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

[rob balsamo]

... so I was prevented from speaking my mind and challenging John Lear’s stance on no-planes.

This is the exact type of spin, trolling behavior that is not welcome here.

Painter made a decision to close the thread because it was drifting off topic. Painter made a recommendation of how the off topic posts can proceed (in the debate forum). He did not prevent anyone from "speaking their mind", matter of fact Painter offered his own time to split out the off topic posts into the new thread if it were created as recommended.

If Anthony were smart, he would have taken Painters' recommendations as guests cannot see this Alternate Theory forum...they can see the Debate forum which is the second most viewed forum section on this site aside from Latest News.

Lawson instead cries he was "prevented from speaking his mind". That is a lie and that is just another of the many reasons Lawson is banned.

[tnemelckram]

What the hell happened here? I leave this morning to do a day's work and come back and find blood, guts and body parts all over the place!

To respond to those portions of the blood bath that appeared directed to me:

1. When I say I'm "willing to assume" something I don't mean that I agree with it. I mean "willing to assume for the sake of argument". I only "assume" things that will not hurt my argument. Just rational self-interest.

2. The fact that John Lear prior to his Affidavit had stated that he was a NPT guy doesn't require me to reconsider my view of him.
( a ) The Affidavit is his latest statement on the topic. According to my interpretation of it, he may have reconsidered his NPT belief and decided that it was still a possibility but he was open to other possibilities. A person's latest statement on a topic is usually viewed as their current complete statement of their belief, and using that logic I can't now ask him to do anything more or criticize him in any way because I can ask nothing more of him than to have an open mind as to what I believe.
( b ) On the other hand, if he still believes in NPT after his Affidavit, then I think that his Affidavit is so clearly written and compelling that he has good and sufficient reasons for his beliefs, which sort of makes it none of my business while at the same time giving me good reason to respect his beliefs. It also suggests that he would be a tough nut to crack if I did decide to argue with him and I just don't have the energy to waste, especially when it's clear that his motive is to help the larger cause.
( c ) Prior to the excellent Affidavit I had no information as to how Lear's mind worked. It's not just the content of the Affidavit that impressed me, but also how it revealed that he is just as sane and sound and logical as the rest of us, regardless of what he believes. In other words, now I have information, and it's good.

3. I guess Lawson was a little too zealous in rooting out heresy and counter-revolution. He's sort of the Robespierre to Lear's Danton.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Jul 20 2009, 05:19 PM

[Trapster]

Did someone say John Lear?

What ever you read, hear, or think about what this guys has to say, remember that one point:

John Lear was CIA big time. Big Time CIA. Once CIA......

Nothing that Lear has to say can be trusted in that light. This guy has a way to taking legitimate questions and spinning them to an extreme. Example: Lear and his views on Aliens, sh*t, that guy is way off on cloud nine on that one.

This post has been edited by Trapster: Jul 21 2009, 12:09 AM

[rob balsamo]

John Lear was CIA big time. Big Time CIA. Once CIA......

Lear is not CIA. lol...

Lear once worked for an airline during the Vietnam War which was contracted/used by the CIA for transport.

Thats like saying every pilot of Evergreen, North American, Delta, Continental, United... etc.. Airlines are "Big Time CIA". They're not.

[dMz]

What the hell happened here? I leave this morning to do a day's work and come back and find blood, guts and body parts all over the place!

We have a VERY OLD saying here out West...

"You F*CK with the bull... YOU GET THE HORNS!!!"

It's pretty good words to live by- a couple of my late rodeo friends aren't with us anymore because they broke that unwritten "rule..."

P.S. Apparently Anthony reprimanded me earlier for my "potty keyboard." Sorry ladies- (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

EDIT: (P.P.S) MOST SANE folks never did F#CK with the bull in the first place.. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[dMz]

Lear is not CIA. lol...

Lear once worked for an airline during the Vietnam War which was contracted/used by the CIA for transport.

Thats like saying every pilot of Evergreen, North American, Delta, Continental, United... etc.. Airlines are "Big Time CIA". They're not.

Google "air america" or read anything by Rodney Stich.

http://www.defraudingamerica.com

In Trapster's defense, I did once have a very "spookish" gentleman approach me in a random airport bar and eventually tell me "the only ex-spook is in a box." He had had several more drinks than I had, and I was more interested in watching Brett Favre pull out a 4th-quarter comeback at the time. That was an interesting comment that I have never forgotten.

EXPLICITLY: I am not alluding or implying anything about Mr. John Lear by any of my above comments however. *** READER BEWARE ***

EDIT: This was actually directed more toward Trapster's post than Rob's (but Rob's response seemed worth quoting to me at the time).

EDIT2: And just WTF is alawson's obsession with John Lear about anyway??? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) Perhaps Mr. Lear might want to consider a restraining order or something...

[JimMac]

Did someone say John Lear?

What ever you read, hear, or think about what this guys has to say, remember that one point:

John Lear was CIA big time. Big Time CIA. Once CIA......

Nothing that Lear has to say can be trusted in that light. This guy has a way to taking legitimate questions and spinning them to an extreme. Example: Lear and his views on Aliens, sh*t, that guy is way off on cloud nine on that one.

I was wondering about this myself, like you Trapster, I have listened to John Lear on other subjects, such as Extraterrestrials and i agree - cloud nine there. That notwithstanding, he raises a number of points in his document that i have not seen discussed elsewhere (but then again i have not studied the 9/11 airplane phenomena closely so they might not be as fresh to others as they seem to me). I looked over the site John Lear references (Morgan O. Reynolds), where i found some interesting background on Rockefeller and the JFK Assassination, namely a paper where he links the back field motion of 9/11 with JFK's murder (in other words the usual suspects).

Sanders, if you are reading this, and you have not seen Morgan Reynold's info on Rockefeller, you might find it a worthy read. Go here: The Assassination of JFK, 9/11 And David Rockefeller, Morgan Reynolds - June 1, 2009

This post has been edited by JimMac: Jul 21 2009, 09:17 AM

[SwingDangler]

After examining the video footage from the day from the NP'ers analysis of those media shots, it appears there was an 'overlay' of an airplane over some sort of guided missile to disguise the attack from the television viewers. Its hard to say but no-planers do make a convincing argument via the analysis of the media's video of that day.

[rob balsamo]

Google "air america" or read anything by Rodney Stich.

http://www.defraudingamerica.com

Just got off the phone with Lear... He didnt fly for Air America... he flew for...

Continental Air Services, Inc ( Laos )

And

World Aviation Services ( Viet Nam )

And

Khmer Akas (Tri-Nine Airlines) Cambodia

Continental was the one contracted by the CIA.

[johnlear]

Did someone say John Lear?

What ever you read, hear, or think about what this guys has to say, remember that one point:

John Lear was CIA big time. Big Time CIA. Once CIA......

Between 1967 and 1981 I flew numerous flights for the CIA. All of the those used cover companies like
Continental Air Services, Inc., World Aviation Services, Inc. AirTrans et.

If "Big Time" means I flew a lot of flight then yes, I was big time. In Laos alone between 1972 and
1973 I flew 560 missions which about half were combat. If by "Big Time' you mean I had any kind of input or knowledge in planning or held any position other than co-pilot or captain then no, I was certainly not a "Big Timer". You must be thinking of Ted Shackley. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Nothing that Lear has to say can be trusted in that light. This guy has a way to taking legitimate questions and spinning them to an extreme. Example: Lear and his views on Aliens, sh*t, that guy is way off on cloud nine on that one.

Yes, I have opinions on both aliens and UFO's. Yes, I wish I was on cloud 9 but the fact is I am only on cloud 3. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[johnlear]

I was wondering about this myself, like you Trapster, I have listened to John Lear on other subjects, such as Extraterrestrials and i agree - cloud nine there. That notwithstanding, he raises a number of points in his document that i have not seen discussed elsewhere (but then again i have not studied the 9/11 airplane phenomena closely so they might not be as fresh to others as they seem to me). I looked over the site John Lear references (Morgan O. Reynolds), where i found some interesting background on Rockefeller and the JFK Assassination, namely a paper where he links the back field motion of 9/11 with JFK's murder (in other words the usual suspects).

Sanders, if you are reading this, and you have not seen Morgan Reynold's info on Rockefeller, you might find it a worthy read. Go here: The Assassination of JFK, 9/11 And David Rockefeller, Morgan Reynolds - June 1, 2009

I haven't read Morgans paper pf JFK, but the fact is tht JFK was assassinated by the Mossad on direct orders by David Ben Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel. This was in the summer of 1963. The Mossad used their CIA "mole" James Angelton who had been Chief of Station of Rome and had been sent to Israel along with MI-6 in order to help form the Mossad. James Angleton was then CIA Director of Foreign Intelligence and the 'real mole'. Colby fired his ass in 1972 or 3.

Ben Gurions problem with JFK is that JFK kept asking for inspections of Dimona (Israels nuke plant). Ben Gurion finally decided just to get rid of him. The assassination of JFK was not a CIA operation, but Angleton did grease the skids.

[JimMac]

Between 1967 and 1981 I flew numerous flights for the CIA. All of the those used cover companies like
Continental Air Services, Inc., World Aviation Services, Inc. AirTrans et.

If "Big Time" means I flew a lot of flight then yes, I was big time. In Laos alone between 1972 and
1973 I flew 560 missions which about half were combat. If by "Big Time' you mean I had any kind of input or knowledge in planning or held any position other than co-pilot or captain then no, I was certainly not a "Big Timer". You must be thinking of Ted Shackley. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yes, I have opinions on both aliens and UFO's. Yes, I wish I was on cloud 9 but the fact is I am only on cloud 3. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Great answer! Greetings John Lear! Maybe we need a thread on cloud nine stuff, and the inclusive clouds in between.

[bill]

Last month I flew into EWR

it was a fairly clear day, almost CAVU

I was able to see the New York skyline from the new elevated train that takes passengers from terminal to terminal

IMO it would be VERY difficult to see an airliner against the New York skyline from Newark airport without binoculars

( I have 20/20 (corrected) according to my optometrist)

[Dwight]

Lawson911 said:

"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."

If such is the case, then it would be important to show that a real Boeing 767 could not have entered the building as shown, deposit all its fuel inside, take out core columns, deposit debris far beyond the far side of the buildings on physically impossible trajectories, and block egress from the upper floors. This would be a core question for 9/11 truth, relevant to the question of "collapses" and more importantly, to blocked egress from the upper floors of the towers, which was the real cause of most of the deaths on 9/11.

The crash physics could and should be openly discussed for this reason, even if one conclusion drawn from this is "no planes." Richard Gage and AS911T could and should apply the same physical principles to this discussion. So why not? Why is this a scorned "alternative theory" rather than a core question for 9/11 truth researchers and activists? This is profoundly unscientific, bordering on intellectual fraud.

This post has been edited by Dwight: Jul 28 2009, 07:19 PM

[JimMac]

Lawson911 said:

"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."

If such is the case, then it would be important to show that a real Boeing 767 could not have entered the building as shown, deposit all its fuel inside, take out core columns, deposit debris far beyond the far side of the buildings on physically impossible trajectories, and block egress from the upper floors. This would be a core question for 9/11 truth, relevant to the question of "collapses" and more importantly, to blocked egress from the upper floors of the towers, which was the real cause of most of the deaths on 9/11.

The crash physics could and should be openly discussed for this reason, even if one conclusion drawn from this is "no planes." Richard Gage and AS911T could and should apply the same physical principles to this discussion. So why not? Why is this a scorned "alternative theory" rather than a core question for 9/11 truth researchers and activists? This is profoundly unscientific, bordering on intellectual fraud.

Dwight, from what I have read Richard Gage as an architect seems to working within the scope of his field; namely, 'what held the buildings up' (the engineering, materials, load, etc); and what brought the buildings down; or more specifically, what DID NOT take the buildings down - explanations of the natural laws of physics in opposition to the faulty story that N.I.S.T. portrays. I think Richard Gage is doing the right thing by sticking to his field. Attached to this group are many scientists who are adding research to the area, like Niels Harrit, and his group, on evidence of use of exotic explosives. To model the plane impacts, to show what they (commercial airliners) could not have done, i would think, requires a more specialized set of skills.

Demonstrating that the buildings were taken down by a controlled demolition establishes that the government supported story is wrong. Its step one.

[Dwight]

Thank you for responding, JimMac. Perhaps it was unfair to mention Richard Gage, but he is not the only one in AE911T. I still think that the impact modeling done by MIT and University of Akron can be easily picked apart, even by a non-engineer, and especially by a mechanical or materials engineer. NIST's own models showed poor correspondence between their models and "observables" like the aircraft debris beyond the towers. Mr. Gage pointed out this poor correspondence in his first article at Journal of 9/11 Studies, and I guess it fit his argument which is fine. However, it sure reinforces other obvious questions about the crash physics.

I will reiterate because I don't think it can be said enough:

Most of the people who died on 9/11 were NOT killed by the controlled demolition. They died because they could not escape the upper floors, allegedly because of the plane impacts, and most had probably died of smoke inhalation or heat before the buildings went down.

The question of what caused those fires and obstruction of egress is key. And again, it also relates to NIST's assumption about the core columns, and for that reason alone is a valid inquiry.

Focusing on the controlled demolition as a first step is fine. What is NOT fine is attacking people who raise different questions.

I am really disgusted with the whole movement because of this. At best, it is just stupid and I don't like stupid.

At least this forum allows discussion of the matter. I'd be surprised if any pilot actually buys the idea that a passenger jet flew disappeared inside a steel building.

Exclusive reliance on videos and eyewitness accounts is also just plain stupid. Scientists and lawyers know that.

I also think the thermite issue is sketchy because of chain of custody, but I could be wrong.

Thanks for listening, JimMac. I understand what you're saying, and appreciate your response. I'm just venting, I guess, and not at you. It doesn't really matter. This area of inquiry has been successfully suppressed.

This post has been edited by Dwight: Jul 28 2009, 09:55 PM

[JimMac]

(snip)
Most of the people who died on 9/11 were NOT killed by the controlled demolition. They died because they could not escape the upper floors, allegedly because of the plane impacts, and most had probably died of smoke inhalation or heat before the buildings went down.

The question of what caused those fires and obstruction of egress is key. And again, it also relates to NIST's assumption about the core columns, and for that reason alone is a valid inquiry.

Focusing on the controlled demolition as a first step is fine. What is NOT fine is attacking people who raise different questions.

I am really disgusted with the whole movement because of this. At best, it is just stupid and I don't like stupid.

At least this forum allows discussion of the matter. I'd be surprised if any pilot actually buys the idea that a passenger jet flew disappeared inside a steel building.

Exclusive reliance on videos and eyewitness accounts is also just plain stupid. Scientists and lawyers know that.

I also think the thermite issue is sketchy because of chain of custody, but I could be wrong.

Thanks for listening, JimMac. I understand what you're saying, and appreciate your response. I'm just venting, I guess, and not at you. It doesn't really matter. This area of inquiry has been successfully suppressed.

You're quite welcome on the response. It seems clear many many areas of 9/11 have been suppressed, but i get your point, the entrapment of several thousand people on those floors above the impact zones as to exactly why and how is a stand alone matter, and should have received a due diligence type investigation, regardless of what happened to the structure 45 minutes later.

Yes, this is a good forum for open minded discussions. I have found people here entirely reasonable and beyond. What's thankfully missing here, is the crowd that immediately label you a tinfoil nutter simply because they cannot imagine or accept that something is rotten in Denmark. You should have no problem finding reasonable vetting here for any of your ideas, this one being a good topic.

If its any help, i have looked at the drawings, with staircase construction in focus, and saw that they are essentially a contained unit, like a concrete shell within the structure, (basically hung on the adjacent columns). In my opinion, whatever it was that hit those floors at that speed and mass probably clean took out the stairs on a couple of levels, crushing them like an eggshell, regardless of the steel columns.

[painter]

Via PM, dMole pointed to this email sent to 9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com

http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi...5633;title=APFN

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [9-11-NeXuS] Pilots for 9/11 Truth. COINTELPRO Infiltrated?
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:05:23 +0700
From: Anthony Lawson lawson911@gmail.com
Reply-To: 9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com
To: 9-11-NeXuS <9-11-NeXuS@yahoogroups.com>


Hello,

Two events, one almost exactly a year ago, and another, which happened yesterday, have led me to the conclusion that the Pilots for 9/11 Truth organization is either wholly disinformation oriented, and perhaps has been from the start, or has been seriously compromised by people who are determined to keep the No-Planes controversy alive. Of course they have produced that excellent video about the official story of the Pentagon plane not being viable, but there is a lot of support for no-planes, too, and that is called: Muddying the Waters.

Here is a brief outline of the "plot".

Last year in April or May, a discussion thread on the Pilots' forum was launched headed: "John Lear, a No Planer?" As one who is totally committed to what I think is the correct version of events: That planes of unknown origin, almost certainly remotely controlled, hit the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center, I entered into the discussion in defence of my position.

A few weeks ago, having read an affirmation by John Lear, on the same basic subject, I opened a thread on the Pilot's website: "John Lear Swears And Affirms... No Planes In New York, Raising serious questions regarding 9/11"

A group Administrator, dMole, who appears to be an avid no-planer, and who was instrumental in having last year's thread locked, started his usual sniping at my mode of posting, and I asked him if this might be leading up to another thread locking. The bottom line is that Rob Balsamo entered the discussion, quoting an email that I had written, which he had claimed he had blocked, and he then threatened to ban me. In part, my response was:

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.


In Rob's email, banning me, without the right to a defence, he chose only to quote the following:

.. 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.


Another 9/11-Truth-site story:

Last year, at about the same time that the John Lear thread was locked, on Pilots..., I was banned from a U.K. 9/11 Truth forum, for insisting that discussing Zionsit Israel's possible involvement in 9/11, and that supporting people who did not believe that the official holocaust story was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, could not be excluded from a forum with the word "truth" in its title.

That site broke up into two groups, shortly after my banning, because the person who owned the "domain", a Jew, refused to sell it to anyone else, or the members, collectively. He, and most probably the Mossad, now has access to the entire shebang! Posts, private messages, the lot.

Clearly, the site had been under the watchful eye of the ADL since its inception: Like you can't be more in a position of watchfulness if one of your own happens to own the site, can you?

So why should we assume that the Pilots website is any different? If not originally started by those who would like to peddle disinformation and confuse the 9/11 issues, then being joined by such people, as it gathered momentum..

I will be getting in touch with Richard Gage, because I read, just recently, that the Architects and Pilots had been jointly involved in something, and I would not like to see any viral infection crossing over to them.

If anyone has any thoughts on the above, I would appreciate their feedback.

Anthony

--
Only fools believe what they are told, when it is clear that much else is being hidden.

To which I replied:
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi...;article=125762

Anthony,

Frankly, I'm surprised at the false characterization of the events at Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum in this posted email. Surprised because I've always been respectful of you and your work. For those who are interested, the thread Anthony is referring to can be found here:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=17660

This thread is in a sub-forum only registered members of the Pilots for Truth forum can see. We keep this sub-forum hidden from guests only because in it we discuss many things that are of interest to some of us but which are highly speculative. Everything from UFOs and Aliens to even more bizarre esoteric interests.

I'm especially surprised because I made it very clear why I locked the original Lear NPT thread a year ago. In fact, you quoted the reason I gave at the time in one of your posts in this more recent thread:

/quote = painter/
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./quote/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10774098

Again, that quote from me is pulled from your own post -- so you know why I locked the original thread -- and yet in this email you make no mention of this fact. Hardly what I would call factual and unbiased reporting on your part.

Beyond that, lets make a clear distinction: The Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum is a discussion group that anyone can join and is not to be confused with the Pilots for 9/11 Truth organization whose core membership is limited to aeronautics professionals.

It is true that John Lear is a no-planer. It is also true that John Lear is a core member of Pilots for Truth. What this means is that John Lear is a aeronautics professional who has publicly endorsed the mission statement and work that Pilots for Truth is doing. It does NOT mean that Pilots for Truth either accepts or endorses John Lear's professional or personal views regarding NPT or any other of his views -- many of which are highly unconventional. Moreover, Lear's participation in the public forum has been limited. I believe he's made all of 2 posts.

As for COINTELPRO infiltration of Pilots for 9/11 Truth or any other 9/11 Truth organization, it is clear to me and should be clear to anyone who has followed this from day 1 (as I have) that the entire Truth movement is and has always been infiltrated. The purpose of this infiltration has been and always will be to keep those of us who question these events from agreeing on established facts and building sufficient public momentum to breach the media maintained 'official narrative' in any politically significant way. The primary means for achieving this aim has been to put forward speculations of various sorts that can not be proven conclusively -- and then driving the discord between these competing speculations.

In an attempt to counter these tactics, Pilots for Truth has endeavored to follow research paths that can be drawn from available data sets. This is not always easy and mistakes have been made and corrected along the way. Nevertheless, we've shown, for example, that even if the data alleged to have come from the FDR (flight data recorder) of AA 77 was not falsified (which it was), it still would have been aerodynamically impossible for AA 77 to have descended from recorded altitude, leveled out and impacted the Pentagon as claimed. This research was further confirmed by Citizen Investigation Team via recorded interviews with numerous eye witnesses who saw a plane at the Pentagon at the time of the event -- but on a flight path irreconcilable with the physical damage. All of this information and much more has been made publicly available.

As for myself, I am not a NPTer and never have been. Nor is dMole, so far as I know, although he would have to answer that for himself. Those of us who are not "core members" of Pilots for Truth but are members of the forum disagree about many things. Yes, we allow discussion of the NPT hypothesis (with restrictions) but that is not to be taken as an endorsement of that hypothesis or as some agenda to "keep it alive".

What is keeping this and many other highly speculative subjects regarding 9/11 "alive," Anthony? Why is it so important for you to cast aspersions upon the sound and factually established work Pilots for 9/11 Truth has done and will continue to do that you would knowingly and publicly misrepresent this chain of events by cherry-picking and not sourcing the allegations you present?

I am posting this here publicly. I will email it to you and post it publicly in the thread you began at Pilots. I ask that you forward this to the 9-11-NeXuS yahoo group to which I do not belong.

One final note: I resigned my position of Administrator at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth forum for personal reasons a few months ago. I seldom participate in the forum discussions. However, I could not allow the unsupported allegations presented in this email of yours go unchallenged or without comment.

Sincerely,

Michael Wells
aka "painter"

[Dwight]

If its any help, i have looked at the drawings, with staircase construction in focus, and saw that they are essentially a contained unit, like a concrete shell within the structure, (basically hung on the adjacent columns). In my opinion, whatever it was that hit those floors at that speed and mass probably clean took out the stairs on a couple of levels, crushing them like an eggshell, regardless of the steel columns.

Thank you, JimMac. Yes, that does help me form an intuition as to what could have happened if a real plane had hit at 450 mph. Based on your opinion, I could see enough of the plane - especially the engines - getting through and hitting that concrete shell with enough residual kinetic energy to destroy the whole unit. I still don't see a plane cleanly piercing and disappearing inside the building as shown in the NIST pictures and assumed by NIST. But I can't say that a plane impact could not obstruct the staircases. The question still remains, though - what did obstruct those staircases. I say it cannot be the plane impact posited by NIST, because NIST posits an impossible event. So I think I say the crash physics should be an important area of inquiry.

All of this is little more than intuition on my part, but I am firm in my conclusions, and rightly or not, confidently base my views and arguments on the assumption that NIST's crash physics conclusions are complete hogwash. Ironically, Lawson911 seems to share my opinion, because he talks about a special plane that could do what NIST says it did.

I'm looking forward to PT911T's discussion of the plane speed issue, which Mr. Balsamo says is coming soon.

I hope I have not fuffled any feathers here, as I have not participated much and not for a long time. I guess Painter's last post about Lawson911 was meant to tell me that attacks are not allowed here? I appreciate that.

[painter]

I guess Painter's last post about Lawson911 was meant to tell me that attacks are not allowed here? I appreciate that.

My post was not addressed to you, Dwight. Had it been, I would have made that quite clear from the outset, precisely as I have here.

I posted in this thread to share with others in this forum (from which I have been absent for several months) that I am aware of and had replied to Lawson's insinuations elsewhere.

Welcome to the forum.