I'll take ‘things that never happened for $500, Alex’.
Two men don't just simply pick up an aircraft landing gear. The various tools used to lift and move such equipment belonging to a large passenger airliner far exceeds the strength of even two men who are in well shape. If two men were to lift and carry such a thing into a building, one can bet that (1) there is no way possible that a commercial jetliner's landing gear would fit through a door that would necessarily just meet minimum ADA standards [maybe 31-32”], (2) if two men had attempted to move a landing gear inside a building, soneone would have e seen it, and (3) there would be video footage.
Apparently, the plane(s) that never were also were the landing gears that never were.
Thank you. I will definitely check these out. As I have a history in general aviation, however limited, which did not culminate into my becoming a commercial airline pilot (which I believe today to be a blessing in disguise, see: mandatory vaccination of flight crews), I can not recall exactly how many times I've presented the case that just based on the very basic principles of flight and aerodynamics alone, 9/11 could not have possibly happened. I'm fairly sure that I did a detailed breakdown of the claimed pentagon 'attack' on one of your posts, specifically discussing aircraft sink rate, ground effect, and the impossibility of an airliner being overtaken by a all general aviation beginner student pilot who hadn't even soloed, overtaken two pilots, accessed the flight management system which would have been set during pretrip, disengaging all automated services, and descending an aircraft travelling at an airspeed of 500+ with no more than maybe 2 football field lengths of distance to level just feet above the ground while maintaining stable flight. The ground effect alone would be virtually impossible to overcome by even the most seasoned pilots, and the aircraft would disintegrate simply for overexerting the flight controls.
Maybe that was elsewhere, I don't recall right off but I will certainly check these out. Thank you for your comments.
I had a discussion with a pilot and here is what he had to say:
Pilot: "Retired airline captain, 33.5 years in aviation, Icelandic"
9/11 revisionist asking questions:
Airline Captain 😳😳😳
Do I have some questions for you 😊
1. Can a plane fly at between 494 and 586 mph at 1 368 feet?
2. Can a plane doing about the same speed in question 1 and come down horizontally with the ground and slice through 5 lampposts without disintegrating or changing course?
3. Can a plane basically disappear into the ground where EVERYTHING just disintegrates in such a manner that not a chair, shoe, any luggage, or any trace of the plane can be found?
Pilot: 9/11 revisionist asked: I try to give my opinion:
1. between 494-586 mph? Aircraft FAA approved manual of the planes I have worked on has speed limits in form of Indicated airspeed at these altitudes:
757: 350 KIAS (knots indicated speed) is 402 mph.
767: 360 KIAS is 414 mph.
These speeds are maximum - unless the system has been tampered with, above these speeds you will have an aural warning very loud all the time.
It is a real distraction even for a seasoned pilot.
To answer, I think these speeds would be much above the speed when something breaks (although Jet airplanes have a built-in margin for overspeed).
2. Difficult…, let’s say aircraft weight 100 tons, I would believe that 5 lampposts collision would not alter the airplanes course (impact force) however could there be a disaster following due to damages.
3. No
4. An airplane on these speeds, banking to change course, the G-forces would, in my opinion have the airplane break up.
9/11 revisionist:
Now, the examples I was giving was the official narrative about 9/11 - and those planes on 9/11 were making insane banking manoeuvres both "planes" "hitting the towers" and if you look at the banking the "plane" that hit the Pentagon apparently sliced through the lamppost and number 3 was the "plane" that crashed at Shanksville.
Do you think an aluminium could slice through those massive steel beams?
What is your opinion on the 9/11 narrative?
Pilot:
1. you can bank an airplane and continue to bank, as if going to Roll the airplane. I believe you cannot bank the plane to make a course change unless to overstress it at these speeds.
2. insane banking manoeuvres at these speeds - NO - Breaking
3. I mean No - it would be breaking.
9/11 revisionist: Regarding the official story of the “plane” hitting the Pentagon picture:
- No sliced off pieces of the plane found.
Pilot:
- Keep in mind I have only years of experience and a simulation to these extremities would only be a calculation.
- I think cannot be simulated as of now, as just a years ago, simulators were not having enough data to be able to do simulation, e.g., full stall (before always emphasised on avoiding full stalls.
- Full stalls must be practised, whether a light plane or a jet.
9/11 revisionist: Referring to the pictures of a plain hitting a massive concrete block at over 500mp/h
- And this is what we are supposed to believe?
- An aluminium plane slicing through solid steel beams leaving a hole like the roadrunner cartoons....
Pilot: I think i am of an opinion that is like yours
9/11 revisionist:
- I really like you.
- now we just need to get into WHAT happened to the 8 buildings at the world trade centre complex.
Same with the reports of charred human bodies strapped to plane seats being found at the WTC and the Pentagon crash sites. The chances of finding such remains are as likely as the terrorists' passports being found in good condition after surviving fiery plane crashes, which is next to zero. The speed and velocity of the crashes would've turned the bodies and the seats into charred little pieces. And, of course, we have not a single photo or video to corroborate such accounts. So we only have to take their word for it. Ain't that convenient?
Hi Mat, thank you. I will add the link into the article. I will be in touch, as I need some numbers checked out against the Victim Compensation Fund, with some other stats I have, and see if it shows anything significant. I know that is your expertise, and certainly out of my scope.
That same document also mentions Evan Fairbanks, who is credited as one of the people who filmed "Flight 175" crash into WTC2. It details his encounter with Fitzgerald and Wheeler, who were informed by the cameraman of his film's existence and who later told Fairbanks to send his video to the FBI. You will find it on page three of the document.
I'll take ‘things that never happened for $500, Alex’.
Two men don't just simply pick up an aircraft landing gear. The various tools used to lift and move such equipment belonging to a large passenger airliner far exceeds the strength of even two men who are in well shape. If two men were to lift and carry such a thing into a building, one can bet that (1) there is no way possible that a commercial jetliner's landing gear would fit through a door that would necessarily just meet minimum ADA standards [maybe 31-32”], (2) if two men had attempted to move a landing gear inside a building, soneone would have e seen it, and (3) there would be video footage.
Apparently, the plane(s) that never were also were the landing gears that never were.
You'll enjoy my article and interview with the OG "no planer", Dr Morgan Reynolds.
The Fantasy Flights on 9/11
One of the biggest hurdles for 9/11 truth seekers and normies
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-fantasy-flights-on-911
The Suspension of Newtonian Physics on 9/11
A Plane conversation with Dr Morgan Reynolds & 9/11 Revisionist
Article & Interview: https://911revision.substack.com/p/the-suspension-of-newtonian-physics
Thank you. I will definitely check these out. As I have a history in general aviation, however limited, which did not culminate into my becoming a commercial airline pilot (which I believe today to be a blessing in disguise, see: mandatory vaccination of flight crews), I can not recall exactly how many times I've presented the case that just based on the very basic principles of flight and aerodynamics alone, 9/11 could not have possibly happened. I'm fairly sure that I did a detailed breakdown of the claimed pentagon 'attack' on one of your posts, specifically discussing aircraft sink rate, ground effect, and the impossibility of an airliner being overtaken by a all general aviation beginner student pilot who hadn't even soloed, overtaken two pilots, accessed the flight management system which would have been set during pretrip, disengaging all automated services, and descending an aircraft travelling at an airspeed of 500+ with no more than maybe 2 football field lengths of distance to level just feet above the ground while maintaining stable flight. The ground effect alone would be virtually impossible to overcome by even the most seasoned pilots, and the aircraft would disintegrate simply for overexerting the flight controls.
Maybe that was elsewhere, I don't recall right off but I will certainly check these out. Thank you for your comments.
I had a discussion with a pilot and here is what he had to say:
Pilot: "Retired airline captain, 33.5 years in aviation, Icelandic"
9/11 revisionist asking questions:
Airline Captain 😳😳😳
Do I have some questions for you 😊
1. Can a plane fly at between 494 and 586 mph at 1 368 feet?
2. Can a plane doing about the same speed in question 1 and come down horizontally with the ground and slice through 5 lampposts without disintegrating or changing course?
3. Can a plane basically disappear into the ground where EVERYTHING just disintegrates in such a manner that not a chair, shoe, any luggage, or any trace of the plane can be found?
4. The link below – American Airlines flight 587 from 12 November 2001 – Is the assumptions in this video correct or false? - https://rumble.com/v4h4c7h-november-12-2001-the-crash-of-aa-flight-587-in-nyc.html
Pilot: 9/11 revisionist asked: I try to give my opinion:
1. between 494-586 mph? Aircraft FAA approved manual of the planes I have worked on has speed limits in form of Indicated airspeed at these altitudes:
757: 350 KIAS (knots indicated speed) is 402 mph.
767: 360 KIAS is 414 mph.
These speeds are maximum - unless the system has been tampered with, above these speeds you will have an aural warning very loud all the time.
It is a real distraction even for a seasoned pilot.
To answer, I think these speeds would be much above the speed when something breaks (although Jet airplanes have a built-in margin for overspeed).
2. Difficult…, let’s say aircraft weight 100 tons, I would believe that 5 lampposts collision would not alter the airplanes course (impact force) however could there be a disaster following due to damages.
3. No
4. An airplane on these speeds, banking to change course, the G-forces would, in my opinion have the airplane break up.
9/11 revisionist:
Now, the examples I was giving was the official narrative about 9/11 - and those planes on 9/11 were making insane banking manoeuvres both "planes" "hitting the towers" and if you look at the banking the "plane" that hit the Pentagon apparently sliced through the lamppost and number 3 was the "plane" that crashed at Shanksville.
Do you think an aluminium could slice through those massive steel beams?
What is your opinion on the 9/11 narrative?
Pilot:
1. you can bank an airplane and continue to bank, as if going to Roll the airplane. I believe you cannot bank the plane to make a course change unless to overstress it at these speeds.
2. insane banking manoeuvres at these speeds - NO - Breaking
3. I mean No - it would be breaking.
9/11 revisionist: Regarding the official story of the “plane” hitting the Pentagon picture:
- No sliced off pieces of the plane found.
Pilot:
- Keep in mind I have only years of experience and a simulation to these extremities would only be a calculation.
- I think cannot be simulated as of now, as just a years ago, simulators were not having enough data to be able to do simulation, e.g., full stall (before always emphasised on avoiding full stalls.
- Full stalls must be practised, whether a light plane or a jet.
9/11 revisionist: Referring to the pictures of a plain hitting a massive concrete block at over 500mp/h
- And this is what we are supposed to believe?
- An aluminium plane slicing through solid steel beams leaving a hole like the roadrunner cartoons....
Pilot: I think i am of an opinion that is like yours
9/11 revisionist:
- I really like you.
- now we just need to get into WHAT happened to the 8 buildings at the world trade centre complex.
- And that is going to warp your brain 😂😂🙈
Pilot:
- This is just the tip of the iceberg 😊
Same with the reports of charred human bodies strapped to plane seats being found at the WTC and the Pentagon crash sites. The chances of finding such remains are as likely as the terrorists' passports being found in good condition after surviving fiery plane crashes, which is next to zero. The speed and velocity of the crashes would've turned the bodies and the seats into charred little pieces. And, of course, we have not a single photo or video to corroborate such accounts. So we only have to take their word for it. Ain't that convenient?
Wow great find. Here is the full report for reference. https://www.scribd.com/document/17596542/NY-B12-Video-Fdr-3-11-02-Fitzgerald-Wheeler-Account-029
Hi Mat, thank you. I will add the link into the article. I will be in touch, as I need some numbers checked out against the Victim Compensation Fund, with some other stats I have, and see if it shows anything significant. I know that is your expertise, and certainly out of my scope.
Sounds good. yeah definitely can help sift through the numbers!
That same document also mentions Evan Fairbanks, who is credited as one of the people who filmed "Flight 175" crash into WTC2. It details his encounter with Fitzgerald and Wheeler, who were informed by the cameraman of his film's existence and who later told Fairbanks to send his video to the FBI. You will find it on page three of the document.
I'll just drop my article here for additional reading, if that's ok?
Where did the planes go on 9/11?
The FBI and NTSB have no records to prove that plane wreckage was found.
Article: https://911revision.substack.com/p/where-did-the-planes-go-on-911
how about the nonexistence of 4 entire aircraft?