9/11 was an inside job. NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room" [Physics]

Prev: some backtracking in deriving speed of light from purely math considerations ; speed of light Chapt 19 #194; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Programation Atoms and the Void was Re: Sculpting Linguistics wasRe: Networking Veldts

From: * US on 23 Jun 2010 14:07

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:44:49 -0400, Johnny Asia <baying46584(a)mypacks.net> wrote:

>
>http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20178
>
>
>NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In
>The Room"
>
>
>06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth
>have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11.
>Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the
>extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the
>757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767
>Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used
>on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near
>sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as
>reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to
>strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing
>high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole
>issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform
>such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating
>limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic
>thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.
>
>Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a
>former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the
>NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after
>viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11:
>World Trade Center Attack".
>
>Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on
>the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
>(AIAA) as follows:
>
>
> A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
> Dwain Deets
> NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service -
>retired)
> AIAA Associate Fellow
>
> The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before
>crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar
>data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the
>groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the
>maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of
>410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn�t a
>standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner;
>(3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond
>its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively
>small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for
>acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the
>AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won�t
>publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with
>organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have
>engineers just looked the other way?
>
>The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum
>for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation.
>Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the
>Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.
>
>Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:
>
> Dwain Deets
> MS Physics, MS Eng
> Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight
>Research Center
> Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
> Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
> Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive
>Service (1988)
> Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in
>Aeronautics
> Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and
>Astronautics (AIAA)
> Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
> Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
> - Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
> Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace
>Technology
> 37 year NASA career
>
>It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data,
>and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the
>9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be
>thoroughly investigated.
>
>For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds
>Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.
>
>To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the
>reported speeds in more detail, please click here.
>
>For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New
>York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including
>analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more...
>please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11:
>World Trade Center Attack".
>
>Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing
>organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The
>organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National
>Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the
>events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government
>story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not
>offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a
>growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which
>government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For
>9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.
>
>http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

Notice that this remains undisputed.

From: * US on 24 Jun 2010 07:37

From: Cwatters on 24 Jun 2010 16:29

<* US *> wrote in message news:q4g626p3a80unibq4l90tbbsnf7hcbpgvs(a)4ax.com...
>
> Notice that this remains undisputed.

It's been disputed lots of times and confirmed in the simulator....

http://911blogger.com/node/20232

Simulator Proves "Impossible Speed" was "probable" for Flt 11 and Flt 175

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

Background

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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes) 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
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ystemsMonaghan.... 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!

From: * US on 24 Jun 2010 17:05

Where are those blackboxes, anyway?

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:29:13 +0100, "Cwatters"
<colin.wattersNOSPAM(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:

>It's been disputed ...

That's for vanishingly small values of 'disputed'.

>http://911blogger.com/node/20232

>.... 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.

That's too weak, though.

> 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.

That's more likely.

>Let's now get to the question of Lear's statement regarding the "impossible
>speed" ...

Straw man ...

The point being that they weren't standard aircraft
operating within standard parameters ...

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 08:44:49 -0400, Johnny Asia <baying46584(a)mypacks.net> wrote:

>http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20178
>
>
>NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In
>The Room"
>
>
>06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth
>have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11.
>Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the
>extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the
>757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767
>Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used
>on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near
>sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as
>reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to
>strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing
>high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole
>issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform
>such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating
>limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic
>thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.
>
>Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a
>former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the
>NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after
>viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11:
>World Trade Center Attack".
>
>Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on
>the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
>(AIAA) as follows:
>
>
> A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
> Dwain Deets
> NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service -
>retired)
> AIAA Associate Fellow
>
> The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before
>crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar
>data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the
>groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the
>maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of
>410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn�t a
>standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner;
>(3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond
>its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively
>small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for
>acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the
>AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won�t
>publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with
>organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have
>engineers just looked the other way?
>
>The above entry remained at the moderated AIAA Aerospace America Forum
>for approximately two weeks before being removed without explanation.
>Click "Who is Ethically Responsible" submitted by Dwain Deets at the
>Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum for discussion on this entry at AIAA.
>
>Dwain Deets credentials and experience are as follows:
>
> Dwain Deets
> MS Physics, MS Eng
> Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight
>Research Center
> Served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden
> Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award
> Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive
>Service (1988)
> Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in
>Aeronautics
> Associate Fellow - American Institute of Aeronautics and
>Astronautics (AIAA)
> Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000
> Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems
> - Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers
> Former Member, AIAA Committee on Society and Aerospace
>Technology
> 37 year NASA career
>
>It is established based on corroborated expert statements, raw data,
>and precedent, that the extremely excessive speed reported for the
>9/11 aircraft is truly the "Elephant In The Room" and needs to be
>thoroughly investigated.
>
>For summary of speed analysis, please see article 9/11: Speeds
>Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed.
>
>To view the scene from "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" analyzing the
>reported speeds in more detail, please click here.
>
>For full detailed analysis covering the events which took place in New
>York City on September 11, 2001, interviews with experts, including
>analysis of "Hijacker" pilot skill, Black Box recovery and more...
>please view the latest presentation from Pilots For 9/11 Truth, "9/11:
>World Trade Center Attack".
>
>Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing
>organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The
>organization has also analyzed Flight Data provided by the National
>Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack and the
>events in Shanksville, PA. The data does not support the government
>story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not
>offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a
>growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which
>government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For
>9/11 Truth Core member list continues to grow.
>
>http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for full member list.

Notice that this remains undisputed.

All the bushworshipper can do is some feeble namecalling.

|
Pages: 1
Prev: some backtracking in deriving speed of light from purely math considerations ; speed of light Chapt 19 #194; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Programation Atoms and the Void was Re: Sculpting Linguistics wasRe: Networking Veldts