Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175

Simulator Proves “Impossible Speed” was “probable” for Flt 11 and Flt 175

By John Bursill – Licensed Avionics Aircraft Engineer, Boeing 767/737/747 Series


For most 9/11 Truth Advocates the question of what hit the World Trade Centres on 9/11 is valid, though it is generally accepted likely that it was as reported, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175. It has been suggested by some that the aircraft were drones or military cargo aircraft, but this hypothesis has failed to develop beyond some anomalies found in the grainy video of that day and a few witness reports. This ambiguous evidence of something other than AA11 and UA175 was predominantly brought to light by Dave von Kleist in his popular film “In Plane Site”. Von Kleist asked questions about the flights that hit the WTC; in particular, what he suggested was an appendage to the lower fuselage of Flight 175. He argued that this appendage or “pod”, as it came to be known, was not consistent with a standard Boeing 767-200 and could indicate a military aircraft. While interesting and not being dismissed by many pilots and industry professionals, this argument has been left behind by most as inconclusive and problematic. I for one have never dismissed out of hand the possibility that aircraft were swapped on the 11th of September 2001, but have chosen to accept the official version due to a simple lack of clear evidence of another.

Just when we seemed to move on, a much more problematic suggestion of “no planes” hitting the WTC on 9/11 raised its head in 2008. This assertion was thought completely ridiculous and immediately dismissed by the vast majority of the 9/11 Truth Movement, many of whom in New York City knew people that saw the planes. Unfortunately, a small minority of people picked up the issue as the “real truth” and dug in their heels. Rather than seeing this hypothesis as a possible disinformation campaign to distract the public from the real questions and to discredit our movement in general, some found it plausible and took great offence to it being ignored. In their minds, the censorship we all oppose about 9/11 Truth was apparently being used on them. I and many other researchers did not think the issue would have any traction at all due to its ludicrous nature and were surprised when we saw a very vocal group fighting hard for this hypothesis to be considered both scientific and as based in evidence. Obviously, this was helped by the usual suspects, Reynolds, Fetzer, Haupt, et al., getting behind the campaign. The "no planers" produced films, did interviews with “experts” (?) and moved to attack our best web sites proclaiming us, the “non-no plane” believers as agents, idiots, gatekeepers and fools. This is when some of us put aside important work to nip this hysteria in the bud, by debunking the claims made.

Examples of the work of advocates of the no-plane at the WTC theory are easy to find! Some of the more prominent ones are films such as “September Clues” and more recently “Continuos Pieces – 9/11”. There have been many articles pulling these films and ideas to pieces, so that now we can say the hypothesis of video fakery, holograms and implausible debris are obviously false, even to the gullible layperson, if fully considered. There was only one thing that I saw as an argument that still had some legs--the “impossible speed” of AA11 and UA175.

Impossible Speed of AA11 and UA175?

It was after viewing a YouTube of an interview done by Project Camelot with pilot John Lear talking about “no planes” (found here that I became extremely concerned! Lear stated during this interview that AA11 and UA175 demonstrated “impossible speed”. This obviously needed to be addressed and debunked, especially due to the fact Lear was an experienced and qualified pilot. I spent a day and debunked his video in an e-mail I sent out widely, which was also posted on the Net. Unfortunately, the problem persisted due to Lear being a member of “Pilots for 9/11 Truth” and the logistical difficulty of proving his “impossible speed” argument clearly false. Consequently this interview was still seen by many as credible regarding the capabilities of the 767-200, thereby keeping the “No Planers” alive a little longer.

I thought I could solve this problem by addressing the need to revoke Lear’s membership at Pilots for 9/11 Truth as a way of undermining his credibility. So I wrote to Robert Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, to discuss this video and Lear’s membership. He subsequently refused my request to remove him from Pilots for 9/11 Truth and actually defended his right to his opinion, as he was “qualified to have it.”

Lear brought up one other issue that I found very concerning in this interview which I will mention here briefly. Lear stated that remote control of a 767-200 was basically impossible. This statement, made as if fact, then gave credence to his no plane argument (straw man). I agree it would be truly very difficult to hit those towers in a 767 at that speed, even for an experienced pilot, using just manual control. Luckily this statement had little or no credibility, as most well informed researchers know Boeing had flown aircraft themselves during testing by remote control and it is well known that Autopilot Systems these days can do nearly anything. From my own experience as an Avionics Engineer I know that the installation of such a system is no big deal at all. (See for technology plausibly used on 9/11.) I personally believe the most likely scenario was the use of remote control via a remote flight management program and parts of the aircrafts autopilot system, with the aid of GPS; for all the hijacked flights on 9/11.

Let’s now get to the question of Lear’s statement regarding the “impossible speed” at which both AA11 and UA175 were flying, according to official reports. Here are the simple facts relating to the Boeing 767-200’s AA11 & UA175 on 9/11;

1. The speed of the aircraft that hit the WTC was officially reported as between 500mph and 560mph ground speed, calculated by the observed point to point distance covered over time.
2. A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively.
3. The speed of sound at approximate sea level is 761 mph on a standard day. Therefore the theoretical maximum speed the 767-200 can reach intact is, conservatively, .86 x 761mph = 654mph or approximately 100mph above the officially reported speed of AA11 or UA175.
4. The 767-200 is an aircraft that’s considered highly powered due to its requirement to function with only one engine for ETOPS - Extended-range Twin-engine Operational Performance Standards. It is capable of taking off fully loaded with only one engine.
5. Lear’s argument: The normal maximum operating speed at sea level is 360Knots/h (Nautical miles) which equates to 415mph (a lot less than seen on 9/11). It is not, as Lear stated in his interview 360mph, which is considerably less. This maximum operating speed (Indicated) used is something that is decided by Boeing in conjunction with the operator and is not a structural or performance limit; rather it has been determined to be a safe speed at which to operate with commercial passengers on board and to prevent the need for increased maintenance.
6. The 767-200 is considered by pilots and aviation professionals to be a “slick” or “low drag” aircraft, being without bulbous construction and with highly swept 31.5 degree wings. It is well known that it is difficult to keep the 767 aircraft from over-speeding during decent; due to its low drag/high power configuration.

Considering all of these facts we are still left with the question: Can a 767-200 make 560mph ground speed at sea level or the equivalent of .74 of Mach speed? We know that it is definitely within its design parameters and that it can do so at high altitude (not in question), but can it do this at sea level (higher air density)? Considering that 560mph is 145mph faster than its recommended maximum operating speed (Lear’s argument), it is simply not possible to test this speed in a commercial 767-200 aircraft; it would be against the aircraft manufacturer’s recommendations, outside of standard company operating procedures and against the authorities’ rules (FAA in US). For these reasons we will not see a 767-200 attain 560mph in operation unless it is in the middle of an aircraft incident or accident. The only way to test this is in an accredited Full Flight Simulator.

Boeing 767-300 Simulator Experiment on the 29th of April 2009

The idea of using a Full Flight Simulator accredited by the FAA or relevant authority to test the maximum attainable speed for a Boeing 767-200 is only possible if you have the thousands of dollars it costs to hire such or access to one through your vocation. Well it just so happens that during my training in Sydney I worked in our Simulator Centre as a technician where Australian 767 pilots are trained and certified. The simulators are extremely busy and it is difficult to get access during the day or evening. On the 29th of April, after I had completed my work for the night shift, I drove to the Simulator Facilities at our Flight Training Centre at the Jet Base. I rang the nightshift maintenance staff and gained access to the building at just after 3am on the 29th of April 2009. Being licensed on the 767 and familiar with the facilities, I asked if I might access the simulator under the supervision of the technician on duty, Daniel Gazdoc. He agreed to help and I explained what I wanted to do and why.

We boarded the simulator (#2) which was configured as a GE powered 767-300 (marginally different from the 767-200, being a little longer and a bit heavier) and booted up the computers, placing the aircraft at 2000ft above Sydney (This altitude was set to prevent us hitting any obstacles if I lost control, resulting in an insignificant 6mph difference compared to AA11 and UA175; that is compared to Mach speed). We set the aircraft weight to 130,000kgs (286,000 pounds), approximately what it would have been on Flight 11 and 175; that is, lightly loaded. We pulled the aural warning circuit breakers on the overhead panel so that we would not be annoyed by configuration and over-speed warnings during our test. I sat in the pilot’s seat and pushed the throttles to the stops, maintaining wings level and a flat trajectory. To my surprise, within a few seconds we had exceeded the maximum operating Indicated Air Speed of 360Knots/h (415mph); then the needle continued to rise until it hit the stop on the indicator at over 400Knots/h (460mph). At this very fast speed you only have the Mach indication to go off, as IAS (Indicated Air Speed) is off the scale. The aircraft continued to increase speed until it reached .86 Mach (654mph), which is its rated airframe Mach speed limit. This makes complete sense, as the manufacturer does not want you to exceed this but wants you to have the maximum thrust available in case of emergency. At this air speed I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain my attitude once the aircraft was trimmed.

Originally thinking I was going to have to do a dive to attain the speeds of AA11 and UA175 due to the engines possibly struggling to make enough thrust, I thought it would be good to see what speed we could achieve in a shallow dive. We took the aircraft to 10,000ft and I commenced a 5 degree dive to 2,000ft and found that the aircraft attained and maintained a speed of .89 Mach (approaching 700mph) and was reasonably easy to control for a non-pilot. We did these tests a couple more times to be sure and then at about 3:45am I left the simulator. Daniel was happy for me to record his name.

How accurate are Full Flight Simulators and how does the 767-300 compare to the 200?

The flight simulator in which I carried out this test is considered to be an exact representation of the real aircraft. It takes into account all of the test data gathered during the initial flight testing of the 767-200/300 and ongoing data gathered from Flight Data Recorders and observed performance. The instrumentation is exactly the same as the actual aircraft and can be put into service in a real aircraft. The performance of the aircraft engines and the aircraft’s structure are modelled so that a pilot can remain current without doing as many actual flight hours. Basically it is fair to say that what you can do in the simulator can be done in real life, especially as relates to thrust, lift and drag.

After doing this test I then spent a few days on the flight line checking whether the average 767 pilot thought that the engines could achieve .86 Mach at sea level considering what I found in the sim. Mostly they agreed--due to the exceptional power to weight ratio of the 767 series, and its low drag airframe, it was probable it could do just that. I also asked the older pilots that flew in the Pratt and Whitney (JT9-7R4) powered 767-200 series aircraft if those aircraft were similar to fly to the 767-300 General Electric (CF6) powered aircraft they now fly (current simulator configuration). They said they were very similar, having a little less power but being a little shorter and lighter, thus giving them nearly exactly the same power to weight ratio. Once again this was no surprise to me as this is what the manufacturer does--matches the airframe to the power plant to meet the performance specifications which are basically the same for 200 and the 300 series Boeing 767.

Conclusion: Is it probable that the 767-200 can make 560mph at sea level?

It is highly probable that AA11 and UA175 could easily make the airspeeds quoted in the official reports and as seen in the video footage. Here is a summation of the facts;

1. The aircraft were seen to make those airspeeds on September 11, 2001. This has never been questioned by any peer reviewed paper or team of experts, so it stands as fact.
2. The aircraft were well within their structural limit of .86 Mach by a margin of .12 Mach or approximately 14%; flying at maximum of reported speed of .74 Mach.
3. The simulator test carried out on an actual certified Full Flight Simulator (the best available), in a fully accredited pilot certification facility, showed that the 767 aircraft can reach an airspeed of .86 Mach in a flat trajectory at approximate sea level. It was also shown that .89 Mach could be achieved in a similar shallow dive as seen made by AA11 and UA175 on 9/11. These results show far greater speeds possible than the required official airspeed of 560mph or .74 Mach by some 16% at the minimum and 20% if the actual flight conditions were simulated in a shallow dive.
4. Considering the large margins demonstrated here, we can now conclude that the “Impossible Airspeed” stated by John Lear et al. is false.

Obviously there will be the usual suspects that may complain that I have not caught this on film and I have left out some of the details of exactly where I did this test (you can figure it out). I have done this because I like my job and our campaign is not part of my function there. What I would say to the “No-Planers” is why don’t Lear et al. hire a simulator and prove me wrong. I would have thought that John Lear, being a rich, well-connected pilot so outspoken on this issue would have already done so.

It is my hope that this puts the final nail in the “No Planes at the World Trade Centre on 9/11” hypothesis and we will see an end to this great time waster!

Thanks to..

Thanks to Janice Matthews and Frank Legge with their assistance editing this article.

Thanks also to Bob Bowman for confirming my assumptions and findings and also answering some questions on aircraft structure in relation to the speed of sound.

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Show "Jim Fetzer replies but must be reading another article!" by John Bursill


Amidst all of Fezter's epic inane blubbering, it's especially sickening to note that he is actively participating in the stalking and harassment of Canadian actor Mark Humphrey. This is the kind of behavior that is implicitly endorsed by all who remain on these lists. I've heard it's like pulling teeth to get your name removed but it seems like it would be worth the effort to do so if one's credibility is even the slightest consideration.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

thanks John

fascinating article, thanks for taking the time to conduct the experiment and write the article.

I downvoted the Putzer comment cuz it's so long- it's worth a skim as an education in disinfo, though

I've come...

To the conclusion that most of the people we have problems with probably aren't "COINTELPRO," but instead, are individuals who like the attention they get from promoting nonsense. In their mind, good attention or bad attention is fine so long as it's attention. A media that is not friendly to 9/11 Truth, and debunkers will obviously promote these individuals at every opportunity. Whether or not it's "COINTELPRO," i honestly don't know.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Airplane not as vulnerable as bird!

Mr. Fetzer's statement about bird strikes gives insight into his runaway imagination and his tendency to play with the facts.

"To put it in Mensa terms that even the most brilliant minds can understand, the mass of a concrete and steel building is denser than the mass of a bird, and hitting a bird causes immense damage to an airplane. If a plane cannot pass through the feathers, extremely light bones, and some soft internal organs of a bird, it cannot pass through a much denser building."

Fetzer paints an absurd image of "Mighty Duck" who boldly crushes oncoming airplanes with its clenched wings!

I'm an airline pilot so I'm speaking from direct experience. It is true that bird strikes can cause significant damage under certain circumstances. However, bird strikes are common occurrences (unfortunately). Most bird strikes do not lead to major structural damage or catastrophic failure. It depends on the size of the bird, the speed of the airplane and the location of impact. We had a major strike several years ago at my airline in which an airplane hit two large ducks. One hit the windshield and the other the nose cone, both vulnerable areas. While the damage to the airplane was significant, I can tell you that the damage to the ducks was catastrophic. What remained was some feathers and virtually liquified duck. So for Mr. Fetzer to say that "a plane cannot pass through the feathers, extremely light bones, and some soft internal organs of a bird" is just plain silly. Since that incident 7 years ago, there have been hundreds of bird strikes at my small regional airline, most of which caused no damage to the airplane at all.

So while it's true that some bird strikes can cause catastrophic failure to an airplane, it is certainly NOT true that any of the bird victims maintain any semblance of structural integrity at all.

Easy Test To Determine The Truth Of Flight 175

One can easily confirm if Flight 175 is or isn't real or CGI (it's real!). Perform a digital analysis of the underside of the craft. If the digital analysis confirms anomalous reliefs (and I'm not talking about the POD! Though that would show up too in a digital analysis) on the underside of the craft, then it is a real aircraft. Why? Because a CGI fake would be a fake of a commercial 767, not a fake of another sort of aircraft.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief
Washington, DC

Thanks John. I especially

Thanks John.

I especially note this:

>>I thought I could solve this problem by addressing the need to revoke Lear’s membership at Pilots for 9/11 Truth as a way of undermining his credibility. So I wrote to Robert Balsamo, the head of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, to discuss this video and Lear’s membership. He subsequently refused my request to remove him from Pilots for 9/11 Truth and actually defended his right to his opinion, as he was “qualified to have it.”

Yet another red flag for the Pilots group.

I know there are some good pilots in the group, so I tend to wonder why they don't just start their own group when there is this kind of support for mis- or dis-information at the top, especially when members are posting videos online that will misinform the public.

That Pilots -- or Rob Balsamo (hard to imagine the group as a whole agrees with this) -- supports keeping Lear as a group member, even when he is openly promoting false claims (and implicitly saying they are not false claims), is just another reason to reconsider promoting this group to the public. Ultimately, the rest of the movement will end up discredited.

The no planes at the WTC claim was long ago rejected but was embraced by some of the most obvious hoax advocates in the movement, Morgan Reynolds and David Shayler.

Refuted at these articles:

Letter added to A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
Eric Salter; March 21, 2007; Journal of 9/11 Studies

A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories
Eric Salter

Shayler and Reynolds functioned pairwise across the Atlantic --

"The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes"

"I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet but the credibility I add to the movement is enormous."

"It is not my burden to prove what really happened. That burden lies entirely with apologists for the official plane story like Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman, not the skeptics, must prove that four Boeing airliners crashed as government and corporate media say they did."

More at --

Thanks for the thanks...but I need to do more research!

There is argument with P4Truth of whether the 767 can get to .86 Mach at low altitude without catastrophic airframe failure. I am convinced that it has the power to do it as shown in the simulator and should do what we saw on 9/11 that is .7 to .74 Mach or 500mph to 560mph.

I still need to try to get more data as at the moment I'm relying on the simulator and info from pilots on the line. Info from Boeing about their original testing is what we need. You see the air loads are much greater at low altitude for the same Mach number, but I believe the Mach pressure waves are what will destroy the plane and it can easily handle the air loads in level trimmed flight in clean air like on 9/11.

Anyway I am happy I have proved the speed "probable" not "impossible" in the simulator.

Lear will stay a P4Truth from what Rob has said and he thinks I'm trying to do a number on them and I suppose that's true. We need them to kick the "No Planes at the WTC" advocates out to kill this B/S but I don't think it will happen?

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!


Always enjoy learning more about these aircraft.

The TV Fakery theory?: Plausible enough for fools to ponder. (A carefully considered disruption?)

John: Would be extremely interested in learning how to obtain manuals or textbooks for the Pegasus FMS for the B767.

Thanx again.


a carefully pre-planned disruption.

If non pilots planned and executed the events of 911, then the air speed question must have been brought up during planning. Was some random pilot consulted over the issues we're facing before the events? The people involved had to plan how to get the aircraft to hit the building. Make the aircraft fly itself? Or, remotely fly the aircraft?

Could a pilot who was used for information, also be used as a disinfo agent? Could they belong to P4911T? Not impossible.
Infowar Relay Stations:

Rob Balsamo comments!

--- On Mon, 6/1/09, John Bursill wrote:
To me from Rob...and my quote..

"It is a shame that Pilots for Truth continue to sit by a let this debate continue without a statement about "No Planes at the WTC" besides that is offering us the purchase of their next video?"

From Rob...

John B.

We have made statements, you just refuse to read them and instead twist our words, use strawmans, and constantly tell others what we support and do not support as an organization. Of course never sourcing your claims regarding our positions.

Try reading them this time... obviously you didnt understand these words the first time around in this conversation.

May 17, 2008

"ok folks... im getting a bit tired of being misquoted and flat out lies being spread about what i have said. So, in the interest of clarity i will give you my opinion. This is not a position of P4T since the organization as whole does not offer theory (or opinion). This is my opnion only.

I feel remote guidance at the WTC is highly possible.

I lean towards planes hitting the WTC for the fact i know several crews who watched it happen while waiting for departure at JFK and EWR and due to the numerous witnesses and video.

I dont know if the speeds are possible for a stock 767. We are trying to find out by obtaining data.

I dont know if the 767's were aerodynamically modified. We are trying to find out by obtaining data.

I dont have the expertise to determine "video fakery".

Feel free to quote ME and me only, not as we do not offer theory.


Thanks Rob for clearing that up..? A bit...

For the record all I have stated is that Lear is a member and that they don't have a position on NP at the WTC, which Rob agrees is true. So what straw man and what twisting etc?

I wish Rob could just try this sort of thing more often, letting us know what he thinks. Thanks Rob!

" I lean towards planes hitting the WTC " I'm glad your leaning towards planes.

Also don't know if a statement at a forum you must be a member at to read really qualifies a statement on this matter?

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Many thanks for

Many thanks for this.

There's a website for aviation professionals and enthusiasts, the Professional Pilots' Rumour Network. It has a forum for general discussion: where the tone is mostly light-hearted, but it can get serious. 9/11 cropped up a while back and I contributed. The response was largely hostile, but not entirely.

You can join up for free. I guess a synopsis & a link to the full text would be best.

planes or no planes

Knock it off, already. When we divert into these arguments about planes vs. no planes, we water down the impact of what really matters. The buildings were, beyong any reasonable doubt, blown up. That is enough....10 times get what we want: a new and unbiased 9/11 investigation where all pertinent evidence is considered.

It makes me sick to see the 9/11 TRUTH movement jeopardized by these peripheral issues. It only arms those who would label us "tin foil hat people" with "evidence" that our ranks are loaded with loonies spouting wild-eyed theories.

In the final analysis

Thanks, John, for your post and your diligence in pursuing this. After trying to read through the Fetzer material (and by no means completing it) I am left wondering what difference it makes. Why are we quibbling about something which no one can prove and if either could be proven it wouldn't change the underlying fact that the buildings appear to be destroyed by a controlled demolition. I think we all agree that whatever hit the buildings was a diversion and had nothing to do with the end result. We all have our pet theories, our areas of convergence divergence, our areas that remain without explanatory supposition. In the final analysis,everything we think and feel about 9/11 is supposition, albeit mostly grounded in observable facts. We should all set our minor points of disagreement aside and be focussed on getting a serious criminal investigation of the events of 9/11 so that the real perpetrators are finally brought to justice. Perhaps then we will find out WHAT actually happened as well as WHO is responsible.

Ad Hominem arguments are never valid

I agree with SteveD2446. We are taught well by leaders such as Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin to keep the arguments as factual disputes and not personal attacks. It is generally considered improper and ineffective debate to attack the person's character. The strongest way to show that an assertion is incorrect or ridiculous is by questioning or undermining the assumptions, logic and conclusions. We all agree that the buildings were not brought down by planes so this is a bit of a red herring. That said, we are not going to be able to stop people from promulgating theories, probable or not, about what really occurred since the government has blocked attempts to get underlying evidence about the planes and other data that would help resolve the issues. What we do know is that the government's conclusions about that day, as admitted by numerous 9/11 Commission insiders, is demonstrably false.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water

with us pilots. Most are after the truth. Thanks, John and keep up the good research. If the facts can't be laid out in two or three paragraphs it's probably mostly BS. The key for me to the aviation part is that the government could prove their myth at any time with real evidence, but refuses to do so. Perhaps NYCCAN could pry some of the doors open.

Thank you!

For using your connections to gain some ground in the search for the truth.

Is it prohibited to take video in the simulator? The final nails can be pounded into the no-plane coffin if solid evidence can be provided. I would go as far as to sneak a camera in if at all possible. At the least, photos of the dash during these speeds and altitude. If you have to wine and dine Daniel to get a video of the flight, then so be it.

But I'm very excited about these findings. Thanks again!
Infowar Relay Stations:

Great work man!

Great work man!

Pilots Membership

Did Mr. Lear state during the interview he WAS a member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth and was speaking FOR the organization? If he were speaking as a member at the time, I would understand the quandary that might put pilots in. However, if he were just speaking his opinion, which appears to be in error, then I wouldn't see the need to remove him from the membership roll. Perhaps if he were to offer a public retraction of his statement based upon the new research by Mr. Bursill.

Keep in mind that not all Pilots For 9/11 Truth are not all knowing about all airplanes.

One question for Mr. Bursill: based upon your statement...."was reasonably easy to control for a non-pilot" does that mean you will revise your own personal opinion about the planes being remote controlled to their target?

Based upon your own experiment, I'm wondering if you now think that the alleged hijackers were actually behind the controls of the airplanes.

"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it." -1993-John Skilling, Head Structural Engineer WTC Towers

Good questions..

Lear is on the top of the list at Pilots. He is involved there and is supported. He is a famous pilot. He also has some pretty full on ideas about aliens in our midst...just google it...

The thing is either Pilots for Truth think that planes hit the WTC buildings or they do not...or they do not know?

They should clarify what they support!

Membership is their thing and I just asked for him to be removed because it is dangerous to our hopes and plans. He has stated he is involved with that group on tape from memory...anyone got it on file?

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Yes, Lear would likely be

Yes, Lear would likely be the first one the MSM would interview in an effort to discredit the group, should they want to. That's the risk of leaving him on the membership, among others.

Pilots for truth attack again..without adressing the point!

From Rob at pilots..

Re: Hoffman

1. Please ask Hoffman to provide positive identification of the parts to people who are familiar with Aircraft Accident Investigation. Several are listed here. The list grows.

- There is a reason Hoffman "criticizes" others while never confronting those he criticizes. It is because Hoffman will be made a fool. He is already a fool when he claims the animation/data obtained and analyzed by Pilots For 9/11 Truth never came through "official channels" nor the NTSB. Hoffman is a fool to anyone who fills out an NTSB FOIA on the NTSB website. Wolsey is more a fool for allowing Hoffman to spread such disinformation.

2. We will be covering speeds regarding WTC strike aircraft in full. Please keep an eye on our site. I have told Bursill time and time again to learn the definition of "Equivalent Airspeed" and "Crossover altitude". It appears he has turned an ignorant ear and blind eye. I'm thinking the reason is because of his ego (he refuses to be proven wrong). Bursill will not only be proven wrong, but those who supported him will also go down, based on physics, math, and aerodynamics..Therefore, not only is Bursill aware of such definitions, but so is 911Blogger, and now can be considered "disinformation"

Feel free to quote the above anywhere as I have copied this to those who spread disinformation, among those who do not who actually have expertise on the matter.

Those who have targeted us as disinformation, will be shown based on data that in fact YOU are the ones spreading disinformation. Fact.



BCC: Many


The question is why have they not done a simulator experiment...themselves?

Why do they fail to embrace any of the test I did, a real test!?

Why do they support the "no planes at the WTC" theory indirectly?

Why did Lear write to my employer?

Rob picks on one point....and I agree that I may have predominantlt represented Mach effects early in this piece... but I did state it was the Mach effects I was TALKING about!

Really I don't understand Jim receiving so much curry from a guy who has failed to make his organisation a part of this movement, just after I writes a blog calling for activism on the "Thermitic Materials Paper" for simply being critical of speculation?

I really am getting paranoid Rob.

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!

Things like...

This and this help to disprove the insanity as well...

"A new round of DNA testing on bone fragments recovered from the World Trade Center site has identified the remains of a 34-year-old woman who was on the airplane that crashed into the north tower on September 11th."

"The victims recently identified include a New York firefighter, an Australian on the plane that crashed into the north tower and a woman who was working in the north tower on floors near the point of the crash."

This doesn't hurt either...

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

UAL 175

I have a boat in the glide path of PDX and took several photos of 767's at about 60 degrees and 800' to 1000'. I show the photos to people (about a dozen) and ask: "What do you see?" Every single one mentioned the logo on the rudder - "Alaska", "Hawaiian", "United", "American". Many said "jet" 1st but all mentioned the logo.

I did not hear a single witness on 9/11 mention "United". From the park and the bank angle of the plane that rudder would have been a bill board.

Disabled Functions

I have heard that the remote control system disables certain functions when it is implemented. I heard that pilots or hijackers would not be able to use the radio or change the transponder code.

What about the engines? Would they be able to shut them off?

I would think that the remote control system would rely heavily on engines working and being able to do whatever was necessary to insure a safe landing at the airfield of choice.

Any comments?