Reply With Quote
Well, that and the Ryan Mackey rebuttal. Yeah.
Discrediting, laughing smilies, intimidation, cya...anything to keep bad thoughts away, lol
Well, that and the Ryan Mackey rebuttal. Yeah.
Lol holographic strawmen...
See above. That was a single point, and doesnt prove !
Actually, there appear to be several points in Mackey's rebuttal.
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 al ude.
What else do you want to know?
Go.
Debunk.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
Go.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.
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.Do it to it.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.
Ditto.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.have at it.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
Phone a friend.The alleged hijackers were not 'instrument rated' and controlled high al ude flight requires experience in constantly referring to and cross-checking at ude, al ude 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.
Truth or dare.As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the pit. 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
Doesnt sound very likely to me. Bucking bronco plane haulin' this much ass?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.
These doods pulled off a miracle o wut.He would also have to control his al ude 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.
Prove otherwise.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 al ude at exactly 800 feet while being aurally bombarded with the clacker is beyond the realm of possibility.
best of luck on that chump.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.
next post.
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?
go.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.
Here's a do ent 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.
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?
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 buildingMassive 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.These are all saying the same thing.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.
He ignores the parts that were recovered, including engines and landing gear.
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?
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 09-12-2013 at 07:18 PM.
you didn't answer . you cut and pasted some . You know I can cut and paste from 9/11 pilots for truth myself. I read the stuff. Did it refute Lear's points specifically? Go. Point for point.
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.
There is no evidence the pilots were killed in the manner Lear dreamed up, so he just can't take it as fact.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
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.
Have you addressed recovery of engines?
Initial direction does not = dead center at 10 miles a minute. Try again.
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.
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.
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.
You don't read , 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?
lol wily coyote physics.
There is no report on exactly how or where the pilots were killed and Lear has done no experiments on blood spatter in a pit.
Lear says they were holograms. Not drones.
Do you believe they were holograms or drones?
Given his experience in the pit, Id take his opinion over many. Including you.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
