AKA "TV Fakery"
The most common disinformation about 9/11 revolves around variations of the claim that the twin towers were hit by holograms instead of real jets or that the jets were inserted into the video footage or that the video footage is somehow doctored. There is zero scientific evidence to support these claims.
Some people have claimed that the jets were traveling faster than possible, but recent simulations have shown otherwise.
2 (or 3) Different Camera Angles Captured The First Jet Impact: WTC1 8:46AM: American Airlines Flight 11
55 Different Camera Angles Captured The Second Jet Impact: WTC2 9:03AM: United Airlines Flight 175
The book: http://allisongilbert.com/books/covering-catastrophe/ contains a comprehensive set of news reports from people who witnessed the [American Airlines Flight 11 first plane].
As we exited the Battery Tunnel to lower Manhattan, we proceeded to make a right turn onto West Street where we were confronted with a lot of debris in the street, airplane debris, human remains and such. -Steven Altini, FDNY Engine Company 24 nytimes.com_p3
Upon arrival, towers one and two were both ablaze. The second plane had hit the second tower already. Both towers were totally engulfed. People were jumping out of the buildings. There was airplane fuselage and landing gear around the site. Body parts, victims' remains on the floor. There were some injuries on the street. Some cars were on fire. -Christopher Attanasio, EMT-D, 5303, Battalion 20, Division 2 nytimes.com_p3
WTC South Tower Crash: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrHvSE_4JJQ (broken link)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqiDgssd39E (broken link)
E.7.1 WTC 1 Base Case Impact Analysis
The combined aircraft and tower model for the base case WTC 1 global impact analysis is shown in Figure E–25. The base case impact analysis was performed for a 0.715 s duration following initial impact of the aircraft nose with the north exterior wall. The analysis was performed on a computer cluster using twelve 2.8 GHz Intel Xeon processors, each on a separate node of the cluster. The run time for this analysis was approximately two weeks. The calculations were terminated when the damage to the towers reached a steady state and the motion of the debris was reduced to a level that was not expected to produce any significant increase in the impact damage. The residual kinetic energy of the airframe components at the termination of a global impact simulation was typically less than one percent of the initial kinetic energy at impact. (source_p75)
http://www.youtube.com/v/pNT7-AEcsqg (broken link)
http://www.youtube.com/v/TILCQuOf3pk (broken link)
http://www.youtube.com/v/5TT9v8HMQmc (broken link)
From: John Bursill <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Reply-To: John Bursill <email@example.com>
To all in the pursuit of 9/11 Truth,
Recently I received the video below, an interview with pilot John Lear. In this video John Lear makes many erroneous claims mixed with some accurate ones. He is a man of note but has also worked for the CIA and is a UFO(ET) advocate. On the surface his claims appear valid to the novice but on closer examination their are many false conclusions and assumptions. Please watch this carefully then read my and others critiques.
I have only decided to debunk this video as I know of atleast three "good and well meaning" activists that have been left "wondering" after watching this video and we must not let this "No Plane" hogwash(Bob Bowman) get a hold of our movement. Whether it was the actual official flights that hit the towers, who knows.........but there were planes, I am certain of that!
John Lear "No Plane at the WTC" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes
It may be worth noting a am Licensed on the Boeing 767/200 In Avionic Maintenance and are fully conversant with the Autoflight and navigation Systems of these aircraft. I have been working on them for over 20 years. This is a quick analysis and more work needs to be done in time.
Break down of this piece of dissinfo put forward by John Lear, what he says and what is real...
1. Lear says "Flight 11 and 77 didn't exist" Well? Who knows(it's secret, like many things) and what relevance does it have to the "No Plane" at the WTC, none. Just because a flight number didn't exist (if that is true) this flight number changes with every trip the plane makes but THE PLANE STILL EXISTS regardless of it's assigned number. Some times a flight can have more than one number as it may be shared between to companies, who knows?
2. Lear says "Flight 93 had no wreckage" there at the official site, yes this is mostly true and gets you thinking that the "No Plane" at the WTC idea has validity. Wrong.
3.He now goes on to talk about a simulation session "he was going" to set up for 6 pilots in Miami and goes into the concept of putting them 20 miles out at 7,000 ft altitude and at 560mph(486Knots/h) and letting them fly into the WTC buildings manually. Ok well firstly he has not done this but he has you thinking he has by the end of the explanation. Note: NIST estimates the velocity of the South Tower impact at 500-590mph and I would consider this estimate as "high as possible" for they needed as much speed as possible to get enough damage to allow the collapse to ensue of the towers. So lets say we agree that the plane was doing 500mph(their minimum) which equates to 434Knots(still very fast) at approximate sea level.
4.Now he states that the maximum operating speed of the 767/200 is 360mph. WRONG it is 365Knots/h which is 420mph considerably more and not so far away from the 500mph observed by NIST. It is also the Maximum operating(this is the normal "in use" maximum) not the maximum possible which is much greater as the airframe(structure) is rated to .86 of Mach Speed (the speed of sound) which is approximately 660mph or 573Knots. The question of whether the engines can produce this thrust is of interest but I think considering the fact the aircraft was in a shallow dive from 7,000ft before impact 500mph(434knots) is definitely "possible" and I will endeavour to prove this in time via the simulator at work.
5. Now this next bit is the best bit of disinfo ever. The "Clacker" yes it exists and it is annoying but it does not mean you "can't fly the plane", this is rubbish. The clacker is easily silenced by pulling a single circuit breaker on the overhead panel but I personally believe the aircraft were remote controlled and the crew were dead or not there at all. This in no way supports the "No Plane" theory.
6. Lear says "Remote controlling an aircraft of any size is difficult" and "I don't believe you could remote control a 767/200 to hit a target that size" this is absolutely incorrect and proves to me he is an agent or he has no idea about how an aircraft is flown(impossible). The autopilot system on a 767/200 is a very accurate and can guide the aircraft within feet of it's commanded position it just depends on how good the "position data" is, that determines how close it will be to hitting a ground target etc. The WTC Tower 1 and 2 are not small targets if you are using the autopilot and are not overly concerned with the height you wish to hit the buildings. Firstly lets dispel a idea you may have in your head of remote control, it does not mean that a person is sitting in a room with a joystick control like with a model plane watching a video screen guiding the aircraft, this is ridiculous. What is most plausible is that you would simply be using the same technology that the aircraft would use through it's flight management computer and autopilot system on board. The difference being you control it either using the actual aircraft equipment or the same equipment or programs at a remote location. I will give you just a couple of possible ways to get the aircraft to the target via remote control accurately.
One way might be to plant a GPS tracker/beacon on board the aircraft that could provide accurate updates of the exact aircraft position to the remote control program that was interfacing directly with the FCC's/Flight Control Computers via an added receiver. These computers directly control the aircraft control surfaces. So basically you are operating the aircraft as normal bypassing all pilot control (except breakout through the control column by the pilot with great force) and using the same technology that is used for this purpose, only located remotely. The GPS beacon on board is obviously required to give feed back to the Flight Management Programme, this could of course be done in other ways by receiving data from the aircraft instruments, navigation receivers and inertial reference units but this adds allot of added complications to the set up and is far less accurate as this aircraft was not fitted with military GPS. It may have had standard GPS but this is unlikely in this old model, nearing retirement.
Another way may be to track the aircraft using the extremely accurate Military Precision Radar(tracks missiles) and simply gain control of the Flight Control Computers by an added receiver and some wiring or upgrading. You would just use the same autopilot computer model as used in simulators to control these boxes using the received radar position. You may be aware that the so called "doomsday plane" a 747 with a full control centre set up was in the air above New York that day reportably, I could go on and on but I won't. Here is another thought that proves he is disinfo! Boeing has flown a Boeing 707 remotely back in around 1970 where they were actually doing take off's and landing's all day, finishing with a precision crash as part of the aircraft flight testing, Lear would know this for sure. The idea of remote controlling a 767 and hitting the towers in my mind would be a piece of cake for the Military industrial Complex.
7.Lear says "No wreckage of an airplane at the WTC" well that is just straight out lie, there was wreckage on the ground but most obviously was in the towers that where later destroyed. We do not know exactly what wreckage was found in the rubble as the press or public were not allowed to photograph it! Many photo's of wreckage do exist.
8.Lear says "No wreckage of any size around" so what, a very brittle aluminium structure has just been shredded through an intense steel grid, what would you expect. It was not a slow speed crash on land that we are used to seeing time and time again where the pieces of aircraft break off and are allowed to decelerate gradually, leaving large pieces of debris. No it was a maximum velocity crash into a steel shredder just a little different and as we see it was only the engines that got through semi intact.
9. The engine being the wrong type for a 767? Well I don't know but I would know if I could see it, then we would know. Now the chances of us seeing it with these "No Planers" around is much less likely as we will be defeated in our call for a proper criminal investigation if they continue to discredit us. This is John Lear "speculating" this is not empirical fact, just more B/S.
10. Lear says that they used explosives to blow a hole that looks like the aircraft has hit it, wow........this is so absolutely ridiculous that I can't debunk it, for the only people that would think it was possible are people I hope I will upset by saying you are a fool. Think about it.....really......
11. At the end here he makes a little sense about taking on NIST and introduces his master Moron(Morgan) Reynolds the #1 agent within the 9/11 Movement. He talks about the 500mph aircraft speed that NIST has stated which I cannot say is true or not but I will be following this up as it is the only valid point he makes in this presentation, to argue no 767/200 not "No Plane" hit the WTC.
Now just looking from a presentation angle, do you notice how he just keeps saying there was "No Plane" time and time again as if it is a fact. Look at credible researchers like Steven Jones and Richard Cage the avoid stating the conclusion rather they give you so many facts you reach the conclusion yourself. This piece has agent all over it in my opinion as this man knows better!
The "No Plane" at the WTC advocates are without a valid argument, as have found all proven quality researchers to be the case!
Kind regards John