Ex-CIA Pilot - No Planes Hit The Twin Towers


Status
Not open for further replies.
We didnt land on the moon until 197o something.......fact.......thats if we did every land on the moon at all..........unfact
 
I watched a video on YouTube about this yesterday. It led me to a conspiracy about the Sandy Hook massacre, which was strangely believable. There are definitely questions arising from the official explanation of that and 9/11, but I remain open minded and can't bring myself to come down on one side or the other.
 
‘No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors’, he stated in the affidavit.

‘Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted, for the following reasons: in the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center.


‘The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.


‘The engines when impacting the steel columns would havemaintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building.


‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.


  • The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
  • The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.
  • No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground.

‘The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.'
 
‘No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors’, he stated in the affidavit.

‘Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted, for the following reasons: in the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center.

‘The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

‘The engines when impacting the steel columns would havemaintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building.

‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.

  • The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
  • The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed at over 500 mph. It would have crumpled.
  • No significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground.

‘The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.'

So what did happen?
 
Does anybody on this forum feel they have the credentials to tell him he is wrong?

OK, I'll humour you for a moment by ignoring the fact that everything John Lear says on this subject and almost any other is utter nonsense, and even set aside all the first-hand evidence of planes flying into the towers.

This 'appeal to authority' argument, i.e. 'he's a pilot so he must be right' is completely flawed to start with. Reading his affidavit, most of his claims are about things which being a qualified pilot lends no expertise to whatsoever; he makes all sorts of wild claims about structural integrity of metals and materials science without any apparent evidence to back any of it up. So that can all be safely ignored.

Where he talks about piloting issues, if we're expected to take Lear's opinions as fact, then what about all the other thousands of professional pilots who fly these aircraft every day? Why do all these experienced pilots not see how impossible it would be and speak out? If Lear's credentials lend his opinion anything just because he's a pilot, then don't all the other pilots' opinions carry far more weight? One expert says 'x', 10,000 others say 'y'. Why go with 'x'?

The towers were wider than most runways that these planes land on. The best comparison I've read (from an actual 767 pilot) was that it was the equivalent of a learner driver with a few months' experience being asked to drive a car into a field and hit a barn at the far end.
 
get plane. fly git low. look for towers. drop the plane til its in line. fly straight. boom.
 
I saw live footage of the second plane hitting the tower. Am I supposed to believe what I saw was fake because some ex cia whack job says it didn't happen?
 
So what did happen?

It's not for theorists to say what happened. They're just pointing out flaws in the official story.

Apparently the majority (if not all) of the major conspiracy theorists are on the payroll of the US govt. Their job is to ensure conspiracy theorists remain a subject of ridicule. This is so when real conspiracies are unearthed people automatically link them to lunacy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top