@MarkConlonUK @911Revisionist your right i miss spoke the FDRs were DESTROYED IN THE IMPACTS, but the flight parameters are independently confirmed by radar data, ATC communications, and physical impact forensics, none of which Lear's affidavit addresses.
@MarkConlonUK @911Revisionist The FDRs weren't recovered because they were destroyed in catastrophic impacts — which is documented — and selectively citing FDR data when it helps you while dismissing it when it doesn't is not research, it's cherry picking
@911Revisionist do i think the government seized a opportunity to go to war and do i think they lied in commissions/reports to do so yes and yes and did we get the full truth no but there is no evidence that planes didn't hit the towers compared to the overwhelming evidence that planes did
@911Revisionist @MarkConlonUK So Flight 587 actually supports the physics explanation rather than undermining it it shows aggressive control inputs destroy airframes, while straight high-speed flight at low altitude doesn't, which is precisely consistent with Flight 175 remaining intact until impact
@911Revisionist @MarkConlonUK which is exactly why Flight 175 stayed intact during its final straight descent but would have been at serious risk had the hijacker made aggressive control inputs at that speed
@911Revisionist @MarkConlonUK A phone call to a Boeing PR spokesperson who wasn't expecting it and wasn't told the full context is not aeronautical engineering analysis, and it's directly contradicted by Boeing's own on-record statements confirming the speed was achievable.
@911Revisionist @MarkConlonUK so until you produce a single peer-reviewed study, original calculation, or independently verified test that supports your position, you're not making an argument, you're just making noise
@911Revisionist @MarkConlonUK Lear's affidavit asks you to trust his intuition over physical recorded instrument data from inside the actual aircraft. That's not how aviation accident investigation works