John Lear, the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, has given his expert evidence that it would have been physically impossible for Boeing 767s, like Flights AA11 and UA175 to have hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, particularly when flown by inexperienced pilots:
What gets me about this opening paragraph is that I remember reports saying the hijackers had training specific to the Boeing 767, so they weren't exactly 'inexperienced'.
I can't find any information about the sworn testimony online other than this article, and I didn't see anything about this "news" site being satire, but evidence abounds about John Lear being an avid conspiracy theorist and (potential) nutjob, but if this Affidavit actually exists and he's able to back his claims up with sound scientific evidence, there maybe some legitimacy to it. *shrug* Draw your own conclusions.
What gets me about this opening paragraph is that I remember reports saying the hijackers had training specific to the Boeing 767, so they weren't exactly 'inexperienced'.
I can't find any information about the sworn testimony online other than this article, and I didn't see anything about this "news" site being satire, but evidence abounds about John Lear being an avid conspiracy theorist and (potential) nutjob, but if this Affidavit actually exists and he's able to back his claims up with sound scientific evidence, there maybe some legitimacy to it. *shrug* Draw your own conclusions.
What's his theory, that the airline pilots did it?
If you spent enough time playing flight simulators your could probably steer a plane into something, the take off was already completed.
It was a terrorist attack by Muslim extremists. No more and no less. The aftermath and resulting wars are regrettable, but that attack was exactly as it was portrayed.
That is my belief. It would take quite a bit of evidence to convince me otherwise.
doesnt matter - we saw the videos of the planes hitting. it happened.
now - the Pentagon - now there is some serious BS. no plane. no debris. no fuel. no video. just some mystery hole which could not have been made by any reasonably sized passenger jet.
the twin towers burned insanely from all the fuel. pentagon? nope. just the initial impact. items right next to the hole are unburnt - some hardly disturbed. no fuel anywhere. no plane parts. and some fools even tried to pass off cable spools as jet turbines.
9/11 - the day the pentagon attacked itself. never forget.
the twin towers - yes - that was 100% as described. yes, there was questionable fore knowledge. I am sure these emails are NOT on display at the 9/11 museum/memorial. but - I can see how a secratary of state, the NSA, the CIA, and, of course, the president can let slip such a minor screw up. after all, the info was somewhat vague.
There is so much to this attack that dosnt make sense. There is more video that shows the under side of one of the planes that has a large tank on the belly side of it that no one can explain or don't want to.
doesnt matter - we saw the videos of the planes hitting. it happened.
now - the Pentagon - now there is some serious BS. no plane. no debris. no fuel. no video. just some mystery hole which could not have been made by any reasonably sized passenger jet.
the twin towers burned insanely from all the fuel. pentagon? nope. just the initial impact. items right next to the hole are unburnt - some hardly disturbed. no fuel anywhere. no plane parts. and some fools even tried to pass off cable spools as jet turbines.
I have never been a conspiracy theory guy and have always believed the official accounts of the twin towers terrorist plot, but the Pentagon video has never sat well with me. I always come back to the nearly undisturbed offices with papers still on desks plainly visible through the opening collapsed section.
I have never bothered to research this much because I get tired of all the conspiracy stories out there. It seems it is hard to find any reasonable explanation for this. People either say that everything went exactly as originally reported, or they say the whole thing, including the twin towers, was all staged. There are cell phone calls and reports from folks in the two planes that hit the towers calling loved ones to tell them their plane was hijacked- same thing with the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, but what is the story about the flight that hit the Pentagon? Does anyone know folks who were on that flight? Are there cell phone records from that flight? If so, it would seem difficult to dismiss that an airliner did hit the Pentagon. If it wasn't an airliner, then where did the flight in question actually go?
‘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 have maintained 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.'
True, he doesn't give any alternative explanation, but he does attempt to explain why it wasn't those jets that hit WTC.
[This message has been edited by Rallaster (edited 05-30-2014).]
According to this chronology, one of the four airplanes, AA 11, which would be the first to crash (into the North Tower), took to the air from Boston at 7:59 EST. The other planes became airborne in the interval from 8:14 to 8:42. AA 77, the one that is reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, departed from Dulles (DC) at 8:20. Whatever happened at the Pentagon is reported to have happened at 9:37 in this chronology.
If it wasn't AA 77 that crashed into the Pentagon, then how does anyone explain what happened there? It was just some kind of astronomical coincidence that the "insiders" who contrived this "false flag" attack on the Pentagon somehow planned it for the same day that the al Qaida hijackers settled on to attack in New York City? And these insiders were able to implement this false flag attack at the Pentagon in less than an hour after the first hijacked plane struck the North Tower at 8:46?
Or is it that the insiders had their false flag attack all primed and ready, with explosives hidden away inside the Pentagon, and were just waiting for the right opportunity, which they seized upon when they realized that an al Qaida attack was already under way. Just the right moment for these "insiders". So they were able to just push a button somewhere or send an electronic signal to set off the hidden explosives at the Pentagon? Less than an hour after the first hijacked plane hit the North Tower? Very adept, these "insiders". Even the Mission Impossible's from TV and the movies would be impressed by such adeptness in the field of covert operations.
And to what end? What would a false flag attack on the Pentagon offer in the way of a pretext for war, or for a new age of domestic surveillance and control (Patriot Act?), that was not already provided by the al Qaida attack on New York City?
Those are my thoughts, whenever this topic is raised.
I have always thought it was kind of unusual that someone was recording video right when it happened, the towers being hit, and the time, right during the morning news. a little to convenient if you ask me. then absolutely no video of the ether of the other 2 crashes, there were 2 others remember, not just the one that hit the pentagon.
that said we will never know the real truth, the government will make sure of that, we will Never Know the truth.
do I think the government had something to do with it, dam right I do. they do this sort of thing in other countries all the time, always have, always will.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
What's his theory, that the airline pilots did it?
If you spent enough time playing flight simulators your could probably steer a plane into something, the take off was already completed.
Not even. About a year ago I was allowed to jump in one of the simulators at Oceana that they use to train their F18 SH pilots. With about 30 seconds of instructions and being talked through it, was able to land on a carrier, snagging the second cable. People somehow forget these hijackers were in flight school in FL prior.
It was either a conspiracy or it wasn't. If it wasn't and happened largely as described, then we were attacked by a terror group as we have been told. If it was a conspiracy, then the U.S. government conspired to murder thousands of citizens to further a goal. That goal according to most conspiracy theorists is to drive us into a police state.
So, let us assume it was a conspiracy. Now what? What are you going to do? Is it okay because Bush did it and is out of power? Do you think an act like that would happen solely on the authority of a single president?
If Benghazi is old news and we should move on, then 9/11 is ancient history and any discussion about it could only be politically motivated.
I was watching it live when the second plane hit the tower.
So was I, just seemed a little to convenient that they had a news crew right there when the first plane hit, I remember it very well, Amanda was under the knife for her back surgery and her surgeon walk out of surgery in the middle of it to call his stock broker.
So was I, just seemed a little to convenient that they had a news crew right there when the first plane hit, I remember it very well, Amanda was under the knife for her back surgery and her surgeon walk out of surgery in the middle of it to call his stock broker.
Steve
I don't know, it's Manhattan. You're at the World Trade Center, walking distance to Wall Street and the NY Stock Exchange. There's probably a number of news crews in that area at any given time of day or night for something.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-30-2014).]
It was a terrorist attack by Muslim extremists. No more and no less. The aftermath and resulting wars are regrettable, but that attack was exactly as it was portrayed.
That is my belief. It would take quite a bit of evidence to convince me otherwise.
yes it was but it was funded by the US government to start a war and get access to oil cheaper to keep the growing population that is too large for the existing resources currently available. Also to claim on the insurance, for proof find the owners. its been publicizes before in a US newspaper
Terrorist Attack or NOT, one thing is clear, World Leaders do not care about sacrificing human life (or any life for that matter) to attain a goal. It's all a big Chess game to them, their only goal is to try to beat who's ever in the game with them, and this involves multiple game boards on different levels. These Evil Bastards don't give a crap about your well being, only how much they can control you, and make life better for themselves.
It's been this way since day one, it only gets more sinister as time rolls on. Another fact is that they get better at Covering Up responsibility for any sinister act committed. There's so much bullshit on both sides of the 9/11 Issue, I don't know what to believe.
...in fact worthy of a second 
