IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
John Lear Swears And Affirms... No Planes In New York, Raising serious questions regarding 9/11

lawson911
post Jul 16 2009, 12:50 AM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



I have contacted John Lear regarding this topic, and he has replied to me as follows:

Yes I wrote it.

It was a sworn affidavit to the United Sates District Court Southern District Of New York ECF case 07CIV 4612 (GBD) Janaury 28, 2008 in opposition of a motion to dismiss a Qui Tam Complaint and Request by Jury by Dr. Morgan Reynolds on behalf of the United States of America (plaintiff) filed by some of the defendants including “Science Applications International Corp, et al”.

You can find more details and the original complaint at : http://nomoregames.net/

It’s a public document. You can do anything you want.

John


Please Note:

1) John Lear's remarks, in the following affirmation, appear to be confined solely to standard Boeing 767 airliners. He does not seem to have considered the possibility that non-standard or adapted aircraft, similar in shape to the Boeing 767, such as the Boeing KC767 military tankers could have been used, and that more powerful engines could have been fitted to such aircraft.

2) The possibility that such aircraft could have been adapted to be flown by remote control, for example, by the use of Predator-type technology, does not appear to have been considered. His remarks, in the area of control, are restricted to the doubts he expresses about the inability of novice pilots to carry out the manoeuvres depicted in the videos.

3) The (hollow) 14-inch exterior steel box columns he refers to were made out of welded 1/4 inch thick steel plate, each of the sections being bolted together, as can be seen in the video: WTC PLANES THRU STEEL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c&feature=email

4) The possibility that John Lear has overlooked the points I have raised in 1) and 2), above, seems to be doubtful, because the final point in his affirmation is:

“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.”



John Lear swears and affirms as follows:

.................

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/...rld/main546355. shtml)

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 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.

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:

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.

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 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.

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 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, triples.

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).

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?...01MA063&rpt=fa
** http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...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.

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

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 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ogrady
post Jul 17 2009, 10:12 AM
Post #2





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 140
Joined: 1-October 07
Member No.: 2,291



Gee. Sounds like John knows what he's talking about.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 17 2009, 01:37 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



John Lear is an interesting fellow
who can fly a jet plane, just as mellow.
I'm sure that he knows
how fast a jet engine goes,
but is the moons' sky really, yellow?

cheers, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 17 2009, 02:40 PM
Post #4





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE
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.


QUOTE
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.


I'd say John Lear is correct. Give the man a cigar. handsdown.gif But then, many had been saying this for YEARS. However, it really didn't take an expert to conclude the videos suspicious if not altogether fake; we merely needed to trust our senses. Expert opinion merely added weight to the theory and put the icing on the proverbial cake.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 17 2009, 03:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 17 2009, 03:38 PM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Another example of CNN's fakery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIZh1nm8Lzg
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post Jul 18 2009, 02:16 AM
Post #6





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



Did America Have the Talent?

QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 17 2009, 01:40 PM) *
I'd say John Lear is correct. Give the man a cigar. handsdown.gif But then, many had been saying this for YEARS. However, it really didn't take an expert to conclude the videos suspicious if not altogether fake; we merely needed to trust our senses. Expert opinion merely added weight to the theory and put the icing on the proverbial cake.


Because many people have been saying something for YEARS, does not necessarily mean that what they have been saying was accurate.

As previously pointed out, John Lear's affirmation only appears to relate to standard Boeing 767s, the type which were, allegedly, hijacked on the morning of 9/11 and, allegedly, flown by hijackers who were only novice pilots, at best.

However, I find it difficult to believe, with all the aerospace-engineering talent available in the United States, plus a part of the 3 Trillion dollars that went missing from the Defense Department, that it still would have been absolutely, utterly and entirely impossible for two Boeing 767 lookalikes to have been re-engineered and remotely controlled in order to do what two planes appeared to have done to each one of the Twin Towers, on the morning of 9/11.

Such an alternative springs to mind because I have been unable to detect any evidence of manipulation or fakery in the many videos depicting the event which, in the days and weeks following 9/11, appeared to be backed up by the published accounts of many eyewitnesses to the actual impact of the, alleged, United Flight 175 with the South Tower. There may be one or two minor videos that have been altered, in some way, but I do not think that the major videos which show the actual impact, or an aircraft in close proximity to the South Tower, shortly before the impact, are video composites.

In fact, where appropriate, these videos can be edited together to show a degree of positional and motional continuity which would have been virtually impossible to achieve, had they all been faked within the time frames that they started appearing on various TV stations, and it is certain that they would have arrived at such stations some time prior to being broadcast, if only because the financial details would have had to be worked out.

Most importantly, I cannot see how the video taken by the Fox News "Chopper 5" helicopter, could have been faked, because it was broadcast, live, and, despite claims to the contrary, an aircraft can be seen in the wide shot of this video, at exactly the right place to tie in with the speed it would have required to have been travelling, in order to hit the South Tower approximately 7.8 seconds later.

So the question is: Did America have the engineering talent, during the months when 9/11 was in the planning stage, to use a “Monster Hangar” to prepare two such planes?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 18 2009, 03:42 AM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE
Because many people have been saying something for YEARS, does not necessarily mean that what they have been saying was accurate.


I say Lear is accurate but I am comfortable with the fact you disagree. Just curious, who has more flying experience, you or John Lear?

QUOTE
As previously pointed out, John Lear's affirmation only appears to relate to standard Boeing 767s, the type which were, allegedly, hijacked on the morning of 9/11 and, allegedly, flown by hijackers who were only novice pilots, at best.

Wich type Boeing is certified to cut through a steel framed building such as the WTC and not accordian in the process? Link please?
QUOTE
However, I find it difficult to believe, with all the aerospace-engineering talent available in the United States, plus a part of the 3 Trillion dollars that went missing from the Defense Department, that it still would have been absolutely, utterly and entirely impossible for two Boeing 767 lookalikes to have been re-engineered and remotely controlled in order to do what two planes appeared to have done to each one of the Twin Towers, on the morning of 9/11.

That's fine but again, give me a link to such an event where a Boeing doesn't accordian while slamming into a building. Using your logic, there must be a Boeing that is capable of penetrating the Earth from the US to China unscathed and just because I cannot disprove it I must consider it a possibility. Okaaaayyyyyy...........

QUOTE
Such an alternative springs to mind because I have been unable to detect any evidence of manipulation or fakery in the many videos depicting the event which, in the days and weeks following 9/11, appeared to be backed up by the published accounts of many eyewitnesses to the actual impact of the, alleged, United Flight 175 with the South Tower. There may be one or two minor videos that have been altered, in some way, but I do not think that the major videos which show the actual impact, or an aircraft in close proximity to the South Tower, shortly before the impact, are video composites.

So you admit to some amount of fakery. We have found something we agree on.

QUOTE
In fact, where appropriate, these videos can be edited together to show a degree of positional and motional continuity which would have been virtually impossible to achieve, had they all been faked within the time frames that they started appearing on various TV stations, and it is certain that they would have arrived at such stations some time prior to being broadcast, if only because the financial details would have had to be worked out.

Huh? Financial details? Time frames? I'm sorry but you've lost me. I think you said something but the words got in the way.

QUOTE
Most importantly, I cannot see how the video taken by the Fox News "Chopper 5" helicopter, could have been faked, because it was broadcast, live, and, despite claims to the contrary, an aircraft can be seen in the wide shot of this video, at exactly the right place to tie in with the speed it would have required to have been travelling, in order to hit the South Tower approximately 7.8 seconds later.

They can fake ANYTHING and indeed they, the 911 perps, have done just that. The Apollo moon landings, The USS Liberty attack, the Lavon Affair, WMD's, lying about tanks on the border of Saudi Arabia in the 1st Gulf War, claiming Iraqi soldiers removed babies from incubators and throwing them on a hospital floor (in 1991), the King David Hotel bombing, the London bombing, Spain bombing, political assasinations and on and on..... Question; since when can the nose of a plane come out the other side of a building unscathed? Or will you argue it's Winston Churchill's nose that came out the other side of the building in the FOX 5 video and not the nose of the plane?

QUOTE
So the question is: [b]Did America have the engineering talent, during the months when 9/11 was in the planning stage, to use a “Monster Hangar” to prepare two such planes?

No engineering talent? No money? We had the technology and funds to fake going to the moon from 1969 to 1972. Will you now claim the US put men on the moon? Please answer this question directly; did the US put men on the moon in 1969? Yes or no?

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 18 2009, 04:49 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 18 2009, 04:48 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (lawson911 @ Jul 18 2009, 12:16 AM) *
Did America Have the Talent?

However, I find it difficult to believe, with all the aerospace-engineering talent available in the United States, plus a part of the 3 Trillion dollars that went missing from the Defense Department, that it still would have been absolutely, utterly and entirely impossible for two Boeing 767 lookalikes to have been re-engineered and remotely controlled in order to do what two planes appeared to have done to each one of the Twin Towers, on the morning of 9/11.
...
So the question is: Did America have the engineering talent, during the months when 9/11 was in the planning stage, to use a “Monster Hangar” to prepare two such planes?

Have you considered re-considering the bolding/size and punctuation of a few part(s) of that recent post? Some of my posts around here might give a few ideas... whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post Jul 18 2009, 08:22 AM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



Is this a prelude to another bit of thread locking?

QUOTE (dMole @ Jul 18 2009, 03:48 AM) *
Have you considered re-considering the bolding/size and punctuation of a few part(s) of that recent post? Some of my posts around here might give a few ideas... whistle.gif


I am quite capable of deciding what I think might require emphasis, thank you. Or is this a case of you introducing some criticism of my style as a prelude to locking this thread, which you did to a similar one, On July 5, 2008?

I questioned you about censorship, following that incident, and this looks as though you could be girding your loins, so to speak, to indulge in some more of it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post Jul 19 2009, 05:41 AM
Post #10





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 18 2009, 02:42 AM) *
Wich type Boeing is certified to cut through a steel framed building such as the WTC and not accordian in the process? Link please?


I couldn't tell you if it was a Boeing, or not, but some kind of plane certainly did something like that, on 9/11, because a section from one of its engines appears to have fallen from the South Tower and ended up where Church and Murray streets cross, about three city blocks away.

Not as far as China, admittedly but then the discussion is about a plane and a building in New York.

How do you explain that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jul 19 2009, 09:19 AM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (lawson911 @ Jul 23 2009, 03:41 AM) *
How do you explain that?


Someone could have put it there. Do we have documentation of its serial number matching it to the proper plane? Not that I am aware of.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post Jul 19 2009, 09:38 AM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



QUOTE (Sanders @ Jul 19 2009, 08:19 AM) *
Someone could have put it there. Do we have documentation of its serial number matching it to the proper plane? Not that I am aware of.


Seeing we have no idea what the plane was, a serial number isn't going to help. In fact the authorities showed criminal negligence in not holding this piece of engine as evidence. The NTSB should have taken, or been given possession of it, but it was certainly photographed and videoed, where it lay, near the corners of Murray and Church streets, following what appeared to be the impact of a large aircraft into the south side of the South Tower of the WTC. This engine part was later photographed in a rubbish tip, along with some of the debris from the buildings.

In quite a few of the videos shot that day, an object can be seen trailing white smoke, as part of an extinguished jet engine would be likely to do, arcing its way down in the direction of Church and Murray streets, and an estate agent's current website mentions that this engine part hit 50 Murray Street, while the building was under renovation.

How can you explain that, if some kind of jet-engined plane did not hit the South Tower?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jul 19 2009, 10:13 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (lawson911 @ Jul 23 2009, 07:38 AM) *
How can you explain that, if some kind of jet-engined plane did not hit the South Tower?


I can explain it in a number of ways - when you realize that the whole 9/11 thing was a made-for-TV propaganda piece, anything is possible. I don't deny though that some kind of jet-engined plane hit the South, or for that matter, the North, Tower.

I'm not a no-planer, but I question everything, and look for disinfo and manipulation of perception at every turn.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Jul 19 2009, 03:32 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



I have searched for years but have never found any evidence of insurance payouts to United Airlines Ltd. American Airlines or the leasing companies. The SEC filings mention the losses of airframes but no mention of insurance payout. LLoyds of London and Swiss Re. were the principals carrying the policies but they focus on the WTC, the Pentagon did not carry any insurance as it is USG property. The airlines do not show ever getting paid out for 4 aircraft, airfarmes, hulls, that were supposedly destroyed that day due to air piracy. Start your search for airframe hull insurance. Nothing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post Jul 19 2009, 05:12 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



QUOTE (Sanders @ Jul 19 2009, 09:13 AM) *
I can explain it in a number of ways - when you realize that the whole 9/11 thing was a made-for-TV propaganda piece, anything is possible. I don't deny though that some kind of jet-engined plane hit the South, or for that matter, the North, Tower.

I'm not a no-planer, but I question everything, and look for disinfo and manipulation of perception at every turn.


I question everything about what we have been told about 9/11, as well, and I do think that a plane hit each Tower, but not the Pentagon. As a matter of interest, I made the video: "WTC7 -- This is an Orange".

You appear to agree that planes did hit the North and South Towers of the WTC on September 11, but think that 9/11 was a propaganda piece, but not made by TV. Is that right? If so, I agree.

This would also imply that you think that either Boeing 767s, or planes which looked like Boeing 767s could have achieved the necessary speed depicted in the South Tower videos, which I estimate to be about 497 knots (572 mph) at an altitude of about 800 ft. Can you confirm this, please. Can you also tell me what type of planes you fly?

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lawson911
post Jul 19 2009, 05:19 PM
Post #16





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 51
Joined: 12-May 08
Member No.: 3,325



QUOTE (Ricochet @ Jul 19 2009, 02:32 PM) *
I have searched for years but have never found any evidence of insurance payouts to United Airlines Ltd. American Airlines or the leasing companies. The SEC filings mention the losses of airframes but no mention of insurance payout. LLoyds of London and Swiss Re. were the principals carrying the policies but they focus on the WTC, the Pentagon did not carry any insurance as it is USG property. The airlines do not show ever getting paid out for 4 aircraft, airfarmes, hulls, that were supposedly destroyed that day due to air piracy. Start your search for airframe hull insurance. Nothing.


That's really interesting. The FAA also refuses to release any information about the serial numbers of any plane parts, or the "Black Boxes", allegedly found on the crash sites. Not even under the Freedom of Information Act, and The Justice Department backs them up.

On top of that, the NTSB denies having been involved in any crash investigations, relating to any of the alleged hijacked planes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jul 19 2009, 06:38 PM
Post #17





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Quest!

In your number 7 you ask:

QUOTE
Which type Boeing is certified to cut through a steel framed building such as the WTC and not accordian in the process?



My answer is one, some or all of the following types:

1. One that is structurally reinforced for the purpose.

2. One that is retrofitted with some type of device to assist it in so cutting.

3. One that is flying significantly faster than the others that accordianed when they struck something.

4. One that is being flown by someone bent on crashing into the object as fast and directly as possible to maximize the destruction with no regard to the consequences to the plane and himself. That makes it unlike all of the other ones that struck an object and accordianed, because they were being operated by someone who desperately wants to avoid or minimize the impact with the object and thus tried to hit it at as low a speed as possible and would naturally produce an indirect impact out of the efforts to avoid it.


5. One that is structurally reinforced, aerodynamically souped up, and/or artificially controlled to maximize the speed and directness of the impact.

6. One that, for obvious reasons, would not be certified for that purpose in the first place.


QUOTE
Link please?


For the same kind of obvious reasons as in No. 6 above, I don't think you will find any links to the types of Boeings that you describe, let alone certified ones. EDIT TO ADD: And Alas! The only two ever made are now destroyed!

Here's a post where I explained how John Lear's Affidavit does not amount to an endorsement of "No Planes" or any other theory, including my own.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10774053

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jul 19 2009, 06:44 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Jul 19 2009, 08:34 PM
Post #18





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



I've been reading this document of John Lear's off and on all day. While i have not studied the plane arguments, because i am just a building construction guy, not versed in aircraft or flight, this document blows me away, for lack of a more eloquent surmise. I wonder what switched John Lear on? Or who might be a better question. This document has me enthralled. Seems there's is a lot weight behind its punch.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 19 2009, 10:05 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I think that the planes alone could not have brought down those towers.
I think there were planes, at least the second hit, but the whole incident of the planes hitting the towers is completely irrelevant to the collapse of the towers other than a smoke-screen-cover-story over the now, seemingly obvious, demolition.
The more that I think about it...
there may have been preparations to limit the destruction done by the planes to that area of the buildings, so they wouldn't interfere with the planned demolition to follow.

If the floors have to be sequentially taken out by explosives couldn't a plane crash somewhere along that circuit mess up the planned demolition?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
forthetrees
post Jul 19 2009, 10:35 PM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 41
Joined: 7-March 08
Member No.: 2,869



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd April 2019 - 06:29 AM