Jump to content
Forums are under active construction. ×

Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers


DC

Recommended Posts

I was linked to this on Facebook and it's hilarious in its conspiracy-ness -:

 

Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers

John Lear, the son of Learjet inventor, shocking claims

By: Ron Baitley-Simens

21st May 2014 @ 2.21am

 

A former CIA and civilian pilot has sworn an affidavit, stating that no planes flew into the Twin Towers as it would have been physically impossible.

 

John Lear, the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, has given his expert evidence that it would have been physically impossible for Boeing 767s, like Flights AA11 and UA175 to have hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, particularly when flown by inexperienced pilots:

 

‘No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors’, he stated in the affidavit.

 

‘Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted, for the following reasons: in the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center.

 

‘The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

 

‘The engines when impacting the steel columns would havemaintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building.

 

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.

 

The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.

The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.

No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground.

 

‘The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.'

 

The affidavit, dated 28th January 2014 is part of a law suit being pursued by Morgan Reynolds in the United States District Court, Southern District, New York.

 

In March 2007, Reynolds, a former chief economist under the George W Bush administration filed a Request For Correction with the US National Institute of Science and Technology citing his belief that real commercial jets (Boeings) did not hit the WTC towers.

 

Although many, including the 9/11 Truth movement initially rejected the ‘no-planes’ theory as too outlandish, with proponents such as John Lear it is gathering traction.

 

Unlike any other form of statement, an affidavit becomes truth in law, if it is not rebutted. It will now be up to critics of the theory to present their evidence and analysis to rebut the statement point by point. If they do not – or cannot – then the US government will by ommisssion be allowing that the account given by the 9/11 Commission is wrong.

 

The 65 year old retired airline captain and former CIA pilot – who has over 19,000 hours of flight time -- also drew attention to the inexperience of the pilots who allegedly flew the planes:

 

‘The alleged 'controlled' descent into New York on a relatively straight course by a novice pilot in unlikely in the extreme because of the difficulty of controlling heading, descent rate and descent speed within the parameters of 'controlled' flight.

 

‘It takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret the "EFIS" (Electronic Flight Instrument Display) display, with which none of the hijacker pilots would have been familiar or received training on, and use his controls, including the ailerons, rudder, elevators, spoilers and throttles to effect, control and maintain a descent.

 

Lear has, according to his sworn statement, flown over 100 different types of planes during his 40 years of flying and holds more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. He flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983 then spent 17 years working for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor.

 

He is a member of Pilotsfor911truth.org, which has consistently argued that it was impossible for jet airliners to have hit the Twin Towers in the way the 9/11 Commission has suggested. The Commission did not take evidence from pilots when it conducted its enquiry into the attacks from 2002 to 2004.

 

Please tell us what you think - comments below:

What's even funnier is the replies in the comments section.

 

"Emotion and chaos is the distraction. It's the same principle as slieght of hand with a magician. "Look at this 'empty' hand" as the other hands palms a card. If you show people enough footage of a fragile plane reducing buildings to dust, people will believe that. It becomes truth because they've been conditioned to 'believe' that."

 

"Use your damn head ...the country saw nothin"

 

"I thought the twin tower thing was a government cover up from day 1 it was to weird how the buildings went down watch any demolition of a tall building exactly the same as the the 911 the planes part was probably drones or something they flew into it...."

 

"Since the first time I saw the suposed "attack" of 9/11 on tv, I knew it was false, it was clearly visible that the buildings were imploded. And I know some people who saw it the same way."

 

"Did you happen to catch the music awards on tv two nights ago. Michael Jackson performed live. And he's been dead for years.

Pictures and video don't mean anything anymore. You can't trust anything unless you see it for yourself firsthand."

Link to comment
Share on other sites


No, the funny thing is "ex-CIA." There's no such thing. Once a company man, always a company man.

 

Oh and also, why do you think it's so funny? Is it just fun for you to laugh at people who have other opinions than yours? That type of arrogance has to be exhausting. The article presents pretty solid facts. Can you refute it or do you just think it's all silly conspiracy type bullshit because you saw the video of a plane hitting a building? Were you in New York that day and saw it for yourself?

Edited by Maxximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is this dude saying that if a plane did hit it (which it shouldn't have been able to do, according to the guy), it should've crumpled, fell apart, and dropped to the ground instead of going through the building?

 

I've heard random bits and pieces over the years about how American Airlines 11 was still being tracked after it was supposed to have already crashed into the building, so it'll be interesting to see what rebuttals come out about this particular theory.

 

The only thing that makes me question it so much is that there's so much footage from differet angles of planes hitting the buildings. If there were no planes, then are we saying all these "amateur" videos were purposely created to be dispersed to the media?

 

It's interesting reading, if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So is this dude saying that if a plane did hit it (which it shouldn't have been able to do, according to the guy), it should've crumpled, fell apart, and dropped to the ground instead of going through the building?

 

I've heard random bits and pieces over the years about how American Airlines 11 was still being tracked after it was supposed to have already crashed into the building, so it'll be interesting to see what rebuttals come out about this particular theory.

 

The only thing that makes me question it so much is that there's so much footage from different angles of planes hitting the buildings. If there were no planes, then are we saying all these "amateur" videos were purposely created to be dispersed to the media?

 

It's interesting reading, if nothing else.

 

I don't know if he's saying that nothing hit the towers, just that a commercial jet liner couldn't have done the damage that's attributed to it? Which is kind of different than "no planes" suggests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay cool. That I understand.

 

Honestly, I always thought that kind of damage couldn't be done by just a plane, regardless of how hot they say airplane fuel burns. I mean, that's a pretty big explosion so it would suggest that it wasn't just a plane exploding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how wide the floors were in the WTC but a 747 engine has got to be generally bigger than an average ceiling height and even if it isn't it can't be massively smaller meaning to get the fuel burning right in the middle of the building it would have to be a pretty miraculous hit to stop the engines smashing into the floor below and exploding on the outside of the building. Then you times that by two and note that the second plane definitely didn't hit straight on it gets kind of weird.

 

I have to say the thing that's always bothered me is the tower collapsing straight down, I can't see why the side that got hit first wasn't the first bit to topple over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and also, why do you think it's so funny? Is it just fun for you to laugh at people who have other opinions than yours? That type of arrogance has to be exhausting. The article presents pretty solid facts. Can you refute it or do you just think it's all silly conspiracy type bullshit because you saw the video of a plane hitting a building? Were you in New York that day and saw it for yourself?
I was not in New York. However, I find it ridiculous that there is a theory that basically states every major new station on the planet is in on some massive conspiracy. Am I not allowed to find it funny because that opinion might go against your own?

 

I find the majority of conspiracy theories on 9/11 laughable, and while this one presents interesting facts on planes, it does not present any facts on the events on 9/11 itself.

 

So again, I was not in New York, but there are some conspiracy theories that claim that doesn't matter, because even if you were there, you were watching holograms anyway.

 

EDIT - Forgot to say that if anyone finds my opinion on conspiracy theories laughable, then that's OK too.

Edited by DC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have spoken to people who were in New York and did see it happen. But even assuming all the eye witnesses are lying or were tricked, that implies that whoever carried out the destruction killed two planes worth of passengers in cold blood as well as all the people in the buildings..... and they let an ex-cia pilot spill the beans? Please, pull the other one, it has bells on. If it was a conspiracy, it will never be proved because anyone who actually comes close will disappear or have an accident. If they killed 3000 people and faked an attack like that, they can do anything at all that it is possible to actually do and can't be stopped.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Hancock
Were you in New York that day and saw it for yourself?

 

Were you?

 

Honestly, I always thought that kind of damage couldn't be done by just a plane, regardless of how hot they say airplane fuel burns. I mean, that's a pretty big explosion so it would suggest that it wasn't just a plane exploding.

 

[video=youtube;be7B3mUMe6U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be7B3mUMe6U

 

I think people don’t realise exactly what a plane is. You’re literally sitting in the fuel tank. The entire thing is a fuel tank, it’s not all just sitting in the engines, or some little box at the front like a car. If you’re sitting in a plane, you are sitting literally inside the fuel tank of the thing you’re travelling in. It’s ball of electricity and petrol, it makes a big explosion.

 

Add to that that, when a plane hits a building, it’s not just the plane blowing up. That building is wired for electricity, it’s wired for gas, it’s full of electronics, and all of those things are exploding too.

 

Add to THAT, that the aluminium in the building is melting, and the sprinklers are going off. What do you get when you mix water with molten aluminium? Hydrogen explosions. Giant hydrogen explosions.

 

[video=youtube;pB2f1eZS2Wo]

 

I don't know how wide the floors were in the WTC but a 747 engine has got to be generally bigger than an average ceiling height and even if it isn't it can't be massively smaller meaning to get the fuel burning right in the middle of the building it would have to be a pretty miraculous hit to stop the engines smashing into the floor below and exploding on the outside of the building. Then you times that by two and note that the second plane definitely didn't hit straight on it gets kind of weird.

 

Why would you assume that? It’s a giant metal missile, going hundreds of miles an hour, into some glass and flooring. I’d bet on a plane winning that exchange.

 

On top of that, one of the engines actually did come off (I don’t remember which one). It rolled out of the building and they found it in Church Street. As I said, the engines aren’t the only bits that explode.

 

I have to say the thing that's always bothered me is the tower collapsing straight down, I can't see why the side that got hit first wasn't the first bit to topple over.

 

Because the support beam for the towers was in the middle, and was made of steel. The towers were designed specifically not to fall over sideways for any reason, all the floors were held up from the middle. That’s why the towers don’t fall over instantly, it talk almost an hour from the attack to the first tower falling down, and almost two hours until the second tower collapsed. It wasn’t an impact issue.

 

The plane fuel, the building’s fuel, and the aluminium-water combination started fires, but didn’t structurally damage the building. The damage was caused when the fires got so hot that the central steel columns started to melt and, when that happened, seeing that the columns were in the middle of the buildings, they imploded instead of falling over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that to be totally fake most people on the planet would be involved and no one could keep a secret that big. No way. I still question the specifics but I'm not a full blown "inside jobber" type. The story just never made sense to me. It's all too convenient.

 

My little outburst comes from just being open minded about everything and getting upset when someone just laughs away a story regardless of how compelling it may be just because "it's a conspiracy theorist story and everyone knows those people are loons". I'm a CT'r and I'm not a loon. I always look at evidence on both sides. If a story turns out to be bullshit, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. I take the stand of being a believer first then working on debunking it for myself. That's just how my brain works.

 

I WANT to believe, I just know people are full of shit and out for their own. That's why I scoff at televangelists and stuff like that but if I see a good UFO story for example I'm like, ooooooooh, this could be fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Hancock

I mean, I actually think it's pretty laugh-away-able. Asking questions is fine, but there's a difference between questioning the details, and questioning the entire event. I'm yet to hear an alternative to "Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists highjacked planes in mid-air and flew them into things" that wasn't humourlessly dumb. Usually, they're sort of a vague "So they could... Iraq!?" which is just tiresome. Ask Guatemala, Panama, Haiti, Vietnam and Grenada how many buildings you have to pretend to blow up to get invaded.

 

Also, for the record, the guy saying this, John Lear, believes the Earth is being secretly invaded by human-eating aliens, that the American government created the AIDS virus, there's a secret Earth-base on Mars, school shootings are organised by the government to justify anti-gun laws, the Bush family are the world's biggest international drug smugglers and what we saw on 9/11 was actually a complicated series of holograms.

 

He's quite the source.

Edited by John Hancock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[video=youtube;be7B3mUMe6U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=be7B3mUMe6U

 

I think people don’t realise exactly what a plane is. You’re literally sitting in the fuel tank. The entire thing is a fuel tank, it’s not all just sitting in the engines, or some little box at the front like a car. If you’re sitting in a plane, you are sitting literally inside the fuel tank of the thing you’re travelling in. It’s ball of electricity and petrol, it makes a big explosion.

 

Add to that that, when a plane hits a building, it’s not just the plane blowing up. That building is wired for electricity, it’s wired for gas, it’s full of electronics, and all of those things are exploding too.

 

Add to THAT, that the aluminium in the building is melting, and the sprinklers are going off. What do you get when you mix water with molten aluminium? Hydrogen explosions. Giant hydrogen explosions.

 

[video=youtube;pB2f1eZS2Wo]

 

Why would you assume that? It’s a giant metal missile, going hundreds of miles an hour, into some glass and flooring. I’d bet on a plane winning that exchange.

 

On top of that, one of the engines actually did come off (I don’t remember which one). It rolled out of the building and they found it in Church Street. As I said, the engines aren’t the only bits that explode.

 

Because the support beam for the towers was in the middle, and was made of steel. The towers were designed specifically not to fall over sideways for any reason, all the floors were held up from the middle. That’s why the towers don’t fall over instantly, it talk almost an hour from the attack to the first tower falling down, and almost two hours until the second tower collapsed. It wasn’t an impact issue.

 

The plane fuel, the building’s fuel, and the aluminium-water combination started fires, but didn’t structurally damage the building. The damage was caused when the fires got so hot that the central steel columns started to melt and, when that happened, seeing that the columns were in the middle of the buildings, they imploded instead of falling over.

 

I'll admit, I've never seen a plane explode before, so that pretty much answers my question.

 

I love it when you get all analytical. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Hancock
I'll admit, I've never seen a plane explode before, so that pretty much answers my question.

 

I wasn't scared of flying until I learnt how they're fuel system worked. It's really, really terrifying :lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I wasn't there. I was lashing out from an emotional place. Usually I think before I post. Not that time. Honestly I haven't even thought about 9/11 that much in years.

 

 

Also, for the record, the guy saying this, John Lear, believes the Earth is being secretly invaded by human-eating aliens, that the American government created the AIDS virus, there's a secret Earth-base on Mars, school shootings are organised by the government to justify anti-gun laws, the Bush family are the world's biggest international drug smugglers and what we saw on 9/11 was actually a complicated series of holograms.

 

He's quite the source.

 

 

I knew I'd heard that name somewhere else. He's an Alex Jones size crack pot for sure. I think it was Jessie Ventura who was talking about the hologram thing too or some kind of beam weapon being used. I may be pretty out there sometimes but c'mon, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Hancock
Holograms is a pretty great out. They start with, what was it first, bombs or missiles? I know one came first, they got called silly, so they changed. Then it was planes, but the CIA were in the planes, now it's holograms. You can't really argue with holograms because it's just saying, the stuff you saw, you saw, but it was a trick. It's like saying you're in the matrix, you can't disprove it, because this is what the matrix would look like. If you were going to hologram 9/11, it would look exactly like 9/11.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curse this infernal Arcon matrix!

 

Well there is binary code written into the background radiation from the big bang so what does that tell you? If it is the matrix and on some level we build our own life in advance I hope I get to kick my own ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plane fuel, the building’s fuel, and the aluminium-water combination started fires, but didn’t structurally damage the building. The damage was caused when the fires got so hot that the central steel columns started to melt and, when that happened, seeing that the columns were in the middle of the buildings, they imploded instead of falling over.

 

One minor correction, the steel columns didn't start to melt in the normal sense of the term, the heat from the fire wouldn't have been enough. But the heat was enough to soften them so they collapsed and pancaked the floors. Popular Mechanics website has loads of stuff debunking the conspiracy theories about why it was faked based on observable evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Active Fan Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...