wikipedia entry for John Lear?

[AntiChrist]

Were the hijackers doing barrel rolls or just flying straight into enormous objects?

[Parker2112]

You didnt read much, eh? In this thread, I mean...

[AntiChrist]

YR-RMEZDgCY