John Lear on Flight 175 and video fakery . . .

[James H. Fetzer]

I have taken these from an extended discussion with Ronald Wieck, who insists the official account is correct.  I 

think they are too valuable not to share with the forum.  John Lear is one of our nation's most distinguished pilots.

Date:	Fri, 21 Jan 2011 19:26:51 -0500 [01/21/2011 06:26:51 PM CST]
From:	[e-mail]

All airlines turn on position beacons (red, green, white) before taxi, day or night. On takeoff, strobes on is manadorty and landing lights if foggy or night. Landing lights are turned off at transition altitude (18,000 feet) strobes remain on always during flight. On descent landing lights come on at 18,000 feet and strobes stay on until after landing. I  have looked carefully at all 41+ videos many lasting more than 2 seconds and there is no indication of the strobes lights. Strobes lights are on the top, bottom , wing tips and tail. There is no possibility that the videos taken were of a real airplane in flight. There is no possibility that an Arab hijacker could have found and turned of the strobe light in the myriad of 40 switches on the forward, left, right and overhead panel of the Boeing 767. It is impossible that a hijacker who was about to kill himself would have given a damn whether or not the strobes were on...he was going to crash the airplane! Anybody who thinks the hijackers could/would have turned the strobe lights off must be giving the hijacker credit for thinking: Hey! I'd better turn off the strobe lights because I don't want anybody taking videos to be able to prove whether or not I was flying a real airplane into the tower! Let's see, where could those darn strobe light switches be? I could ask the pilots but I just killed them. Maybe I should have asked them where the switches were before I killed them! Hey, Abdul..come and help me find the strobe light switches..they gotta be here somewhere."

John Lear

Date:

Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:48:35 -0500 [01/21/2011 09:48:35 PM CST]

From:

[e-mail]   Thanks for the reminder coffinman. The beacon is turned on before startto let the ground  crew know that the engines are about to be started.And they are turned off after the  engines are shut down to let theground crew know it is safe to approach the airplane.  Neither the redanti-collision rotating red light beacons or the strobe light arevisible  in any of the 41+ videos of Flight 175 heading for the ST. Thevideos are faked. There  were no planes. On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Coffinman wrote: [Hide Quoted Text] *Anti-Collision Beacon lights:* Two beacon lights are fitted toaircraft near the center  of the fuselage. One is located on top of thefuselage and the other on the bottom. These  lights are colored reddishorange and rotate to produce a flashing effect. The beacons  are turnedon just before the engines are started and they remain active untilthe last  engine is shut down.

Date:  Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:18:49 -0500 [01/21/2011 10:18:49 PM CST] From:  [e-mail] Ron, your statement is incorect. A pilot is prevented from operating anairplane 'well  past its operating limits by 'drag rise' which must be demonstrated before certifcation. An airliner, to be certificated, must demonstrate that after it passesMmo or Vmo  (airspeed limits) in the case of the Boeing 767 360 KIAS (knots indicated airspeed) to pitch up. Itmust be demosntrated  that the pilot cannot force the nose down even with trim. If the airplane does not have an inherent pitch up then the manufacturer(such is the case  in a Lear Jet) must install a 'stick puller' which pulls the nose up if it exceeds Vmo orMmo. The only way to make the puller stop pulling is to slow the airplane down. No aeronautical engineer will ever say that an 'airplane can be operatedwell past its safe limits'. As I explained to Lawson many, many times. I also explained it to Mackey but he never responded. As a matter of fact Mackey never responded to any of my questions where I caught him lieing through his teeth with aeronautical gibberish, which sounds logical but isn't. Mackey is not an aeronautical engineer or a rocket scientist. He has a degree in Mathematics and Physics but that does not qualify him to comment on fundamental or advanced aeronautical engineering facts. The Boeing 767 Vd is 420 kts. which I have stated many, many times is a speed which the airplane MAY NOT INHERENTLY EXCEED during 'upset' tests where the airplane, for certification is put in a  dive at 360 kts and must recover without exceeding 420kts.  Lawson argued that the 420 kts could be exceeded by a 'safety factor' which is incorrect. 'The safety factor' is the speed between 360 kts and 420kts. If you want to debate aeronautic engineering I might suggest that youpurchase a copy of any available books on aeronautical engineering and not try to pull answers out of your hat or quote Mackey. Mackey is very talented at 'cherry picking' points and mixing apples with oranges. John Lear On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Ronald Wieck wrote: How many times will aeronautical engineers explain to you that the plane can be operated well past its safe limits if the pilot is willing to risk damage to the fuselage and jeopardize the safety of the passengers? Seriously, how often must we go through this? Date:  Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:43:10 -0500 [01/21/2011 11:43:10 PM CST] From:  [e-mail]

Nobody died on 911 in any of those 4 planes. As a matter of fact Isuspect
Chic Burlingame [who piloted the plane that flew toward the Pentagon but

then swerved over it] is alive, well, working for Cheney and reading these threads.

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Ronald Wieck wrote:

There were four planes. They were seen by thousands of people. Allpeople on
those died when hijackers crashed them. You are insane.

Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:39:39 -0500 [01/21/2011 11:39:39 PM CST]
From:	[e-mail]

Yes. Above 25,000 feet but not below. .8 mach at sea level is about 530kts. about 110 knots over Vd and 170 kts over Vmo (360 kts.) As to Jeffs coversation with Boeing the lady NO it cannot do 530 kts atsea level. Apparently you haven't followed very closely and don't understand basicaeronautical engineering. The 767 is certificated to .86 at cruise level, considerably more than.8. And no, the pilot cannot just push the throttles up because they arealready at the stops at 360 kts. If he trys to go faster by diving the airplane will pitchup. The best way to get out of a hole is to stop digging. :) On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Ronald Wieck wrote: Please stop. We've been through this many times. All the aeronautical engineers contacted by Jeff Hill agreed with Mackey who stated thatBoeing airliners could be flown at speeds above .8 Mach, assuming the pilotdoesn't care about damage to the plane or the safety of the passengers. Date:  Sat, 22 Jan 2011 01:47:03 -0500 [12:47:03 AM CST] From:  [e-mail]

Ron, I could be wrong but the numbers can't be. The numbers are 360 and 420. Check it out! :) On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Ronald Wieck wrote: An important point: There is no possibility of you ever acknowledging error. The rest of the world can be wrong, but you can never be wrong. You lie, make up nonsense, slander innocent Americans, but you are always right. You are quite mad

[James H. Fetzer]

Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:46:11 -0500 [04:46:11 PM CST]
From:	[e-mail]
To:	[e-mail]
Subject:	Re: Flight AA77 on 9/11: REAL FDR Analysis january 2011

Thanks Coffinman. Of course they are talking about high altitude. At sea level there is no  way those engines either SNECMA or P&W could dispose of three times the amount of air found at high altitudes. They are at their limit on takeoff as far as the amount of air going in  the front. What would the engines do with 2/3's more air? Compressor stall, backfire and start  throwing parts out the front and back and sides of the engine. It is a delicate balance in engine design to arrive at the exact amount of air it can  ingest at sea level and the exact amount of air it can ingest at altitude. They have to allow for  the air density between the two altitudes. So even one third more the amount of air is impossible. The Boeing 727 Vmo was about 400 kts because it was using a small fan in front. As  technology developed in fan design they had to trade off max Vmo versus efficiency of the larger fan. The fans on the 767, both SNECMA and P&W are 7 feet long and present enormous drag if Vmo is exceeded. On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Coffinman wrote: John I found this: *[I cannot address the merits of the B757/767 as I have not flown these, however the  L1011 was flown well in excess of Vmo during flighttest, and indeed, considering Mmo,  which for the TriStar is M.90,flight test was performed, according to Lockheed test  pilots that I know...at M.98. So, excess speed certainly is possible, but only a fool would go there....unless you were  a properly trained test pilot. Of course, exceeding Vmo/Mmo will sound the overspeed clacker, but simply tripping the  appropriate circuit breaker would 'fix' this inconvenience.]* So this issue is not settled and needs independent authoritative verification. They say the Vmo for the 767 was based on the strength of thewindshield, not the air  frame.

[James H. Fetzer]

Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2011 17:58:35 -0500 [04:58:35 PM CST]
From:	[e-mail]
To:
Subject:	Re: Flight AA77 on 9/11: REAL FDR Analysis january 2011

I forgot to add that the bird strike limitaion has nothing to do withVd. Vd has to do  with the inherent characteristics of the aircraft to pitch up as the speed increases. Vd on the Boeing 767 is 420kts. so that  meant that when the aircraft was put in a dive at 360 kts 10 degrees pitch down for 30seconds that the  airplane was stll recoverable without exceeding 420 kts. That means that if the Vd, for example was 380  kts., that the pitch up could not be controlled even with full down trim. The pitch 'up' is omherent in aircraft design because the FAA and themanufacturers do not  want any pilot to exceed the Vmo. If he does all he is going to get is a pitch up. Thatis why it is so  ridiculous to propose that the Boeing 767 could acheiive 470 kts. On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Coffinman wrote: John I found this: *[I cannot address the merits of the B757/767 as I have not flown these, however the  L1011 was flown well in excess of Vmo during flight test, and indeed, considering Mmo,  which for the TriStar is M.90, flight test was performed, according to Lockheed test  pilots that I know...at M.98. So, excess speed certainly is possible, but only a fool would go there....unless you were  a properly trained test pilot. Of course, exceeding Vmo/Mmo will sound the overspeed clacker, but simply tripping the  appropriate circuit breaker would 'fix' this inconvenience.]* So this issue is not settled and needs independent authoritative verification. They say the Vmo for the 767 was based on the strength of the windshield, not the air  fra

[James H. Fetzer]

His first post is the most important, but for some reason is showing up in dark print.  This is easier to read:

All airlines turn on position beacons (red, green, white) before taxi, day or night. On takeoff, strobes on is manadorty and landing lights if foggy or night. Landing lights are turned off at transition altitude (18,000 feet) strobes remain on always during flight. On descent landing lights come on at 18,000 feet and strobes stay on until after landing. I  have looked carefully at all 41+ videos many lasting more than 2 seconds and there is no indication of the strobes lights. Strobes lights are on the top, bottom , wing tips and tail. There is no possibility that the videos taken were of a real airplane in flight. There is no possibility that an Arab hijacker could have found and turned of the strobe light in the myriad of 40 switches on the forward, left, right and overhead panel of the Boeing 767. It is impossible that a hijacker who was about to kill himself would have given a damn whether or not the strobes were on...he was going to crash the airplane! Anybody who thinks the hijackers could/would have turned the strobe lights off must be giving the hijacker credit for thinking: Hey! I'd better turn off the strobe lights because I don't want anybody taking videos to be able to prove whether or not I was flying a real airplane into the tower! Let's see, where could those darn strobe light switches be? I could ask the pilots but I just killed them. Maybe I should have asked them where the switches were before I killed them! Hey, Abdul..come and help me find the strobe light switches..they gotta be here somewhere."

John Lear