FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Evan Burton]

Yet another example for Jack, from the B767 Limitations notes for instructors:

MAX AIRSPEED LIMITS & FLIGHT CONTROLS

VMO / MMO ………………………..….....…360 kt / .86M

Maximal Flap extension altitude……….……… 20 000 ft

Flaps 1…...…………………………………………. 250 kt

Flaps 5.......………………...………………………. 230 kt

Flaps 15.....…………………………………………. 210 kt

Flaps 20…...…………………………………………210 kt

Flaps 25…...…………………………………………180 kt

Flaps 30…...…………………………………………170 kt

(From the B767 Aircraft Flight Manual, Section 1, pages 7 and 13)

or

LANDING GEAR : Normal extension and retraction……………….………….270 kt / M.82 (AFM SEC.1 page 7).

Extension with alternate system…………………………..250 kt / M.75 (AFM SEC.1 page 7).

Flight with gear extended……………………..………….. 270 kt / M.82 (AFM SEC.1 page 7).

Max Tyres Speed ………………….………………..225 MPH or 195 kt

Tyres Spec…....H46 x 18-20 (Main LDG) & H37 x 14-15 (Nose Gear)

http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/plane/boei...nstructor/0014/

Why on earth would they have limits for gear and flaps that are beyond when the aircraft is meant to be breaking up, or the engines stalling?

Admit it Jack - Keith is wrong about the B767 breaking up at low altitudes at speeds above 220 mph. If you can't accept that, then anything you tell us to believe must be suspect.

So much for his low speed aerodynamic skills. Now we can look at the high speed claims.

[Len Colby]

Chris-- So I take it your source catagorically denies that the mom said "Yes, of course, he is a cousin?" If so where is that denial.

Also do you have different descriptions of Griffin's description of the extreme makeover of Popular Mechanics including Cathleen P. Black and

her husband Thomas E. Harvey "who has worked for the CIA, the Deprtment of Defense, and the US information Agency. I am sure you will agree

that each of these organizations has more than a few contacts and resources within corporate media.

I am not saying that I accept Griffin' claim yet; just trying to get an overview of opinion on this claim.

Amazing, 8 months after I asked you if you had a source OTHER THAN BOLLYNfor that claim you come back with your big EUREKA! which cites Bollyn! If the best you can come up with is the word of a “journalist” who was fired by his neo-Nazi bosses for false reporting, you don’t have much of a case. Even IF the claim is true its irrelevant.

As for the part about "the extreme makeover of Popular Mechanics" that stems from Bollyn as well.

PS - Who is Chris?

------------------

My apologies for the delay Glen: I have to work for a living. The job does not include monitoring websites.

The problem was not so much they delay in your responses as much as the fact that despite it you didn’t properly complete the “assignment“. Bollyn having reported this isn’t news, his article came out in March 2005*, nor is it news on this forum Jack brought it up a few months later** nor was even news in this thread having already been discussed***. What I asked you for back in December was for “a source OTHER THAN BOLLYN” but you missed or chose to ignore that condition and proudly announced your (non)discovery. Since you missed the point I put it in ALL CAPS and in extra-large, underlined, bolded, blue text and you still “missed” it. My only explanation is that you were being intentionally obtuse.

Imagine a student handed you a paper at the beginning of term, his principle claim is buttressed by an article in National Enquirer. You hand it back to him and tell him you don’t consider the Enquirer a reliable source and want better documentation. At the end of the term he hands you back the paper and has replaced the previous citation with another article which it turns out cites Enquirer article for the same claim. Wouldn’t you justifiably give him an `F`?

And Norm - I, believe it or not work too. Speaking of which, aren’t you on vacation now?

* http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...toffscousin.htm

** http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=42206

*** see above

If we excluded everyone you did not accuse of being a neo-nazi that would leave perhaps Popular Mechanics, Frank Carlucci and Allard Lowenstein. Speaking of poisoned wells.....

IF that were true you could cite numerous people I have so labeled unjustifiably. See if you can find examples of me doing so for anyone wasn’t openly sympathetic to Nazi beliefs. Once again you are making a false and baseless accusation. You must have confused me with Peter he was in the habit of labeling people Nazis simply for disagreeing with him.

If you had done minimal homework you would have discovered that Bollyn’s only employer as a “journalist” was the far-right, conspiracy monging “American Free Press” sister publication to the Holocaust denying “Barnes Review” which suggested that Hitler be awarded a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize and used to feature a column by a former SS general. Both publications were published by Willis Carto considered the father of the Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi movements in the US and featured ads for tours of Germany and Austria visiting Nazi related cites and meeting former SS. So yes I think I was quite justified in calling his ex-employers Nazis.

His views didn’t vary much from theirs in one of several interviews with former KKK leader David Duke he agreed with his host that interracial dating was an abomination and was part of a Jewish plot. On another occasion he objected to an Iranian born engineer from UC-Berkley being named to head an investigation into the collapses of the twin towers.

But even as objectionable as his an his employer’s beliefs are, the above would amount to nothing more than an ad hom but for the fact that he was fired for false reporting and had previously written articles with false and misleading information. He is currently a fugitive from justice and at his trial was contradicted not only by a neighbor but by his own wife.

So try again, see if you can find “a source OTHER THAN BOLLYN for that claim”.

"Even IF the claim is true its irrelevant. " That's quite a rapid conclusion!

No I reached it several years ago, if I discovered that the cousin of a truther belonged to a Jiohadist group would that be relevant? Is it relevant that a few are Muslims?

[Len Colby]

Evan, Jack won’t admit that a photo in which the sun was obviously relatively low in the western sky was taken in the afternoon or that an obviously black (or very very dark grey) building wasn’t “almost white”, so the odds of him ever acknowledging Keith was wrong are quite slim. Here’s one more reference:

In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.

''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...751C0A9649C8B63

Note she said it was “far exceeding the…design limit” not its maximum possible speed and that it was “at risk of breaking up” but at a speed 2.5x that Keith said it would break apart. Actually Keith was right about one thing it is my understanding that it would be very difficult for a 767 to develop such a speed at 1000 feet but as Jack pointed out (and as can be seen in the September Clues video) the plane was diving from higher up. Not only could the plane fly faster higher up but a plane’s horizontal and total speed increases when it dives.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but I believe dropping the landing gear considerabbly add to turbulence but it SOP to do so at over 300 MPH.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

That is point worth repeating, Len: the aircraft was being flown beyond it's normal operating limits. They are the limitations for regular safe flight. These people did not care if the airframe was going to be over-stressed or flown in an unsafe manner; they simply had to fly them into the targets.

Normal limits always have a safety margin built into them. For instance, from our AS350 Aircraft Flight Manual:

Torque (Nr) Limitation: 88%

-------

CAUTION: In event of torque in excess of 94%, the helicopter shall be landed as soon as possible. The sortie shall be terminated immediately. Maintenance personnel are to be contacted with details of the overtorque before further flight is considered.

As far as lowering the gear had high speeds, yes it would create a significant amount of drag but there would also be risks of overstressing the gear or ripping off any associated gear bay panels. It certainly would have to be an emergency situation.

[Jack White]

Here is an interesting odd image not seen before.

Jack

[Jack White]

UNTRUTHERS claim the dust cloud by WTC6 was caused

by the collapse of the South Tower. This shows why the

South Tower collapse and the Building 6 explosion were

two different events.

Jack

Edited August 6, 2008 by Jack White

[Jack White]

The "raging out of control fires throughout Building 7" that caused its collapse.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Just a guess without checking, but it might be a window washer cradle; the types that are lowered up and down the outside of tall buildings.

[Evan Burton]

Prepared to admit that Keith was wrong, Jack?

[Evan Burton]

Jack,

I'm trying to go through the various posts in the thread to find original sources.

You said:

He (Keith - EB) also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines. The government claims that the videos show the North Tower "plane" ("Flight 11") travelling at about 450 mph, and the South Tower "plane" ("Flight 175") travelling at over 500 mph. (...and in a dive of 10,000 feet descent per minute)

I didn't see that in a transcript you posted. Could you point me to where Keith makes the claims of:

1. Breaking up at low altitude over 220 mph; and

2. Breaking up at the higher speeds?

I want to make sure I address the original claims, and ensure I address what the claim said - not what someone else said it said.

Thank you.

[Len Colby]

The "raging out of control fires throughout Building 7" that caused its collapse.

Jack

You aren’t serious are you Jack? That photo is down Greenwich St. and shows the NORTH side of the building and we have no idea what time it was shot. It could even have been from before the collapse of WTC 1, and even if it were taken after it was only hours after the collapse that strong fires developed in the SOUTH side of the building and only well after that that they progressed to the north side.

[Len Colby]

Jack,

I'm trying to go through the various posts in the thread to find original sources.

You said:

He (Keith - EB) also says that the planes would have shaken themselves apart at that altitude at over about 220 mph, and also something to the effect that the thicker air would also have stalled the engines. The government claims that the videos show the North Tower "plane" ("Flight 11") travelling at about 450 mph, and the South Tower "plane" ("Flight 175") travelling at over 500 mph. (...and in a dive of 10,000 feet descent per minute)

I didn't see that in a transcript you posted. Could you point me to where Keith makes the claims of:

1. Breaking up at low altitude over 220 mph; and

2. Breaking up at the higher speeds?

I want to make sure I address the original claims, and ensure I address what the claim said - not what someone else said it said.

Thank you.

Yes Evan, that is an accurate quote Keith said it in the interview from the video clip. I’m still waiting for Jack to produce any evidence he really was an engineer.

[Len Colby]

UNTRUTHERS claim the dust cloud by WTC6 was caused

by the collapse of the South Tower. This shows why the

South Tower collapse and the Building 6 explosion were

two different events.

Jack

Sorry to disappoint you Jack but no one said the CNN frame is from the collapse but rather that it is from immediately after and that what you are IDing as WTC 2 is instead the resulting dust plume. This has been acknowledged by numerous leading truthers including Jim Hoffman, Eric Salter, Dave von Kliest and Kent Steadman. The last 2 it should be noted used to believe what you do but realized it was false before you started pushing it. Steadman in fact seems to have been the originator of the theory.

Oh and if you go to the post following the one in the first link, you’ll find a LoS study of mine which proved the location of your explosion corresponded with the location of WTCs 4 & 5 which fits with Hoffman’s analysis it was WTC 2 dust being pushed up by them.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119668

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=119988

[Evan Burton]

Len,

I dislike trying to download YouTube clips on my home network. If you already have it, could you give me a verbatim transcript of the high speed claim that Keith makes?

Thank you,

[Jack White]

Here is what the dust cloud looked like when the South Tower collapsed...nothing

at all like the CNN dust cloud.

Jack