John Lear On Speed And Parts Options

[Michael Morrisse...]

Sorry for starting a new topic, since this has probably been discussed before, but I missed it. I would like to know if there has been any consensus (wishful thinking, probably) concerning John Lear's arguments below. I suppose you have all seen his 2008 affidavit to the Reynolds case, but I have appended it below also. I myself have no expertise at all in these matters so I am relying on his (and your, if I get them) opinions.

Thanks,
Michael Morrissey

On 23 Sept. 2009 John Lear wrote:

The speed issue has been posted on P4T for well over a year in the form of
an affidavit I filed with New York District Court Southern Division in opposition
to the motion to dismiss filed by several companies to Morgan’s Qui Tam Complaint.

I don’t think I ever looked to see what the responses were.

I have attached that affidavit to this post.

The only reason I addressed the parts issue yesterday was to show the impossibility
of 2 Boeing 757’s and 2 Boeing 767’s crashing into the ground or a building without leaving
one single identifiable (by documented parts number) piece of aircraft.

I believe that there were 6 or 7 pieces of wreckage at the sites but these pieces of wreckage
were apparently traced to the American Airlines B-757 Cali, Columbia crash in 1996.

If we had a single part number and we had access to Boeings computer all we would have to
do would be to type in that number and it would give us the serial number and type of aircraft
Into which it was installed. These records are also maintained by the airline that operates that
particular airplane.

One issue I have mentioned but not formally addressed is “the envelope”. When a commercial
airline flight is ready for pushback and the door is ready to be closed, the chief flight attendant
goes into the cockpit and the captain or first officer hands her ‘the envelope’. The envelope contains
the passenger count, the weight and balance computations, the fuel on board, fuel required, flight plan
and the captains signature verifying that he has checked all of these and the airplane is ready for flight.

If for some reason that airplane crashes the first thing the NTSB wants to see is ‘the envelope’
in order to start the investigation. That envelope is retrieved from the airlines station agent or
other responsible party. The very first thing that is checked is how many S.O.B.’s or “Souls
on Board” there where so that family notification can take plane. Sometimes the actual names
of the passengers are in the envelope, sometimes not. It depends on the company’s policy.
But what is absolutely is required is the number, including crew on board.

I have never heard this issue addressed for 911. I have heard that the security cameras at
the security check points show this or that. When in fact all they need to do is get the number
of passengers off of the envelope and compare it with the passenger check in data.

And to my knowledge the ‘envelope’ issue has not been addressed by anybody.

John Lear



On Sep 22, 2009 John Lear wrote:


Between the four airplanes which allegedly crashed on 911 there should be
approximately 9 million parts. 3 million parts each for the 767 and 1.5
million parts for the 757. In addition to the parts there should be 60 miles
of wiring for each 757 or 120 miles for both. There is 90 miles of wiring
on each 767 which makes 180 miles for both 767's. Wiring is stamped every 12
inches or so with data which includes where it is going, where it is coming
from and its maximum load capacity. The reason for this is that wiring is
braided into bundles of up to one hundred wires and when you are tracing
down a problem you have to know quickly which wire you are looking for and
identify it.

Every single part on a Transport Category airplane which means it is
certificated to the standards of CFR14 (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 25
of the U.S. Federal Air Regulations and to be certificated either it has to
be made by the factory (Boeing) itself or subcontracted to another parts
maker. If it is made by another parts maker that parts maker has to be
inspected by the FAA and given PMA Parts Manufacturer Authority.

Every single part on a U.S Transport must have a Parts Number stamped,
engraved, embossed or otherwise identified so that an FAA inspector can
pick up a part and immediately identify whether or not that parts meets
conformity. Every single rivet and screw and other type fastener has their
own code of identification for the type. Every single forging, must be
stamped just like ever other piece of the airplane must be clearly
identified with a parts number, either engraved, painted, stamped, etc. This
is so that an FAA inspector can immediately tell whether or not that part
meets conformity. This includes every single part of an engine, auxiliary
power unit, door, safety belt, wheel, hydraulic pump or whatever.

It is also because in the investigation of an accident each remaining part
is inspected for conformity.

Parts numbers must be stamped, engraved, painted in a manner that even if it
is mutilated that the part number is still visible. The alleged Boeing 767
fuselage section, allegedly having been thrown clear of the accident to the
top of building 5 will have a part number somewhere on that piece. You will
notice that it is not burnt so identification should be easy.

Regarding the alleged engine on Murray street is extremely difficult to
understand how an engine that size could break in half behind the fan
section, considering the shaft is one piece. But whatever the case there
should be identification numbers on all of the remaining parts of the
engine. Each Boeing 767 engine weighs about 9000 pounds. The takeoff
internal temperature of the 767 engine is over 900 C so it is highly
unlikely that any of the alleged 3 remaining engine in the WTC were burned
to any extent. Forgings much larger than the Boeing 767 engine should have
been visible in the wreckage of the WTC buildings particularly the wing
attachment to fuselage forging.

Based on the above it is impossible that any Boeing 767 crashed into either
the North Tower or the South Tower.

John Lear

Affidavit:

Jerry V. Leaphart #jl4468
Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C.
8 West Street, Suite 203
Danbury, CT 06810
(203) 825-6265 – phone
(203) 825-6256 – fax
jsleaphart@cs.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS, on behalf of :
The United States of America :
:
Plaintiff, : ECF CASE
vs. :
: 07 CIV 4612 (GBD)
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS :
INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al :
: January 28, 2008
Defendants. :
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEVADA :
COUNTY OF CLARK :
JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I.
1. I am 65 years of age, a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with over 19,000 hours of flight time, over 11,000 of which are in command of 3 or 4 engine jet transports, have flown over 100 different types

Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 16
of aircraft in 60 different countries around the world. I retired in 2001 after 40 years of flying.

2. I am the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, and hold more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. These include the Airline Transport Pilot certificate with 23 type ratings, Flight Instructor, Flight Engineer, Flight Navigator, Ground Instructor, Aircraft Dispatcher, Control Tower Operator and Parachute Rigger.

3. I flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983
.
4. During the last 17 years of my career I worked for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor. I was certificated by the FAA as a North Atlantic (MNPS) Check Airman. I have extensive experience as command pilot and instructor in the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Lockheed L-1011.

5. I checked out as Captain on a Boeing 707 in 1973 and Captain on the Lockheed L-1011 in 1985.

6. I hold 17 world records including Speed Around the World in a Lear Jet Model 24 set in 1966 and was presented the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controller's Association) award for Outstanding Airmanship in 1968. I am a Senior Vice-Commander of the China Post 1, the American

2 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 16
Legions Post for “Soldiers of Fortune”, a 24 year member of the Special Operations Association and member of Pilotfor911truth.org.
7. I have 4 daughters, 3 grandchildren and live with my wife of 37 years, Las Vegas business woman Marilee Lear in Las Vegas, Nevada.

II.
8. No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted for the following reasons:
A. 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.

B. The engines when impacting the steel columns would have maintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building. One alleged engine part was found on Murray Street but there should be three other engine cores weighing over 9000 pounds each. Normal operating temperatures for these engines are 650°C so they could not possibly have burned up. This is a photo of a similar sized engine from a McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 which impacted the ocean at a high rate of speed. You can see that the engine remains generally intact.(photo, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546355. shtml)


3 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 16
C. When and if the nose of an airplane came in contact with the buildings 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns and then, 37 feet beyond, the steel box columns of the building core the momentum of the wings would have slowed drastically depriving them of the energy to penetrate the exterior steel box columns. The spars of the wing, which extend outward, could not possibly have penetrated the 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns placed 39 inches on center and would have crashed to the ground.

D. The argument that the energy of the mass of the Boeing 767 at a speed of 540 mph fails because:

a. No Boeing 767 could attain that speed at 1000 feet
above sea level because of parasite drag which doubles with velocity and parasite power which cubes with velocity.
b. The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept
the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.

E. 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 39 inches in center, at over 500 mph. This
4 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 16
fuselage section would be telescopically crumpled had it actually penetrated the building as depicted in the CNN video. It is impossible for it to have then re-emerged from the building and then fallen intact and unburned as depicted.

F. The Purdue video fails because no significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine thereon 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 Purdue video misrepresents the construction of the core of the building and depicts unidentified parts of the airplane snapping the core columns which were 12"x36". The Purdue video also misrepresents what would happen to the tail when the alleged fuselage contacted the core. The tail would instantaneously separate from the empennage (aft fuselage). Further, the Purdue video misrepresents, indeed it fails to show, the wing box or center section of the wing in the collision with the core. The wing box is a very strong unit designed to hold the wings together and is an integral portion of the fuselage. The wing box is designed to help distribute the loads of the wings up-and-down flexing in flight.


5 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 16
G. My analysis of the alleged cutout made by the Boeing 767 shows that many of the 14-inch exterior steel box columns which are shown as severed horizontally, do not match up with the position of the wings. Further, several of the columns through which the horizontal tail allegedly disappeared are not severed or broken. In addition, the wing tips of the Boeing 767 being of less robust construction than the inner portions of the wings could not possibly have made the cookie-cutter pattern as shown in the aftermath photos. The wing tips would have been stopped by the 14 inch steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

H. The debris of the Boeing 767, as found after the
collapse, was not consistent with actual debris had there really been a
crash. Massive forgings, spars from both the wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers, landing gear retract cylinders, landing gear struts, hydraulic reservoirs and bogeys oxygen bottles, a massive keel beam, bulkheads and the wing box itself cold not possibly have 'evaporated' even in a high intensity fire. 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.

III.
9. My opinion, based on extensive flight experience both as captain and instructor in large 3 and 4 engine aircraft is that it would have been impossible for an alleged hijacker with little or no time in the Boeing 767 to have taken over, then flown a Boeing 767 at high speed, descending to below 1000 feet above mean sea level and flown a course to impact the twin towers at high speed for these reasons:


6 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 6 of 16
A. As soon as the alleged hijackers sat in the pilots seat of the Boeing 767 they would be looking at an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) display panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of 'hard' instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well.

Had they murdered the pilot with a box knife as alleged there would be blood all over the seat, the controls, the center pedestal, the instrument panel and floor of the cockpit. The hijacker would have had to remove the dead pilot from his seat which means he would have had electrically or manually place the seat in its rearmost position and then lifted the murdered pilot from his seat, further distributing blood, making the controls including the throttles wet, sticky and difficult to hold onto.

Even on a clear day a novice pilot would be wholly incapable of taking control and turning a Boeing 767 towards New York because of his total lack of experience and situational awareness under these conditions. The alleged hijackers were not 'instrument rated' and controlled high altitude flight requires experience in constantly referring to and cross-checking attitude, altitude and speed instruments. Using the distant horizon to fly 'visually' under controlled conditions is virtually impossible particularly at the cruising speed of the Boeing 767 of .80 Mach.

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.

Its 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. The Boeing 767 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls.

7 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 7 of 16
B. As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the cockpit. The 'clacker' is a loud clacking sound, designed to be irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning, impossible because of the noise and distraction.

C. Assuming, however, that the alleged hijacker was able to navigate into a position to approach the WTC tower at a speed of approximately 790 feet per second the alleged hijacker would have about 67 seconds to navigate the last 10 miles. During that 67 seconds the pilot would have to line up perfectly with a 208 ft. wide target (the tower) and stay lined up with the clacker clacking plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 767 maximum stability limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising irregular currents of air.

He would also have to control his altitude with a high degree of
precision and at the alleged speeds would be extremely difficult.
In addition to this the control, although hydraulically boosted, would be very stiff. Just the slightest control movements would have sent the airplane up or down at thousands of feet a minute. To propose that an alleged hijacker with limited experience could get a Boeing 767 lined up with a 208 foot wide target and keep it lined up and hold his altitude at exactly 800 feet while being aurally bombarded with the clacker is beyond the realm of possibility. [NIST claims a descent from horizontal angle of 10.6 degrees for AA11 at impact and 6 degrees for UA175; see page 276 of 462 in NCSTAR 1-2].

That an alleged hijacker could overcome all of these difficulties and hit a 208 foot wide building dead center at the north tower and 23 feet east of dead center at the south tower is simply not possible. At the peak of my proficiency as a pilot I know that I could not have done it on the first pass. And for two alleged hijackers, with limited

8 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 8 of 16
experience to have hit the twin towers dead center on September 11, 2001 is total fiction. It could not happen.

IV.
10. No Boeing 767 airliner(s) exceeded 500 mph in level flight at approximately 1000 feet on 9/11 as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors because they are incapable of such speeds at low altitude.

11. One of the critical issues of the 'impossible' speeds of the aircraft hitting the World Trade Center Towers alleged by NIST as 443 mph (385 kts. M.6, American Airlines Flight 11) and 542 mph (470 kts. M.75, United Airlines 175) is that the VD or dive velocity of the Boeing 767 as certificated by the Federal Aviation under 14 CFR Part 25 Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Transports of 420 kts CAS (Calibrated Air Speed) makes these speeds achievable. This is unlikely.

12. The 'Dive Velocity' VD is 420 knots CAS (calibrated airspeed)(483 mph). Some allege that this speed, 420 knots (483 mph) is near enough to the NIST alleged speeds that the NIST speeds 443 (385 kts.) mph and 542 mph (471 kts.), could have been flown by the alleged hijackers and are probably correct.


9 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 9 of 16
13. In fact VD of 420 knots (483 mph) is a speed that is a maximum for certification under 14 CFR Part 25.253 High Speed Characteristics and has not only not necessarily been achieved but is far above VFC (390 kts. 450 mph) which is the maximum speed at which stability characteristics must be demonstrated.(14 CFR 25.253 (B).

14. What this means is not only was VD not necessarily achieved but even if it was, it was achieved in a DIVE demonstrating controllability considerably above VFC which is the maximum speed under which stability characteristics must be demonstrated. Further, that as the alleged speed is considerably above VFC for which stability characteristics must be met, a hijacker who is not an experienced test pilot would have considerable difficulty in controlling the airplane, similar to flying a bucking bronco, much less hitting a 208 foot target dead center, at 800 feet altitude (above mean sea level) at the alleged speed.

15. Now to determine whether or not a Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 could even attain 540 miles per hour at 800 feet we have to first consider what the drag versus the power ratio is.

Drag is the effect of the air pushing against the frontal areas of the fuselage and wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Drag also includes the friction that is a result of the air flowing over these surfaces. If there was no drag you could go very fast. But we do have drag and there are 2 types: induced and parasite. Assume we are going

10 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 10 of 16
really fast as NIST and the defendants claim, then we don't have to consider induced drag because induced drag is caused by lift and varies inversely as the square of the airspeed. What this means is the faster you go the lower the induced drag.

What we do have to consider is parasite drag. Parasite drag is any drag produced that is not induced drag. Parasite drag is technically called 'form and friction' drag. It includes the air pushing against the entire airplane including the engines, as the engines try to push the entire airplane through the air.

16. We have two other things to consider: induced power and
parasite power.

Induced power varies inversely with velocity so we don't have to consider that because we are already going fast by assumption and it varies inversely.
Parasite power however varies as the cube of the velocity which
means to double the speed you have to cube or have three times the power.

17. So taking these four factors into consideration we are only concerned with two: parasite power and parasite drag, and if all other factors are constant, and you are level at 800 feet and making no turns, the parasite drag varies with the square of the velocity but parasite power varies as the cube of the velocity.

What this means is at double the speed, drag doubles and the power required to maintain such speed is cubed.

The airspeed limitation for the Boeing 767 below approximately 23,000 feet is 360 kts [414 mph] or what they call VMO (velocity maximum operating).

11 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 11 of 16
That means that the maximum permissible speed of the Boeing 767 below 23,000 feet is 360 knots and it is safe to operate the airplane at that speed but not faster.

18. While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test it is only done so within carefully planned flight test programs. We can safely infer that most commercial 767 pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below 23,000 feet.

19. The alleged NIST speed of 443 mph (385 kts,) for American Airlines Flight 11 would be technically achievable. However the NIST speed of 542 mph (470 kts) for United Airlines Flight 175 which is 50 kts. above VD is not commensurate with and/or possible considering:
(1) the power available,* **
(2) parasite drag (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(3) parasite power (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(4) the controllability by a pilot with limited experience. 14 CFR Part 25.253 (a)(B)
* http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA063&rpt=fa
** http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/C.../PW4000_FAA.pdf
20. Therefore the speed of the aircraft, that hit the World Trade Center, as represented by NIST, particularly that of United Airlines Flight 175 is fraudulent and could not have occurred.

12 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 12 of 16
21. One more consideration is the impossibility of the PW4062 turbofan engines to operate in dense air at sea level altitude at high speed.
The Boeing 767 was designed to fly at high altitudes at a maximum Mach of .86 or 86/100ths the speed of sound. This maximum speed is called MMO, (Maximum Mach Operating). Its normal cruise speed, however, is Mach .80 (about 530 mph) or less, for better fuel economy. (The speed of sound at 35,000 feet is 663 mph so 530 mph is Mach .7998 see http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.html.)
The fan tip diameter of the PW4062 which powered UAL 175 was 94 inches, over 7 feet in diameter making it, essentially a huge propeller.
This huge fan compresses enormous amount of air during takeoff to produce the thrust necessary to get the airplane off of the ground and into the air.
At high altitudes, in cruise, where the air is much thinner and where the engines are designed to fly at most of the time, the fan and turbine sections are designed to efficiently accept enormous amounts of this thin air and produce an enormous amount of thrust.

But at low altitudes, in much denser air, such as one thousand feet, where the air is over 3x as dense as at 35,000 feet, going much faster than Vmo or 360 knots, the air is going to start jamming up in the engine simply because a turbofan engine is not designed to take the enormous quantities of dense air at high speed, low altitude flight. Because of the much denser air the fan blades will be jammed with so much air they will start cavitating or choking causing the engines to start spitting air back out the front. The turbofan tip diameter is over 7 feet; it simply cannot accept that much dense air, at that rate, because they aren't designed to.

So achieving an airspeed much over its Vmo which is 360 knots isn't going to be possible coupled with the fact that because the parasite drag increases as the square of the speed and the power

13 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 13 of 16
required increases as the cube of the speed you are not going to be able to get the speed with the thrust (power) available.

It can be argued that modern aerodynamic principles hold that if an aircraft can fly at 35,000 ft altitude at 540 mph (~Mach 0.8), and for a given speed, both engine thrust and airframe drag vary approximately in proportion to air density (altitude), that the engine can produce enough thrust to fly 540 mph at 800 ft. altitude.

That argument fails because although the engine might be theoretically capable of producing that amount of thrust, the real question is can that amount of thrust be extracted from it at 540 mph at 800 ft.

22, To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540 mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust required and it's not possible because of the engine fan design which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into it.

23. I am informed that the lawsuit for which this affidavit is intended is in its preliminary, pre-discovery phase. I am further informed that actual eyewitness statements cast considerable doubt on the jetliner crash claims, irrespective of the media-driven impression that there were lots of witnesses. In fact, the witnesses tend, on balance, to confirm there were no jetliner crashes. I am also informed that information that will enable further refinement of the issues addressed in this affidavit will be forthcoming in discovery including, without limitation, the opportunity to

14 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 14 of 16
take depositions and to request relevant documentation (additional information). When that additional information is obtained, I will then be in a position to offer such other and further opinions as, upon analysis, that additional information will mandate.

24. At this stage, it cannot properly be assumed, much less asserted
as factual, that wide-body jetliners crashed into the then Twin Towers of the WTC. Any declaration that such events occurred must be deemed false and fraudulently asserted, video images notwithstanding.

Notes:
1. On any chart plotting velocity versus either drag or thrust required or power required the parasite value rises sharply after 300 kts,

2. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust or power required the curves rises sharply after 250 kts
.
3. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust required at sea level, the curve rises dramatically above 200 kts as does the curve for power required.
I swear the above statements to be true to the best of my knowledge.

_/s/ John Olsen Lear___________
John Olsen Lear
1414 N. Hollywood Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89110-2006
Subscribed and Sworn to before
me this 24 day of January 2008.
/s/ Connie Jones______________
Notary Public/Appt Exp. 11/22/09
Certificate #94-2650-1

15 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 15 of 16
This is the page for the Boeing 767-200 Type Data Certificate information from which was used in this affidavit:
<rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/15302e51a401f11a8625718b00658962/$FILE/A1NM.pdf >.
This is the page that shows how dive tests are conducted:
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-335.html
This is the page for the type data certificate for the engines used on UAL175
http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/C.../PW4000_FAA.pdf
This is the page that shows the type of engine used on the MD-11 that crashed into the ocean. (photo attached)
http://www.bst.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a.../rep1_06_01.asp

16 Case 1:07-cv-04612-GBD Document 94 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 16 of 16

[Trapster]

Any notion that 'holograms' were used by 'The Government' instead of real planes hitting the building is just bunk.

Period.

This is classic CIA disinformation.

Recall the statement of a deep intel operative: "The lie is different at every level"

Think about that.

Here on a pilots group we have a pilot saying that 'No Plane' hit the Twin Towers. The pilot has impeccable credentials and knowledge. He claims to be a Truther and he gives us his version of the 'truth' based on conjecture and without any hard provable evidence.

So, now in the Truther theory we get this easily dismissable nonsense that holograms were used instead of real planes.

The real truth of 9/11 eight years after the attacks is that we don't know the Real Truth of what happened on 9/11. Even the 9/11 commission Report is no longer supportable by the evidence.

But, I caution every one to be objective about any 'No Plane' theory.

[Michael Morrisse...]

Do you see anything above about holograms? I don't. I am asking about what he says about speed and parts, not holograms, moon landings, or aliens. He presents technical arguments that should be discussed on their own merits, not on the basis of your suspicions or what he says about other things. I am tired of hearing people like Anthony Lawson pontificate on these matters. I want to hear from people who understand the technology. That's why I have posted here. Do you understand his arguments? What do you have to offer by way of rebuttal, if you think he is wrong. I expect more from the Pilots forum than this.

Any notion that 'holograms' were used by 'The Government' instead of real planes hitting the building is just bunk.

Period.

This is classic CIA disinformation.

Recall the statement of a deep intel operative: "The lie is different at every level"

Think about that.

Here on a pilots group we have a pilot saying that 'No Plane' hit the Twin Towers. The pilot has impeccable credentials and knowledge. He claims to be a Truther and he gives us his version of the 'truth' based on conjecture and without any hard provable evidence.

So, now in the Truther theory we get this easily dismissable nonsense that holograms were used instead of real planes.

The real truth of 9/11 eight years after the attacks is that we don't know the Real Truth of what happened on 9/11. Even the 9/11 commission Report is no longer supportable by the evidence.

But, I caution every one to be objective about any 'No Plane' theory.

[Quest]

Any notion that 'holograms' were used by 'The Government' instead of real planes hitting the building is just bunk.

Period.

This is classic CIA disinformation.

Recall the statement of a deep intel operative: "The lie is different at every level"

Think about that.

Here on a pilots group we have a pilot saying that 'No Plane' hit the Twin Towers. The pilot has impeccable credentials and knowledge. He claims to be a Truther and he gives us his version of the 'truth' based on conjecture and without any hard provable evidence.

So, now in the Truther theory we get this easily dismissable nonsense that holograms were used instead of real planes.

The real truth of 9/11 eight years after the attacks is that we don't know the Real Truth of what happened on 9/11. Even the 9/11 commission Report is no longer supportable by the evidence.

But, I caution every one to be objective about any 'No Plane' theory.

I agree with Trapster on this one and yet I am of the group that believes that "no planes" hit the WTC. John Lear has never responded to my questions as to why he believes as he does regarding "UFOs" and "aliens". Personally, I think John Lear is too smart to believe this (UFO/alien) stuff and he is purposely mixing truth and disinfo together to discredit NPT and PilotsFor911Truth in the process. Pilots is a well known site, has members with a huge amount of flying experience and expertise, is fair and open minded regarding the NPT topic, has a lot of credibility, and has members who formed an investigation team that has proven that "no plane", or at least, "no big Boeing" has hit the Pentagon. This is not good for the 911 perps. The last thing the perps can afford is to have Pilots endorsing "no big Boeings hit ANYTHING on 911". How to do that? Poison the well. I cannot and will not say at the present that is Jon Lear's intention, after all, he only posts here occasionally, but he has a big name in aviation and his posts regarding no plane ARE here on this site and when you look for them they're mixed in with his opinions and belief in UFOs and "aliens". How better to discredit the NPT topic? As to Lear's theory on "holograms" at the WTC, I too do not buy it for the reasons at the below post.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....;#entry10775912

I have asked Lear to explain in detail his opinions on the subject because I believe the UFO stuff is a hoax and he has been absent since with no explanation; but the damage is done. "No planers" as a group will now be seen as those that believe we are being visited upon by aliens in UFOs, or at least that's what the 911 perps are hoping for.

In my opinion, John Lear should be held in suspicion until he answers the UFO/alien question.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10776063

This post has been edited by Quest: Sep 26 2009, 05:39 PM

[painter]

I expect more from the Pilots forum than this.

Not everyone on this forum is a pilot or an aeronautics professional. Since you, yourself, are a member of this forum, this should be obvious. I question, therefore, your "expectations" of this forum especially based on one reply by someone who, as you pointed out, did not address your question.

Views expressed in this forum "are not necessarily the views of Pilotsfor911truth.org" especially views expressed in the "Alternative Theories" sub-forum -- within which this thread resides. Mr. Lear's opinions are his own and "are not necessarily the views of Pilotsfor911truth.org."

There are several threads on this forum regarding John Lear and his views. This forum has a robust search function, you might want to make use it to find these threads and review them to see if they answer any of your questions. I don't know if any core member with appropriate qualifications will address your OP. In a way it is irrelevant. John Lear is entitled to his opinions. Pilotsfor911truth.org does not endorse them. The views which Pilotsfor911truth.org does endorse can be found in the videos officially released by that organization. The most relevant to your question can be found in Pilotsfor911truth.org's latest release: "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store/

[aerohead]

Come on people !

Ther is NOT ONE, video in existence that shows
the Twin Towers exploding with NO PLANES impacting them.

After the first plane hit, ALL EYES were on the towers and
so were ALL camera's.

The no plane theory/ hologram theory is BS disinformation.
Period.

Do yourself a favor and move on to research what
planes they actually were. They were not commercial
airliners, i can tell you that. Read Operation Northwoods
to get pointed in the right direction.

1962 False flag Terrorism plan written by the Chiefs of the
military,signed by the Chairman of the joint Chefs (Lemnitzer)
and submitted to the Secretary of Defense (Robert McNamara)
who rejected it due to being more inline with JFK. This is one of the
plans of this document. Other plans of it, called for people to be shot
on American streets, bombings and phony evidence planted to blame on
Cuba for the purpose of going to War with Cuba.
Sound familiar ?

#8 It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.



(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/NorthwoodsMemorandum.jpg)

[Michael Morrisse...]

Below is a letter I sent yesterday to Rob Balsamo, copied to John Lear, and John's reply. First, though, I want to make two comments.

1) No one has addressed the technical arguments that John has made about speed and parts in the letters and affidavit quoted above. I have not seen all the Pilots videos, but the press releases apparently summarize the conclusions, which are that the govt story at least about 77 and 93 is contradicted by other hard data. I assume that a similar statement will be made about the WTC. Quest says above that the Pilots data in fact proves that "no big Boeing" hit the Pentagon. This does not really go beyond, but confirms, what David Ray Griffin has laid out on a broad front.

Griffin does not mention Lear or, as far as I can recall, his arguments about speed and parts. I was hoping to get a focused reaction to these technical arguments here. I don't see how, if he is correct, one can avoid the conclusion that no planes crashed at all on 9/11, without even getting into the video fakery issue.

2) Lear's views on aliens, UFOs, holograms, and the moon landings are simply not relevant to the technical arguments. It is unacceptable to dismiss them for these "reasons." Re "poisoning the well," have you considered that this might be the only reason why he has been allowed to speak freely on the technical issues? He may or may not believe these things himself (I personally retain an open mind), but in either case, they serve to "discredit" him and thus diffuse his possible impact on the general public (and very possibly keep him from being "terminated"). The fact of the matter is that his technical arguments are NOT relevant to his views on aliens, etc.

I am copying this exchange to him, and will appreciate further comments.

My letter to Balsamo and Lear (et al.) yesterday:

By "the Jones Boys" I mean STJ911.org, who rely, last I checked, primarily on Hoffman, who believes Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and Flight 93 may have been shot down.

It is asking too much of me or anyone else to compare all the material available at the Pilots site and STJ911.org (with its links to Hoffman's site) and determine what the points of agreement and disagreement are. I take David Griffin as my point of departure, because his conclusions are laid out clearly, but even that is difficult to compare with the huge amount of material available on even just these two (three) sites. Someone -- or a team of people -- needs to do this.

The impression I have, though I admit I have not dug into it recently, is that Hoffman and STJ911.org support the govt story re Flight 77 and 93, except for allowing for the possibility that 93 was shot down (though I am not sure about the latter), and also support the govt story with regard to the WTC except for the explanation of why the buildings "collapsed." Can you correct me on any of this? I won't hold you to any of this or quote you or take your opinion as representing P4T. I would just like to know your opinion, as someone who has been deeply into the details and whose judgment I respect.

Here is John Lear's reply:

Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon for the simple reason that April Gallop was sitting at her
desk about 40 feet from the hole. She saw no airplane, missile or drone and smelled no jet fuel,
kerosene or any kind of gas. She reached beside her desk and grabbed her 6 month old son an climbed
out the alleged hole made by an alleged airplane. She has been harassed by Army Intelligence and recently
filed a suit against the U.S, Government.

In addition I am an expert in reading Flight digital Data Recorders and it is my opinion that Flight 77 was flown by
professionals and overflew the Pentagon by about 200 feet.

As to Shankvilles based on the debris there is no possibility that a large commercial airliner crashed into the alleged
mining pit. I am a certified Federal Mine Safety and Health Instructor and based on that and my aviation background
there is not possibility that an airplane crashed at that reclamation site.

As to Flight 93 getting shot down it would have been impossible to hide the wreckage of such a crash from the public
or the media because of the size of the debris field.

As to the WTC crashes it would be impossible for an airplane to hit the WTC and not have at least half of it fall back into the street.
At least the tail section should have broken off and fallen into the street. Remaining in the wreckage of the tower should have been at
least 3 P&W 4062 engines, weighing 4 tons each which simply could not have burned completely up. There were large forgings
including the wing fuselage forgings, wheel bogeys, struts and vertical horizontal tail assembly which simply could not have disappeared.

2 commercial airliners could not have totally disappeared inside the wreckage of both WTC towers.

The fact that there has not been one single piece of 4 airliners with over 9 million stamped, engraved or painted with serial and production
numbers along with 300 miles of wire is proof that no airplanes crashed anywhere on 911. In the history of flight there has never been
an airplane crash, the known site of which contained no parts of the airplanes. I have investigated 3 Learjet crashes as part of the NTSB team,
all three of which went straight in from altitude and there were plenty of parts left and in all three cases large parts of the tail remained. Both the
757 and the 767 are much larger and should have left much larger parts than the smaller Learjet.

[rob balsamo]

Since we are posting emails and i found many errors in just the first paragraph from Morrissey above....

(Read from bottom to top for proper context, forgive me for not properly formatting the below as its a direct copy/paste and i dont really feel like wasting too much time on this))


From:
"Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
View contact details
To:
"Michael Morrissey" <mdmorrissey@.de>
Cc:

Not sure who you mean by the "Jones boys", but if its Steven Jones, he is a member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth and also endorses our work. He has posted our findings in the JONES.

We do have one page summaries of our findings left margin of home page in the form of a press release, easy to print, easy to hand out.

The details can be found in our films.

Rob

--- On Sat, 9/26/09, Michael Morrissey <mdmor> wrote:


From: Michael Morrissey <md>
Subject: Re: John Lear on Pilots Forum
To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
Cc:

Hello Rob,

It's not really that I can't afford the $80. I am already (long) convinced that the "crashes" of 77 and 93 were faked. I was just wondering if the Pilots had confirmed this, and apparently they have. It seems to me that what you (and we) need is a short (preferable free) video endorsed by the Pilots stating these conclusions, if that doesn't already exist. This is the one that I would urge all my contacts to watch. Those who need the details could buy the $80 version.

I surmise that you have enough data to refute Jim Hoffman and the Jones Boys re 77 and 93. That I think you should do directly, since as I've said, I think their agenda is to obstruct investigation of everything other than controlled demolition. You don't have to advocate "no planes" or video fakery to prove the govt story is false.

Best regards,
Michael




On 26.09.2009, at 16:42, Pilots For Truth wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> If you are limited with your budget, we do stream all our presentations for free on google video, just do a google video search using the full title of the film(s) and you'll find them, albeit in much less quality.
>
> The only exception for now is our latest release "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" (WTCA). It is not streaming on the web for public view yet as we do have to recoup some cost of making the film or there will no longer be a Pilots For 9/11 Truth nor future presentations/analysis.
>
> Once the film hits their destinations, im sure someone will probably upload it.
>
> If its just speed questions you're looking for, pick up WTCA. We prove the speeds impossible for a 767 using precedent, data and flight crew who actually have time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.
>
> Keep in mind, this does NOT mean we have validated "No Plane Theory". All we have proven is that it is impossible for a stock, unmodified, 767-200 to have obtained such speeds as reported. We have once again proven the govt story false. What you do with that information from there is up to you. We wont speculate.
>
> Rob
>
> --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Michael Morrissey <mdm> wrote:
>
>
> From: Michael Morrissey <md>
> Subject: Re: John Lear on Pilots Forum
> To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
> Cc: "
> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 9:43 AM
>
> Thanks, Rob. $80 is hefty price for a retired English teacher, but if you think it is all necessary...
>
> I would like to know if anyone else on this list has the package, if they recommend it, and if they have a problem with anything in it. Not that this will prevent me from buying it, but I would like to know. It may also give me a heads up for things to pay particular attention to in the videos, which I suspect are going to put a lot of pressure on my non-techie brain in any case. I have seen lots of videos, like most of us, but very few few from anybody whose opinions are trustworthy. Pilots talking about 9/11 is about as trustworthy a source as I can imagine.
>
> I have just listened to your interview with John Lear, and have read through the comments. I honestly don't think John's possible former associations with the CIA are relevant. Ditto his views on aliens, moon landings, holograms, and the role of Mossad in the JFK assassination. Technical questions are technical questions, period.
>
> P4T seems to be the last refuge for open minds. I appreciate and share the mistrust that many have expressed about Hoffman/Ashley/Green/Arabesque, 911blogger (Alan Giles), and the Jones Boys. I've put my two cents in on that, too (see my articles and diaries at OpEdNews), which has got me banned from STJ911 and 911blogger (no great loss). Have you noticed that these people pretend to support David Griffin (and vice versa), although they differ with him significantly on 77 and 93? I'm quite sure they are afraid of him, given his huge (and deserved) popularity. Michael Green is the only one who has come close to challenging Griffin, but as I have pointed out a couple of times, this guy is as phony as they come. I much prefer someone like John Lear who is honest about his background than people like Green (and also Hoffman et al.) who come out of nowhere with an obvious agenda that serves the govt (suppress discussion of everything except controlled demolition -- a limited hangout to keep us busy for the next 50 years).
>
> Best,
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 26.09.2009, at 14:26, Pilots For Truth wrote:
>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Thank you for correcting the author of the quote, to the group. Apology accepted. :-)
>>
>> I moved your thread to Alt theory because i didnt have time for a reply and to explain how many threads we have already covering the information you sought. So i left a link behind in hopes of (and leading you to) you would find the other threads on Lear, and in fact, you did.
>>
>> There is a lot of discussion regarding Lear in our Alt theory forum. I also personally did an interview with Lear regarding many of the FAQ's about Lear being a member in good standing in our organization. You can find this interview in the Latest News Section of our forum. A simple search will find it.
>>
>> The reason i havent had time to reply to your emails or posts until now is because we just recently released our latest presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" yesterday which covers the speed issue in full and interviews with Captains from United and American Airlines.
>>
>> My suggestion would be to pick up all of our DVD's as its the most economical (less than 10 per DVD) in our 7 Pack Special and just spend a rainy day cuddling up with your favorite beverage and watch. You will then have an excellent grasp of what P4T is all about, it will answer many of your questions, and you will be well informed of govt lies based on factual analysis of data performed by aviation experts. Here is a direct link to the package...
>>
>> http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store/#7PDVDM
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Michael Morrissey <md> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Michael Morrissey <m>
>> Subject: Re: John Lear on Pilots Forum
>> To: pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com
>> Cc:
>> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 7:37 AM
>>
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> Sorry. I copied it from page 2 of the Lawson thread "John Lear Swears and Affirms" (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17660&st=20), and I see the author was "lunk," not you, so again, my apologies for this carelessness. This is the same thread where you ended up banning Lawson, and I will be happy to copy the whole thing and pass it on to this group, but can't they go to the page and read it themselves? They can also join the forum, I think. (I'm not a pilot, either.)
>>
>> Somebody has put my post in Study > Research > Alternative Theories, I guess because that is where a couple of other threads about John Lear appear, but I think this is a bit misleading since in his affidavit, and in the two recent letters from him I copied, there is nothing about alternative theories. He is simply presenting technical arguments for why the official story cannot be true. And I am simply wondering if there has been any substantive and competent (I do not regard Anthony Lawson as competent) disagreement about what he said here (about speed and parts, not holograms, moon landings or aliens). I have not found any yet, and am therefore inclined to conclude that he is correct.
>>
>> I want to order one of the Pilots CDs, but there are so many I don't know which one to order. Which do you recommend? Do any of them incorporate the arguments that John Lear has made? I have seen the CIT video online, and found it very persuasive, so I don't need a copy of that.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> On 26.09.2009, at 10:24, Pilots For Truth wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> I dont know exactly where you copy/pasted the below "Extreme Pilot" quote from, but it wasnt from me. I am the first member at the forum and my registration date is Aug 2006, not March 07.
>>>
>>> Also, if you can understand why i banned Lawson after taking the time to read through, why not show that to the whole group?
>>>
>>> As for your wquestions, please review the member agreement when you signed up. The post made on that forum are the sole responsibility of the author and may not reflect the opinions of P4T. Please do not quote it as such.
>>>
>>> --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Michael Morrissey <md> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Michael Morrissey <m>
>>> Subject: Fwd: John Lear on Pilots Forum
>>> To: "Rob Balsamo" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
>>> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 4:14 AM
>>>
>>> Hello Rob,
>>>
>>> I have now (belatedly) read through Lawson's thread on John Lear and seen your remark below, which seems reasonable to me. You were right to ban Lawson, and I don't blame you for opting out of this Fetzer email exchange, especially since Lawson tried to corrupt it as well. Seems to me, though, that John's arguments have not even been touched. Why should we have to "assume" he is correct or not? These are technical points that knowledge people must be able to either definitively confirm or refute. I will continue looking for something like this on the forum, but if you have more to add, please do.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: Michael Morrissey <md>
>>>> Date: 26. September 2009 09:57:32 MESZ
>>>> To:
>>>> Subject: John Lear on Pilots Forum
>>>>
>>>> I've just started reading through the thread Lawson started on John Lear, and found this, which is Rob Balsam (Extreme Pilot), which probably explains why he hasn't replied to my email:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Extreme Pilot
>>>> ************
>>>>
>>>> Group: Valued Member
>>>> Posts: 3,160
>>>> Joined: 30-March 07
>>>> Member No.: 875
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> QUOTE (forthetrees @ Jul 19 2009, 07:35 PM) *
>>>> I'm way over my head here, but I do have a question or three. Assuming Mr. Lear is correct in all of his facts and analysis on flight dynamics/physics (which I have no problem assuming), then:
>>>>
>>>> 1) isn't the main importance of his affirmation the fact that it shows the official story is incorrect? If so, then it's not necessary to go a step beyond that to support the demand for a new, full investigation.
>>>>
>>>> 2) rather than proving "no planes" isn't it possible to work backwards from Mr. Lear's description of the flight dynamics/physics involved and describe the type of aircraft & engines it would take to physically accomplish the task of hitting the WTC at those speeds & altitude with that degree of precision?
>>>>
>>>> 3) if all of Mr. Lear's information is correct, then doesn't that make the official verision of AA 77 at the Pentagon immensley more impossible?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1. yes
>>>> 2. yes
>>>> 3. probably, yes, too.
>>>>
>>>> I am going to ignore Lawson's contributions. He has been banned from the site, I think, and it is obvious why. There seem to be plenty of people who accept John's arguments, and I haven't found any disagreement yet that seems to be coming from a competent person.
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Michael Morrissey <m>
>>>>> Date: 26. September 2009 09:45:59 MESZ
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Subject: John Lear on Pilots Forum
>>>>>
>>>>> They have moved my post from "Lobby" to "Alternative Theories," where there has been one response (unsubstantial and not worth repeating). I see there have been other topics posted on John, one by Anthony Lawson, which I have not read through yet, but I will try to keep this one focused on the arguments in his two recent letters and the affidavit, all of which I copied in the post. If any of you are in the forum, you might want to join in, in order to keep the topic up front, but if you do please stick to the facts or you will be contributing to the distraction game. I am trying to insist that John's arguments be dealt with as such, without consideration of other things he may have said about moon landings, aliens, or holograms. This is not easy. If I get anything reasonable, I will post it here so that John can see it and respond.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wish me luck.
>>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Michael Morrissey <md>
>>>>>> Date: 25. September 2009 17:30:07 MESZ
>>>>>> To:
>>>>>> Subject: Re: how do real aircraft crash parts look?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have posted a new topic on the Pilots forum ("Lobby") entitled "John Lear on speed and parts," asking what the reaction has been to the arguments he made in his affidavit and in the two recent letters he sent around recently to us. I copied all three items in the post. I hope I will get some reactions. If I do, I'll pass them on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>

[Trapster]

Do you see anything above about holograms? I don't. I am asking about what he says about speed and parts, not holograms, moon landings, or aliens. He presents technical arguments that should be discussed on their own merits, not on the basis of your suspicions or what he says about other things.

No, but this line of reasoning is taking the path directly to Lear's hologram theory.

He presents an analysis without proof.
(Ok that is a part of 9/11 Truth sometimes since we as civilians can't get access to crime scene evidence)
However, Lear seems to be the only one who has positively identified the jet engine part as being something that could not have come from either Flight 11 or the other jetliner that hit the towers.

Like the 'Pod People' this new Hologram wrinkle is poison to the Truth movement.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth have produced a wonderful video going over imperical evidence in great detail. Evidence that any one can look up an verify. A true service to the Truth Movement.

So, to discredit that well documented evidence, this 'No Plane' (Hologram) theory is presented that can easily discredit the entire Truth movement.

I am tired of hearing people like Anthony Lawson pontificate on these matters. I want to hear from people who understand the technology. That's why I have posted here. Do you understand his arguments? What do you have to offer by way of rebuttal, if you think he is wrong. I expect more from the Pilots forum than this.

I don't know who Anthony Lawson is. I am Trapster on many sites. My first reply to you is a cautionary warning not to go down the path that Lear presents.

Rebuttal: Hologram theory is nonsense disinformation that the mainstream media loves to latch on to in order to discredit the entire Truth Movement. Can I be any more clear?

(No, I have no idea what those jet engines are that were sitting in the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island, nor do I have a clue as to what plane that landing gear came off of)

I'm not a pilot, nor am I a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. I'm just a member of this forum and many others. I have been involved with the truth movement since 2004.

[Quest]

Aerohead wrote,

Ther is NOT ONE, video in existence that shows
the Twin Towers exploding with NO PLANES impacting them.

So, what's your point? That because there are more videos at the WTC than the Pentagon this means they must be legit? Wouldn't one expect more videos to have been taken in the city given of the size of the population? But if you think about it, there should be literally THOUSANDS of photos and videos of the 2nd plane because of the huge population of NYC, and as you say, "all attention was focused on the towers". But is there thousands? No. And of the videos that exist, most are from the media (Camera Planet, FOX, CNN) or people connected to the media or people that have come into good fortune since 911. The supposed video takers were willing to loan their names to the cause. Are you not aware that many of the 911 plane victims have fake aliases? And that many of the so-called witnesses are from the media (like the Pentagon) or people that have come into good fortune? What's a few extra fake videos when the perps have already faked the Pentagon hit video, the Shanksville crash, controlled demolitioned 3 buildings and killed many witnesses? Is a few more videos all it takes for you to be convinced they are legit? Question; how many lunar photos, lunar landing videos and moon walk videos were produced as a result of the fake lunar missions?

After the first plane hit, ALL EYES were on the towers and
so were ALL camera's.

Really? According to William Rodriguez all eyes near the towers should have been at ground level just seconds before the 2nd impact because an explosion took place in the 2nd tower sub-basement just prior to the 'hit'. In magicians' parlance, this is known as a "slight of hand". While everyone was distracted by the sub-basement explosion forcing them to look DOWN, the perps created the impact gash with pre-planted explosives in the 81st floor. Another slight of hand was performed at the Pentagon but was executed in a somewhat different fashion.

The no plane theory/ hologram theory is BS disinformation.
Period.

Unless, of course, it's applied to the Pentagon, or Shanksville for that matter. Then it is good information. BTW, Aerohead, "no plane" is a something of a misnomer. It does not literally mean there was "no plane at the WTC" or "no plane at Shanksville", it means that we believe that "no plane crashed at any of the 911 'impact' sites". Just like the Pentagon and Shanksville. Also, did it ever occur to you that maybe the various events were designed in the fashion they were to keep people guessing? If I were a 911 perp and wanted to guarantee hits at all locations yet did not want to leave tell-tale evidence behind, I would fake the hits at all of the locations but I would use a different method for each. This way, if one scenario is decoded, the same discovery methods and data cannot be applied to the other events. The result? Researchers are left bickering and scratching their heads.

1. Pentagon: fake video and flyover. A few plane parts planted on lawn and in front of "gash".

2. Shanksville: remote location and few witness - no video needed. Just drop scrap metal and part of an engine in a fake impact gash along with a 'terrorist's' head band. Yep, that'll do.

3. WTC: no plane hits and fake videos. Possible small plane/missile hit at 1st tower and fake video. See the Naudet Brother's video and their suspicious cover-story of NYC firemen documentary and convenient filming of the 1st 'hit'. For the second 'hit', William Rodriguez claims, as do others, that an explosion took place in the sub-basement of the 2nd tower just PRIOR to the 'impact' which would have caused everyone to look DOWN. Mere seconds later, the 2nd plane impact occurs, more than likely pre-planted explosives in the 81st floor, and the the 911 perps TV news shows fake impact video on TV (just like the fake Pentagon video).

Do yourself a favor and move on to research what
planes they actually were. They were not commercial
airliners, i can tell you that. Read Operation Northwoods
to get pointed in the right direction.

I am quite familiar with Operation Northwoods. TV and film technology has come long way since then. BTW, the 1969-1974 moon landings were faked after Operation Northwoods and fake landing footage and moon walk videos were shown on TV.

For what it's worth, Aerohead, I am in my fifties - not born yesterday. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

This post has been edited by Quest: Sep 28 2009, 01:19 AM

[Michael Morrisse...]

Since we are posting emails and i found many errors in just the first paragraph from Morrissey above....

What errors, Rob? I apologized for the misquote (see below), and I corrected my mistaken reference to "55" instead of "77" (I don't know why I keep doing that), but what else did I get wrong? Thanks for posting it all here. I will be glad -- as I said -- if you can correct anything I've said.

Again, I am trying to focus on what John Lear says in his affidavit and in the letters I've posted. These arguments are not relevant to what he has said about aliens, UFOs, holograms, or moon landings. If I say 2+2=4 and the moon is made of blue cheese (bad analogy, because I am open to the idea of UFOs etc. but not to the idea of a blue cheese moon), it doesn't mean I am wrong about 2+2 if I am wrong about the moon.

John Lear is an extremely credible witness concerning the technical arguments he has made, and as far as I can tell, no one (with comparable expertise) has even attempted to rebut them. Please correct me if I am wrong. I keep asking.

[rob balsamo]

Michael,

The speeds have been confirmed impossible as i already told you in the email which is now posted above.

The parts have never been identified as the research is available in depth on our forum.

So yes, Lear is correct with respect to speeds and parts.

Im not sure how else to say it.

[dMz]

(No, I have no idea what those jet engines are that were sitting in the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten Island, nor do I have a clue as to what plane that landing gear came off of)

Here are some good places to start.

Engine Experts?, hi res. FEMA photos
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=2299

9/11 Engine Pic
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=6375

Can this be the engine from United 175?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=636

So Why Where No Plane Parts Recovered At Ground Zero?, Merged
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17385

As painter said above, that search function is working better than ever this morning. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Michael Morrisse...]

Michael,

The speeds have been confirmed impossible as i already told you in the email which is now posted above.

The parts have never been identified as the research is available in depth on our forum.

So yes, Lear is correct with respect to speeds and parts.

Im not sure how else to say it.

That says it perfectly clearly, Rob, thanks. Now I want to take a deep breath and see what if anything Jim Hoffman and STJ911.org have to say about these facts (just to satisfy my suspicion that they have nothing to say about them and in fact Hoffman and the Jones Boys support the govt story about 77 and 93), and then evaluate John's conclusions, which are not only that the govt report is wrong but that none of the crashes on 9/11 occurred at all, which in turn means that they were faked. On second thought, I could skip the middle part.

What is the opinion of people here? If John Lear is correct, as Rob says, is his conclusion also correct?

[painter]

What is the opinion of people here? If John Lear is correct, as Rob says, is his conclusion also correct?

I was afraid this might be heading in this direction. My lay-person's understanding of Pilots position at this point, and I'm sure Rob will correct me if I'm wrong, is that the officially expressed speeds are impossible for the aircraft TYPE alleged to have struck the WTC. That doesn't mean the speeds were impossible for some other type of craft or some similar but modified craft for which we have no evidence and about which no official statement has been made.

In other words, we want to take the reasoned position based on available data. At the Pentagon, we find no conclusive evidence that Flight 77 impacted the building. And as I've pointed out many times over, this evidence should be plentiful and readily and publicly available. So, to me at least, the very fact that it is not is itself damning. Similarly with the WTC except that if, as it seems now very safe to assume, the towers were demolished with nanothermite, whatever plane debris there was inside the towers would have been pulverized along with most everything else.

The conclusion that CIT has drawn, based on their on-site eyewitness interviews and Pilots' analysis of data supplied by government sources, is that the plane at the Pentagon must have flown over the building. This conclusion is reasonable because a) we have multiple, independently confirmed eyewitnesses of an aircraft on a heading irreconcilably inconsistent with the physical damage observed AND b) an analysis of government supplied data, such as the alleged FDR of AA77 (which, along with everything else claimed to be debris from that craft, has not been positively identified).

When it comes to the WTC we have many videos showing aircraft impact and, apparently, many eye witnesses -- although we have not had the kind of review and independent confirmation of those witnesses such as supplied by CIT at the Pentagon. It seems, to me, unreasonable to conclude from "impossible airspeed" that NO craft impacted the WTC.

The question I have is WHY was it so important for "airspeed" to be proclaimed beyond the limits of aircraft type? WHY was it necessary to have an observed aircraft at the Pentagon on a flight path that does NOT match the physical damage? Is this just operational (counterintelligence) procedure to sow confusion and speculation, the consequence of operational compartmentalization (flight staging independent of ground staging) -- or is there some other conceivable reason?

Reason for edit: typo sew/sow

[rob balsamo]

well said painter... thank you

[Michael Morrisse...]

I was afraid this might be heading in this direction.

What direction? Why afraid? I've passed this on to John, since I don't know if he is following here.

[painter]

What direction? Why afraid? I've passed this on to John, since I don't know if he is following here.

Above you asked whether John Lear's "conclusion" was correct. Perhaps I should have asked what "conclusion" you were referring to. As I understand it, Lear's "conclusion" is that NO aircraft (of any type) impacted the WTC. If this is inaccurate then I apologize and stand corrected.

[jensdarup]

No planes, no Al quaida.

[Michael Morrisse...]

Above you asked whether John Lear's "conclusion" was correct. Perhaps I should have asked what "conclusion" you were referring to. As I understand it, Lear's "conclusion" is that NO aircraft (of any type) impacted the WTC. If this is inaccurate then I apologize and stand corrected.

John's conclusion above is that no Boeing 767 or 757 crashed at the WTC, the Pentagon, or Shanksville on 9/11. I don't know what he says to the idea that nanothermite would have vaporized all trace of them, but that directly contradicts his conclusion.

The videos of 175 show a Boeing 767, don't they? That means (if John is correct) the videos were faked. Since the govt story is that two 767s and two 757s crashed on 9/11, if John is correct, this means the govt story is a fabrication. Is this the Pilots' position?