Ladislav, what's your take on these valid questions?

[Winston]

Ladislav, what's your take on these questions about 9/11? Do you admit that these are valid questions and points?


1. Regarding the Pentagon crash, many Airline and Airforce pilots have said that not was the reported maneuver on a 757 near impossible, but that one cannot train on a small Cessna plane and then suddenly fly a 757 like an ace as the government claims. Captain Russ Wittenburg, a 30 year veteran of United Airlines (or American Airlines), said that it would be like "learning how to carve a turkey and then using that skill to do a heart transplant... there's not one chance in a thousand".

How do you respond to that? Do you know any real Airline pilots that you could talk to about this? Can you ask them if it's possible to train on a cessna plane and then fly a 757? What's your take?

See what many experienced accomplished pilots said this here:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

2. Also, aviation experts have said that the maneuver of AA77, doing a 270 degree turn and then descending 7000 feet in two minutes, is near impossible on a 757. Only an air force jet fighter could do that. In fact, one of them in the film said that even the BEST pilots have only a 1 in 10 or 20 chance of making such a maneuver on a 757.

Now, if the best pilots have a 1 in 20 chance of making that maneuver, what are the odds that a guy who couldn't even fly a small plane (according to people who trained with him in the flight school) could pull off that maneuver? What would your estimate be? Close to zero?

See here:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

3. How do you explain how the WTC could fall at nearly free fall speed? What could remove the resistance of millions of tons of steel and concrete, just like that?

If you believe in the pancake collapse theory, which FEMA already abandoned, where is the "stack" of floors at the bottom and where are the inner core columns?

Plus a pancake collapse cannot occur at near free fall speed.

4. Do you see nothing suspicious that never before 9/11 had large airliners crashed with no debris, and then suddenly on 9/11, it happened twice? Or that never before had steel highrises collapsed from fire before 9/11, and then suddenly on 9/11 it happened three times?

What's your take on Building 7, which collapsed in 5.5 seconds into its own footprint, even though it was never hit by a plane?

[PatrickSMcNally]

What's your take on Building 7, which collapsed in 5.5 seconds

This much is not correct. Building 7 took 18 seconds to collapse according to seismic readings:

http://www.firehouse.com/tech/news/2002 ... orist.html

Film clips allow one to detect about 16 seconds of this collapse-time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw

[Winston]

What's your take on Building 7, which collapsed in 5.5 seconds

This much is not correct. Building 7 took 18 seconds to collapse according to seismic readings:

http://www.firehouse.com/tech/news/2002 ... orist.html

Film clips allow one to detect about 16 seconds of this collapse-time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw

But the actual descent of the building was 5.5 seconds. It's on video and shown in every 9/11 film. No dispute about it.

Even NIST can't explain it and were forced to admit freefall. See the video on youtube about it.

All the evidence is against you.

Even if it were 18 seconds, it's still unexplained and impossible to go down that fast from fire, into its own footprint.

See AE911Truth.org and its film for more info.