John Lear Swears And Affirms... No Planes In New York, Raising serious questions regarding 9/11 Options

[lunk]

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.

[lawson911]

Hello tnemelckram,

Thank you for your excellent response to Quest’s question. At the end you wrote:

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.

That is true, of his affirmation, but he has since written to a group of no-planers, including James Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds as follows:

Either way the concept of the military increasing the power, or getting more powerful engines or redesigning the Boeing 767 to go 560 mph is absurd.
There are literally hundreds of factors that would affect that type of redesign.
And in case my position was not stated clear enough:
No Boeing 767 or any other airplane hit the WTC. // No Boeing 737 // No missile // No drone // No predator // No A-3 // Nothing hidden inside a hologram
NOTHING.
John

Note: The email format has been collapsed

You have to admit that this is a fairly unequivocal statement endorsing the no-planes theory.

You also wrote, in your post:

Thus, there's no reason for me to dig into the technical aspects of video alteration, of which I know nothing, and I am willing to assume that for some reason the later, additional video accounts were altered.

I have dug very deeply into the technical aspects of video alteration, and I consider it very unlikely that the major videos that surfaced, following the live broadcast of the plane which hit the South Tower, were altered in any significant way. Of course they were shown in slow motion, and their original sound tracks were either not included in the broadcasts, or their level was reduced so that the commentators could be heard. While the Herzarkani video has been stabilized, to correct for the extreme pans and zooms in the original, by “significant” I mean that the plane was not added to an exploding South Tower.

In that regard, I would hope that you would reconsider your statement, above, because it is not helpful for someone with your obviously clear thought processes “to assume” something which it has yet to be demonstrated has any basis in fact. The follow on from that will be a headline: “Active Pilot Assumes Video Fakery, on 9/11” which would not be helpful to the search for truth.

For example, in a document cited in the other thread you mentioned:
http://www.maebrussell.com/9-11/Dear%20World%20Watcher.html
the Webfairy’s baseless claims of “Missile out” and “The Ghostplane” are introduced. Although not her videos, directly, I have debunked both of these theories within my videos “September Clues — Busted” and “Impossible Speed and Impact — Busted”, and, if you are up for it, I can send you a thorough and meticulous debunking of Ace Baker’s claims regarding his proposals that all of the “plane” videos: including the live broadcasts and those that surfaced, shortly after the events of 9/11, had been faked using computer generated graphics.

My email address is on all of my videos: lawson9/11@gmail.com

Anthony

[lawson911]

Hello Jim,

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.

Unfortunately, Jim, you are right. John Lear's name does carry a lot of "punch", but his claims are based on book theory, not, apparently, on realities. There any number of "extreme" pilots: ex-Marine Phantom F4 pilot, Field McConnell, with a further 30 years of civil flying in big jets, for example, who have no problem with the concept of a Boeing 767 reaching that speed at the required height, following a steep descent, let alone a specially engineered, remotely controlled Boeing 767 lookalike.

Anthony

[lawson911]

Hello Lunk,

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.

Your points:

1. It is fairly clear that the official story is incorrect, because of all kinds of revelations not having to do with aircraft, but in what respect it is incorrect is also of great importance.

In other words: Just because something is obviously wrong, does not make any other explanation which may arise, correct. So your answer to the first question posed by forthetrees is incorrect.

2. Why would one want to work backwards from a theoretical dissertation on flight dynamics, etc., when there is more than sufficient tangible evidence, epitomised by the engine-section which was found in Church and Murray streets, and which hit a building: 50 Murray St., on its way down from the South Tower— its descent can be seen in many videos—and after many people, including flight crews waiting at JFK and Newark airports, had seen what they thought was a plane hit the South Tower?

forthetrees’s question should have been: Does the tangible evidence of a part of an aircraft engine, found lying in a nearby street, suggest that the events depicted in the videos have some basis in reality?

3. You and forthetrees should realise that what happened at the Pentagon is an entirely different matter, and should not be related to what happened in New York.

Anthony

[DoYouEverWonder]

Hello Lunk,


"and after many people, including flight crews waiting at JFK and Newark airports, had seen what they thought was a plane hit the South Tower?"

You really think 'many' people at JFK and Newark could see Flight 175 hitting WTC 2? Except for the guys in the ATC Tower at Newark, I don't recall anyone claiming they saw the plane from those places, especially from Kennedy. Apparently, you've not familiar with the NYC area and how not even Superman, no less flight crews sitting on the ground or inside of airplanes, could have seen a plane hitting the WTC from there.

[lawson911]

Hello DoYouEverWonder,

You really think 'many' people at JFK and Newark could see Flight 175 hitting WTC 2? Except for the guys in the ATC Tower at Newark, I don't recall anyone claiming they saw the plane from those places, especially from Kennedy. Apparently, you've not familiar with the NYC area and how not even Superman, no less flight crews sitting on the ground or inside of airplanes, could have seen a plane hitting the WTC from there.

For a start, I did not write: "...'many' people at JFK and Newark..."

I wrote:

"...and after many people, including flight crews waiting at JFK and Newark airports, ...

There is a vast difference, but I'll take it as an honest mistake and that you were not deliberately trying to change the meaning of what I wrote.

As for the issue of the air crews, of unspecified number, you will have to take that up with Rob Balsamo, who wrote the following on a thread "John Lear, a No Planer?" around this time, last year.

I lean towards planes hitting the WTC for the fact i know several crews who watched it happen while waiting for departure at JFK and EWR and due to the numerous witnesses and video.

I dont know if the speeds are possible for a stock 767. We are trying to find out by obtaining data.

I dont know if the 767's were aerodynamically modified. We are trying to find out by obtaining data.

I dont have the expertise to determine "video fakery".

Feel free to quote ME and me only, not pilotsfor911truth.org as we do not offer theory.

Check out the full quote on that thread which was finally censored, by dMole, who locked it.

As a matter of fact, I have checked out the viewing distance from a hill near my home, about 10 miles away from another hill which carries all kinds of VHF antenae and TV masts, and I think, given the clarity of the air, the bright-blue sky and the sun's position, that experienced pilots, certainly those at Newark, could easily have seen something the size of a Boeing 767 hit the South Tower, considering that their eyes would have been naturally drawn to the smoking North Tower.

Are you sure that you can justify what you have written? "Not even Superman"!

I mean, the Twin Towers were over 1,000 feet high, weren't they? And Google Earth seems to indicate no intervening hills between either airport and where they used to stand.

It appears as though the holding area for planes about to take off from JFK Runway 31 Left would have had a clear, line-of-sight view of 13.2 miles directly to the Towers, while Newark centre is only 8 miles away from where the Towers stood. I've double checked this on MS Flight Simulator.

Yes, Idoeverwonder if people like you check things out before making such unequivocal statements.

Anthony

[rob balsamo]

Check out the full quote on that thread which was finally censored, by dMole, who locked it.

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:45:48 +0700
From: "Anthony Lawson" <lawson911@gmail.com>
Subject: Bursill's simulator findings
To: "Rob Balsamo" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com>
Cc: "James Fetzer" <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>, "john bursill" <johnbursill@gmail.com>

<snip>

I would also like to renew my question about the closing of the thread "John
Lear A No Planer?" on the *Pilots for 9/11 Truth* site, after I had joined
in. In the absence of a straight answer, from you or anyone else, I assumed
that it was censorship, pure and simple. To remind you, here is what I
wrote to him, after "Painter" had locked the thread, and which I copied to
you.

<snip>

Bolding above mine.

Anthony, make up your mind already. Your blind accusation(s) sans source is getting a bit annoying, especially when you constantly contradict yourself. Your attitude is even worse. You're like a nagging cry baby... which is why i have blocked your emails.

If you continue to disrespect this forum, its staff and members, i will show you the door for good this time, and its not because i disagree or agree with your work.. You have a false sense of entitlement, you make contradictory accusations... Your attitude sucks.. plain and simple.

I hope i make myself clear.

[Sanders]

...There any number of "extreme" pilots: ex-Marine Phantom F4 pilot, Field McConnell, with a further 30 years of civil flying in big jets, for example, who have no problem with the concept of a Boeing 767 reaching that speed at the required height, following a steep descent, let alone a specially engineered, remotely controlled Boeing 767 lookalike.

I'll buy that - sounds reasonable to me. (Emphasis on "specially engineered".)

[rob balsamo]

I'll buy that - sounds reasonable to me. (Emphasis on "specially engineered".)

That cannot be emphasized enough....

We will be covering this topic in full (impossible speeds) in our upcoming presentation. Unlike other analysis/opinions on the matter, we will be using actual data and precedent in true P4T fashion of sticking to the facts.

Keep in mind, proving an "impossible speed", does not automatically validate NPT, it only invalidates the govt story once again. We're still researching... again.. we'll cover it in full either way... in our next presentation.

[lunk]

Hello Lunk,



Your points:

1. It is fairly clear that the official story is incorrect, because of all kinds of revelations not having to do with aircraft, but in what respect it is incorrect is also of great importance.

In other words: Just because something is obviously wrong, does not make any other explanation which may arise, correct. So your answer to the first question posed by forthetrees is incorrect.

2. Why would one want to work backwards from a theoretical dissertation on flight dynamics, etc., when there is more than sufficient tangible evidence, epitomised by the engine-section which was found in Church and Murray streets, and which hit a building: 50 Murray St., on its way down from the South Tower— its descent can be seen in many videos—and after many people, including flight crews waiting at JFK and Newark airports, had seen what they thought was a plane hit the South Tower?

forthetrees’s question should have been: Does the tangible evidence of a part of an aircraft engine, found lying in a nearby street, suggest that the events depicted in the videos have some basis in reality?

3. You and forthetrees should realise that what happened at the Pentagon is an entirely different matter, and should not be related to what happened in New York.

Anthony

I should have elaborated more.

1. Yes. a real investigation would be a good idea, just because of all the demolition type events that happened outside of the aircraft's collision. But, perhaps not because of this alone. Good luck.

2. forthetrees’s question should have been: Does the tangible evidence of a part of an aircraft engine, found lying in a nearby street, suggest that the events depicted in the videos have some basis in reality?

That's a better question, but reverse engineering the incidents, may give an insight, into a truer cause and forces at work, than the official one given. (like, did the rock role down the mountain, or was it gently placed there, by a melting glacier?)

3. Yes, but the pentagon flyover, happened after the twin towers were hit under different circumstances, and terrain. (Light poles were not in the way of those planned flight path, for example.)
The impossibility of the flight 77, hitting the pentagon has already been discussed in depth and more proof that it couldn't have hit, doesn't matter as much, anymore.

Is that a little less off the wall?

[dMz]

Is this a prelude to another bit of thread locking?

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.

Actually, I have been reprimanded myself personally for OVERSIZE emphasis before by the administration of this website for MY posts here-- (I had hoped that you might focus MORE on the CONTENT of YOUR bolding rather than the font/text/highlighting). Oh well...

While working as "administrative staff" here, I have only locked about 3 threads here IIRC (and one of those was subsequently re-opened, after being split about 5+ directions in the interests of "ON TOPIC"...) I DID NOT lock that earlier thread there, Barney Fife...

As far as "girding my loins" [although that is generally good, solid Biblical advice].... doood! DO NOT flatter yourself!!! I actually could NOT give a flying rat's leaking urethra about your apparent "agenda" my friend.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[rob balsamo]

I DID NOT lock that earlier thread there, Barney Fife...

Barney Fife... lol... how appropriate...

Painter locked the thread and even told Lawson how to go about continuing the topic...

That is correct. This debate between KT, Quest and Lawson is OFF TOPIC of THIS THREAD -- damn it -- has been from the start and this has been pointed out numerous times. I don't have time right now to go through 12 pages and sort this out. STOP POSTING THIS DEBATE IN THIS THREAD! KT, Quest, I know you both know better and Anthony, if you don't it isn't because I, personally, haven't told you. Start a new thread in the Debate Forum (errrg!!) and when I have time I'll move the posts here into it.

For now I'm locking this thread.

What does Lawson do instead of taking the above suggestion? He makes contradictory accusations and cries "Censorship!" in emails and on forums almost every time he posts... .almost as if he has an agenda to discredit the P4T staff....

Lawson, you're a tool, i am very tempted to boot your ass right now but i dont feel like going into the acp. If any other staff would like to do the honors be my guest.

Lawson, you're on borrowed time here my friend. I suggest you spend it wisely.

[lawson911]

Bolding above mine.

Anthony, make up your mind already. Your blind accusation(s) sans source is getting a bit annoying, especially when you constantly contradict yourself. Your attitude is even worse. You're like a nagging cry baby... which is why i have blocked your emails.

If you continue to disrespect this forum, its staff and members, i will show you the door for good this time, and its not because i disagree or agree with your work.. You have a false sense of entitlement, you make contradictory accusations... Your attitude sucks.. plain and simple.

I hope i make myself clear.

No! You have not made yourself clear, at all. Make up my mind about what? (I can only assume you mean who locked the thread, which I will come to.)

And what do you mean "... blind accusation(s) sans [without] source?" I have as much entitlement as anyone else contributing to what I hope is an honest and uncorrupted 9/11 Truth forum, and you have once commented on the knowledge I have brought about video and editing to this forum. The only foot I appear to have put wrong was to complain that a thread was locked, for no good reason.

The thread was locked, so that was not an accusation, it was a statement of fact. Are you going to deny it?

But I did get a name wrong. However, Painter and dMole were very much together on the issue, as you will see from the following, it was a mistake that anyone could have made, given the quotes-within-quotes system employed by this and many other forums.

Painter wrote:

(dMole @ Jul 5 2008, 04:33 AM). . .
I just re-read about 8 pages of this thread, and I'm not the only one who has expressed a similar position to Mr. Lawson more than twice.

That is correct. This debate between KT, Quest and Lawson is OFF TOPIC of THIS THREAD -- damn it -- has been from the start and this has been pointed out numerous times. I don't have time right now to go through 12 pages and sort this out. STOP POSTING THIS DEBATE IN THIS THREAD! KT, Quest, I know you both know better and Anthony, if you don't it isn't because I, personally, haven't told you. Start a new thread in the Debate Forum (errrg!!) and when I have time I'll move the posts here into it.

For now I'm locking this thread.

I apologise for getting the name of the person who actually locked the thread wrong. Happy now?

But you have yet to explain why you did not respond to me, when I asked, in a PM to you, why the thread was locked. Here’s a good clue, and I have no idea what was going on behind the scenes, but this quote says a lot about why I think that it was blatant censorship:

Hi all,

Waaay back before I was appointed as a Mod, I wondered about the "A. Lawson" sub-plot on this thread. I just considered splitting this thread, but honestly- I don't think that there is a possibility of doing that properly in some tidy way at this point. I've already tried to bring the thread back on topic a couple of times myself.

Could we open a thread for Anthony's beliefs or dis-beliefs and/or rebuttals or continue on an already existing "NPT" thread, and afford Mr. Lear the respect rightfully due to his and his father's considerable contributions to the aeronautics industry? There is no shortage of other "no plane" threads in this section of the forum...

I personally hold high respect for the Lear family and the numerous inventions (not all "aircraft" related BTW) that they have contributed to US and world technology and society as a whole.

I mean no slight against Anthony Lawson here. I just think we've got waaay too much sub-plot already going on a thread about John Lear's beliefs about the 9/11 attacks. I'm not sure that thread over in Debate is the proper approach either FWIW.

My $0.02.

[Anthony- isn't it great being "famous?" ]

I trust, Rob, that you can see the pattern here. I was questioning the statements of someone whom dMole and, I assume, Painter, thought I should not be questioning, because of his father’s contribution to the aeronautics industry, so I was prevented from speaking my mind and challenging John Lear’s stance on no-planes. That is not the way that free speech works, and if you don’t know that, then you are not the kind of person to be in charge of any kind of forum, let alone one with “Truth” in its title.

You have now introduced a matter, publicly, about which I feel very strongly, and about which I tried to communicate with you, privately, because I think that John Bursill is a pretty sincere guy, and your dismissal of his attempts to resolve the Boeing 767 speed issue were, how shall I put it? far from useful, particularly seeing that he is the one person who tried to get the job done.

Attempting to get to the bottom of these issues: the locked thread, and your attitude towards John Bursill’s efforts, is not being a “nagging cry baby”, and asking legitimate questions and responding to the questions of others with legitimate answers is not being disrespectful to “this forum, its staff and members.”

The only thing that would be disrespectful to a forum named: Pilots for 9/11 Truth, would be to be disrespectful to the truth, itself, and I have never done that, as anyone who has seen my videos would know, that is if their agenda is the same as mine: to find and spread it.

Now, show me the door, or allow me to pursue the truth in a manner that I see fit. I brought your name into this discussion, because you have openly stated that you were aware of flight crews who said that they had seen the plane hit the South Tower, but you have brought up matters of concern to me, which you have refused to address in the past.

Do what you please. At least I will then know, and so will others, exactly where Pilots for 9/11Truth draws the line at trying to find it!

Anthony

[lawson911]

Barney Fife... lol... how appropriate...

Painter locked the thread and even told Lawson how to go about continuing the topic...

What does Lawson do instead of taking the above suggestion? He makes contradictory accusations and cries "Censorship!" in emails and on forums almost every time he posts... .almost as if he has an agenda to discredit the P4T staff....

Lawson, you're a tool, i am very tempted to boot your ass right now but i dont feel like going into the acp. If any other staff would like to do the honors be my guest.

Lawson, you're on borrowed time here my friend. I suggest you spend it wisely.

I've covered the who-locked-the-post error in another post, but dMole was certainly interested in stopping the discussion, as I've pointed out. And I am not so thick as not to know that when interesting and revealing threads get moved, they tend to fade away and never get seen again.

The title was "John Lear, a No Planer?" and, as I've said before, what could be "off topic" about what was under discussion, if what was under discussioin was John Lear and No Planes? And what does it matter where it was being discussed. It was locked because dMole and Painter didn't like the way it was going.

[lunk]

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.

The debris from the towers were found to be much hotter than this,
And probably must have been even hotter during the collapse.
This could not have been caused by jet fuel or furnishings, burning.
If there was only one engine found outside of GZ, the other 3 must have been in the buildings, and if they weren't found in the debris, they must have vaporized, which would require even greater temperatures than thermite.

[dMz]

I've covered the who-locked-the-post error in another post, but dMole was certainly interested in stopping the discussion, as I've pointed out. And I am not so thick as not to know that when interesting and revealing threads get moved, they tend to fade away and never get seen again.

I actually could NOT give a flying rat's leaking urethra about your apparent "agenda"...

Please either provide links to SPECIFIC instances of "interested in stopping the discussion, as I've pointed out" (preferably with post #/link or at least thread and sub-forum title), or else cease and desist your unsupported, pissy, whiny bitching (IMHO (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif) )

P.S. alawson911-- a word of advice- if you are going to attempt to twist a thread around me as a "topic"... you MIGHT want to bring your "A" game... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[lawson911]

Please either provide links to SPECIFIC instances of "interested in stopping the discussion, as I've pointed out" (preferably with post #/link or at least thread and sub-forum title), or else cease and desist your unsupported, pissy, whiny bitching (IMHO (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif) )

P.S. alawson911-- a word of advice- if you are going to attempt to twist a thread around me as a "topic"... you MIGHT want to bring your "A" game... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I was responding to Rob Balsamo, who was informed, by email, that I thought remarks, such as the following, which I have already quoted, above, had no place in a discussion about the truth. This is what you wrote, and very soon after, the thread was locked.

"Could we open a thread for Anthony's beliefs or dis-beliefs and/or rebuttals or continue on an already existing "NPT" thread, and afford Mr. Lear the respect rightfully due to his and his father's considerable contributions to the aeronautics industry? There is no shortage of other "no plane" threads in this section of the forum..."

That's called favouritism, and was a direct suggestion that another thread be opened, rather than allow a quite legitimate one to continue on, no matter where it led. Such suggestions have no place in a forum with the word Truth in it.

I don't need my "A" game, when up against people like you. You've already shot yourself in the foot by what you have written previously. The thread in question was headed: "John Lear, a no Planer?" and the only things being discussed were John Lear and No Planes. His father's excellent contribution to the aviation industry had as much to do with it as my father's contribution to the music scene, in Australia, as leader of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and its guest conductor, from time to time. He was also a pilot; one of four officers and forty men to be sent to Mesopotamia towards the end of the Great War.

Now, put you no-planes arguments where your rather filthy mouth is, and stop trying to hide behind the LearJet legend.

[dMz]

[to the tunes of Kansas]"Troll on my wayward son"

Consider this warning #2, kind sir...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLGAQLqIwH0

[dMz]

Lawson, you're on borrowed time here my friend. I suggest you spend it wisely.

Ordinarily, I would have considered a "warning 0," but A. Lawson seems like a particularly whiny example of **** to me tonight. Please refer to the above as your first written warning, "Tony."

[rob balsamo]

... and if you don’t know that, then you are not the kind of person to be in charge of any kind of forum, let alone one with “Truth” in its title.

I think this is my first banning in like 2 years, aside from obvious spambots of course. I havent even had to ban GL's in a long time... only suspensions. You should feel proud Lawson...lol

lol... Lawson is gone...

Lawson, if you ever get a chance to read this... start your own forum, then you can let people tell you how to run it.