Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

9/11
See other 9/11 Articles

Title: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers...
Source: The Tap
URL Source: http://www.redflagnews.com/headline ... 39699&fb_action_types=og.likes
Published: May 19, 2014
Author: Ron Baitley-Simens
Post Date: 2014-05-19 09:08:25 by Lorie Meacham
Keywords: None
Views: 253
Comments: 14

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 byMorgan 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 the 9/11 Truth movement initially rejected the ‘no-planes’ theory as too outlandish, after scientific and rational analysis, it has become a widely accepted explanation of the evidence collected. 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 be obliged to admit 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 Pilotfor911truth.org, which has consistently shown that it was impossible for jet airliners to have hit the Twin Towers in the way the 9/11 Commission has suggested.

http://neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers#.UxR5ulCOMJM.facebook

http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/planes-hitting-twin-towers-were.html

Look carefully at this 'graphic'. have you ever seen a plane with the lump sticking out of one side of its fuselage ever before or since? There's your first clue. There are plenty of others. Click link above 'planes hitting twin towers...'.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Lorie Meacham (#0)

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

I hope no one takes this garbage seriously.

One of the Lears will tell you the back side of the moon is populated with numerous cities, on and on, ad nauseam.

Cynicom  posted on  2014-05-19   9:18:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Lorie Meacham (#0)

I agree. It wasn't commercial 767's that did the deed.

Support bacteria.

(The world needs more culture)

Obnoxicated  posted on  2014-05-19   9:21:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Cynicom (#1)

Of course all those people who saw the planes fly into the buildings are part of the CONSPIRACY!!!! You know - the one behind EVERY PROBLEM EVER!!!

"Have Brain, Will Travel

Turtle  posted on  2014-05-19   10:09:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Lorie Meacham (#0)

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.

John Lear obviously is not familiar with the term "kinetic energy".

 photo 001g.gif
“With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group."
-Alex Kurtagic

X-15  posted on  2014-05-19   10:24:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Obnoxicated (#2)

www.serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm
www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm

Itistoolate  posted on  2014-05-19   10:27:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Itistoolate (#5)

Interesting read, ITL. Thx.

Support bacteria.

(The world needs more culture)

Obnoxicated  posted on  2014-05-19   11:49:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Lorie Meacham (#0)

Thanks Lorie Interesting observations on this topic from a thread on Pilots for 911 Truth several years ago. Some things to chew on.

post Sep 1 2007, 11:01 AM

Post #16

Great Post Painter.

Of course any discussion of why the 911 plane impacts are impossible on the physical limitations alone, should take into account Penetration Mechanics and what is termed Crash Physics as well as impossible speed and altitude issues. Mr. Keith weighs in on this issue as the primary reason as to why the impacts couldn't have happened as depicted. Here's an excerpt from an interview Keith granted Morgan Reynolds:

Q: You say anyone can prove the video is fake. How?

A: First get any video. They’re getting harder to find. A good example is “In Memoriam, New York City 9/11/01” from HBO, narrated by Rudy Giuliani, because the plane crashes at the beginning. Start the DVD and as the plane comes into view, hit the pause on your remote and then go frame-by-frame until the plane goes into the building, step by step.

Carefully watch the plane go into the building: it’s like a hot knife cutting through butter. Marvel at how a plane can meld into a steel-concrete building. A plane should crash against the building. It makes one curious! It should make you think about how a plane would enter a steel-concrete building.

Q: One argument we hear is that all the videos can’t be fake.

A: Well, get all 30 of ‘em and run ‘em, I have four. One of mine doesn’t show the actual crash, two of them show a plane banking, one doesn’t.

Every video that shows impact shows a plane flying through the tower wall the same way it flies through thin air: no cratering effect, no pushing parts of the building in, no crunching of the airframe as it hits resistance, no reaction from the heavy engines and hidden landing gear, no parts breaking off, no outer 30 feet of the wing breaking off, no bursting, shredding or bending of the wing. No nothing.

Q: Isn’t that impossible in reality?

A: Yes. Then after absorption of the plane, you see the building closing up and then an explosion. Meanwhile, nothing fell from either the building or the plane.

Q: That’s compelling evidence of video fakery. What else?

A: One more test is to pause with the plane on the screen. Take a magic marker or tape and mark the nose of the plane and then count frames until the tail passes the mark. You’ll find that the number of steps the plane takes while the plane is in thin air is the same as the number of steps the plane takes as it melds into the building.

Q: So there’s no deceleration?

A: Right. It violates all Newton’s laws of motion. I’ll state them:

1. An object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion remains in motion until a force is applied.

2. When a force is applied to an object, the object accelerates in the direction of the force. When an object in motion hits stationary resistance, the force acts in the opposite direction of the object and therefore the object decelerates.

3. Newton said, “For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction” but I say, every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.

Q: So, for example, a diver speeds through thin air but slows in the resistance of the water unless he has a new energy source to maintain speed.

A: Right. It’s like this TV show I was watching called Myth Busters. They dumped this dummy from 100 feet and it registered 16 G’s when it hit water. That can kill you, we can only take about 10 G’s. Then think about hitting steel and concrete.

Q: Believers in Boeing 767s hitting the twin towers always bring up kinetic energy as the big explanation for how an aluminum plane could fly right through the wall of a steel and concrete tower. Speed squared is supposed make us believe the plane-like outline of the holes in the towers.

A: The more kinetic energy, the more damage the speeding object will do when it hits, but they’re claiming that it punched right through. The plane should have continued right through the building like a bullet through paper. Sure, in the bullet case, little kinetic energy is lost. No plane deceleration also means the plane never lost kinetic energy. Victor Thorn and the others, even though they’re good on demolition and no plane at the Pentagon, are afraid to come out for the No Plane Theory (NPT).

(END EXCERPT)

This is in line with everything I understand about penetration mechanics and affirms the position I've been laying out on the Alt. Theory forum.

This is real science, people.

Now I would add that if you back that up with impossible flight speeds you are looking at very persuasive evidence indeed (conclusive IMO).

People here are theorizing about specially fitted planes which suggests the need for special criteria when ascribing possibility, i.e. if the planes were special then it's feasible they could behave in special ways.

In this regard I would have to bring in the other solid evidence issue: that of flight data.

The WB 11 live shot depicts the "plane" on a trajectory totally at odds with the flight data. Again an impossibility, but this time, one even a "special plane" can't reconcile.

A further look into the business of approach angles will show inconsistency across the board in regards to (1) certain videos compared to flight data and just as importantly (2) comparison between the various videos, one to another, i.e. they don't correspond to each other. (Jim Keith points out this issue too: "two of them show a plane banking, one doesn’t."

Applying logic here: If it is impossible for an aluminum based plane to penetrate the towers in the fashion depicted (and Jim Keith, an Expert, says categorically that it is) and furthermore that it is impossible for a plane to fly at the speeds depicted (again JK declares it is) and furthermore there is evidence of video manipulation because of approach angles that are in certain instances inconsistent with flight data and in other instances inconsistent one video example to another:

Then it can safely be concluded that the videos were manipulated to include false images of planes impacting the buildings and in reality there were none: regular, special equipped or otherwise.

Any conclusion must be derived from, and in reconciliation of, all the relevant data. In other words: selective use of evidence can lead to false conclusions. We should avoid this tendency.

I propose we "triangulate" the evidentiary proof so to speak and consider three basic and important aspects: (1) the impossibility of planes performing in the manner depicted, (2) the impossibility of planes penetrating in the manner depicted and (3) the impossibility of planes approaching in the manner depicted.

My 2 cents, Ffg.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 1 2007, 11:07 AM

Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.

randge  posted on  2014-05-19   15:36:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: randge (#7)

Thanks for this reminder in basic physics.

What is your conclusion of the day's events?

Thanks.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2014-05-19   15:53:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Lorie Meacham (#0)

He is mixing the truth with lies to discredit the truth. He is not a "ex-CIA" employee as there is no such thing unless you die.

No 767s hit the towers, but planes did indeed hit the towers.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2014-05-19   16:00:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Lod (#8)

Murder. Homicide.

The events leading up to it are much more complex than if it had been carried out in front of us live by a gunman against a hapless victim in plain view.

There is no proof that nineteen hijackers either boarded or diverted those aircraft.

There was massive malfeasance and irresponsibility evident with respect to this country's air defenses that day. No one in official capacity was ever called to account.

As far as what went on inside said buildings and aircraft, the devil's in the details. You can't even make much progress answering a seemingly straightforward question like "How fast can a 767 fly at 1000 ft. above sea level?" without getting bogged down in a maze of contradictory representations.

What happened after the fact, especially with respect to the disposition of evidence, bears all the hallmarks of a guilty coverup on the part of officialdom.

That's a pretty general answer to a pretty general question, Lod. In a nutshell those are my conclusions. Once again, something stinks, and it ain't in Denmark.

It stinks like road kill skunk on hot Texas asphalt.

Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.

randge  posted on  2014-05-19   17:31:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: randge (#10)

Correct, but after your first post, I'm now questioning if any aircraft, of any sort, hit the towers - it raised serious questions here.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2014-05-19   17:42:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Lod (#11)

There might not have been any airplane that hit the towers, but I wouldn't say nothing hit the towers because too many people saw something hit the towers. It could have been a missile disguised as a plane, but I am confident it was not 767s. The reason the news media had to edit the video footage was to hide what really hit the towers, not because nothing hit the towers. Possibly a missile projecting a holographic image of a plane around it as it flew maybe. Many people said they thought it was military planes that hit the towers.

God is always good!

RickyJ  posted on  2014-05-19   17:59:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Lod (#11)

As nutty as it sounds, I think there is merit in that argument.

It was once "obvious" that the world was flat.

Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.

randge  posted on  2014-05-19   19:06:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: randge (#13)

Agree completely.

Reviewing the footage, and seeing the "planes" being enveloped like a spoon into a bowl of jello...that's just not possible.

Thanks again for the information - it sends me back to square zero on the entire event. gak

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2014-05-19   19:23:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest