In the early days of the 9-11 Truth Movement, it was almost impossible to get anyone to listen to us at all. The entire nation wanted to kill every Arab on the planet, and it was far beyond difficult to tell people what had actually happened on that day. We kept banging away at it, because we understood the importance of the issue.
Nico had somehow procured the use of a store-front church on the lower east side for a public viewing of “In Plane Sight”, which was the first movie made on the subject of 9-11, and we were standing outside on the street talking while we waited for an audience to arrive.
He told me then that he was losing his job, his living quarters, and that the INS was working to deport him for being in America illegally, which is something that simply never happened in New York City. It’s an international city filled with immigrants, and it always has been. Nobody has a green card, and nobody else cares. We both understood that his immigration problems, and probably his employment problems too, were the direct result of his 9-11 Truth activism.
There weren’t very many of us back then, and it was still possible to put a real dent in the movement by singling out a few of us for legal harassment, and I think that’s what happened to Nico, who was probably the most vocal of us all.
I didn’t see Nico in person for long time after that day, but he was a member of my 9-11 Truth group on the internet, and that’s where the “no plane” theory was first unveiled by Nico, and his new cohort, Gerard Holmgren. I exposed the theory for the nonsense that it was, and eventually threw Nico out of the group for steadfastly supporting what was obvious disinformation. Shortly after the emergence of the “no plane” theory, Nico’s immigration, housing, and employment problems miraculously disappeared, and to this day I still suspect that this guy who was once a dedicated activist, was forced to work for the enemy.
I don’t know what might have been waiting for Nico if he was forced to return to his native country, and I don’t even know what his native country is, but if he was in America to avoid a prison sentence, he might say whatever he had to say to keep from being sent home.
Of course, this is mostly conjecture, but the point is that today you can trust me, but tomorrow I might be typing with a gun to my head. It’s actually much easier, and a much more effective propaganda tool, if you can coerce a well-known activist into switching sides rather than trying to silence him.
This is also why you have to do your own studying, be an independent activist, or belong to a small group, preferably comprised of people you’ve known for a long time. Any political activist group that isn’t led by a spy, is infiltrated by them. Of course, I’m using the word “spy” loosely here, when “sayanim” might be more accurate. They hang around to throw wrenches in the machine by causing strife, creating animosity, wasting the time and resources of the group (you’ll see “the chosen” employing these tactics religiously), and if they’re leading the group, they’ll make sure no effective measures are ever taken.
Nico secured his fifteen minutes of fame in the mainstream media when they used his “no plane” theory to make us all look like idiots, and many people who had previously doubted the official story now clung to it, because the media-chosen “spokesperson” of the movement was portrayed to be a hash-smoking lunatic.
That’s how a “straw-man argument” works. When your message becomes noticed the spies join your movement, and they forward all of the “crazy conspiracy theories” that are later reported in the mainstream media. This results in the official story being reinforced in the public’s mind, because the only opposing argument they see, has obviously lost theirs.
Well ten years later, the “no plane” theory has once again reared its ugly head, and is seemingly gaining traction among a new wave of people who question the official story of 9-11, so it’s only appropriate to address it once again.
The no plane theory is accepted by people because they’ve only been shown bits and pieces of evidence, just as a charlatan preacher will only concentrate on Bible verses that support his particular views, so let’s first discuss some of the evidence that’s avoided by the “no planers”.
First of all, there are plenty of eye-witnesses to the planes hitting the towers, and you can hear their accounts in many different TV news reports that were made on the on the day of the event. They all agree that it wasn’t a passenger jet, and that’s probably why they were never heard from again. Because I grew up in NYC, I know someone personally who watched the second plane slam into the south tower from a nearby skyscraper, and my own brother left WTC 6 when he heard the crash, and he watched debris hitting the ground. A close friend of mine also personally knows someone who watched the second plane slam into the south tower. With the north tower already burning, plenty of people were looking up, and there is also independent footage taken by area residents, but thirteen years after the fact, I’m not sure how much of it is easily found.
There was also plane debris found in the wreckage, and the FBI found and removed both plane’s black boxes. Parts of a jet engine (but not from a 767) were found on the sidewalk a couple blocks away.
For the “no plane” theory to be viable, every TV network would have had to been part of the conspiracy if they were to provide the public with phony video footage of the planes hitting the towers on the day of the event. That possibility is negated by the fact of all of them reporting the truth as the event was unfolding, and only changing their story a few days later. On the day of the event there was numerous reporting of explosions in the buildings, the planes not being passenger jets, and the collapses appearing to be controlled demolitions, by none other than Dan Rather himself. If the TV networks were in on the plot beforehand, none of that would have been shown on TV, but instead they would have had their story straight, and the information we were given would have been more consistent.
Another argument made by the “no planers” is that hollow aluminum wings wouldn’t be able to slice through steel I-beams, but this point takes advantage of the general public’s lack of knowledge concerning fluid dynamics and shear force calculations. As it happens, an encapsulated liquid delivers the same force as a solid object in these circumstances, so any shearing force calculations would have to include the fuel inside of the wings, and treat them as heavy, solid wedges moving at 500 mph, rather than hollow tubes. If you redo the calculations with that tidbit of knowledge, those I-beams would have been sliced like a hot knife going through butter.
Many “no planers” have been convinced by a particular video clip that shows one wing disappearing behind a building where it normally shouldn’t. An argument based on that video clip assumes that all other video taken of the planes hitting the towers had to be faked, and that one clip couldn’t possibly be. If we’re discussing computerized graphics being responsible for phantom planes hitting the towers, why is deception produced by computerized graphics impossible ten years after the fact? That particular video clip is a recent production that wasn’t around ten years ago, or even six years ago, so if one side of the argument demands phoney video, it’s more likely to be one recently-produced video that’s phoney rather than the several different videos from different sources that were produced on the day of the event.
It’s good to see that another generation of 9-11 Truthers have picked up the torch and still continues to the spread the truth, but there’s no reason for any of you to make the same mistakes, or fall for the same tricks that stymied our efforts. You need to remember that for every activist spreading the truth, there are four spies shoveling nonsense, wasting your time, and doing all they can to discredit your message.
I’ve heard the “no planes” argument, the mini-nukes, the scalar weaponry, the holograms, the UFOs, and missiles fired from the Woolworth building, and all of it is utter nonsense designed to make 9-11 Truth activists appear to be insane, which in turn, allows the general public to cling fast to the comforting lie provided by our government.
9-11 Truth is this: There was molten steel found in the basements of all three buildings that collapsed that day, and there is video footage of a molten steel waterfall pouring out the 82nd floor of the south tower immediately before it collapsed. The molten steel was witnessed and reported by FEMA, NIST, firefighters, police, contractors, and everyone else who was on the scene on the day of the event, so there’s no discrepancy that it was present, and that’s ALL you need to know.
For structural steel to flow as a liquid, which is exactly what was seen by everyone present, temperatures in the range of 3200° Fahrenheit must have been reached. Jet fuel, or any other hydro-carbon, has a maximum burning temperature of 1700° Fahrenheit, under ideal burning conditions. This is 1500° short of what was needed to produce the molten steel that was seen by everyone present.
In the world of chemical reactions, such as the melting of steel, you cannot conjure up 1500 missing degrees on a whim, but instead an explanation of where that heat came from is necessary.
For the required temperatures to be reached to have caused steel to liquify, high explosives must have been used. What defines something as a “high explosive” is the presence of oxygen in its molecular structure, and because such an explosive doesn’t have to draw oxygen from the atmosphere in order to burn, it burns at a much higher temperature than any hydro-carbon, such as jet fuel, diesel, gasoline, or even gun powder ever could.
A blast furnace, which is used to produce steel from various mixtures of iron and carbon, pumps pressurized oxygen into the fire in order to reach the required temperature.
That’s all you need to know, because these facts can be confirmed in any library, can’t be disputed by any legitimate argument, and don’t rely on “evidence” which may have been fabricated for the purpose of discrediting you, and your message.
After you’ve proven scientifically that explosives must have been used, simple logic shows us that there were only a few people who could have had the motive, opportunity, and means to pull this off.
What happened at the Pentagon? A lot of people can speculate, but no one really knows, because there simply isn’t enough evidence to say anything that can’t be argued indefinitely. Avoid the Pentagon evidence because it’s inconclusive, and relying on it only convinces people that you don’t have any real evidence at all. Interested parties should search whatreallyhappened.com for a video clip Mike Rivero posted showing what happens to a jet when it crashes into a reinforced concrete structure (like the Pentagon) The jet is literally reduced to smithereens, and nothing identifiable as plane wreckage exists after the crash.
There is an endless supply of disinformation associated with 9-11, and you’re going to have to learn to avoid it to keep yourself, and all the rest of us from looking like lunatics in the eyes of the general public. Stick to the World Trade Center’s molten steel, because it defies disinformation, endless speculation, and it’s an argument that no one can refute.
— Jolly Roger
“For an hour he’s shown videos of planes hitting the towers. If you note the glinting sunlight and angle of wings and you’re honest about vectors and maybe the hashish is kicking in, you’ll realize there were no planes”. — The Washington Post
What about pilots?
Are we to believe not one of the pilots were about to send out a squawk about a possible hijacking in progress?
Or that minimally trained people were able to operate multi engine airliners beyond the airframe’s capacity with 100% accuracy on their first attempt?
No, Scott. You’re right about that stuff, but none of it provides conclusive evidence that’s not open to speculation. It all raises doubt, but none of it can be called “proof”. The melting temperature of steel isn’t open for debate.
If I had it my way, I would tell everyone to shut up and focus on Building 7…The ones putting down no-planers, are just as bad as the no-planers..Idiots. Both sides of the ‘plane’ issue make the OVERALL TRUTH more difficult to get across to the average person. The “plane” issue is nothing more than those who already know the official story is far from truth…Focus on building 7, I have found it to be the best way to get new listeners..
You’re right about building 7, hweinhard, and I use it all the time combined with the Larry Silverstein confession from the PBS special “America Rebuilds”, but even those points were argued. Larry’s confession was said to mean “pull the firefghters”, and there are endless lies concerning how much debris fell onto WTC 7 that might have weakened it. The point I’m making about the molten steel can’t be argued with.
And I also think it’s necessary to expose disinformation, because by doing so activists become wise to these tricks, and less likely to fall for them again. If you’re trying to spread the truth to the public, credibility is everything, and being made to look like fools in the mainstream media works against everyone’s goals.
If they used “molten steel” to bring down the buildings or explosives then why wait around and hope a couple of airliners show up and crash into the building. If your nonsense was true why not simply have terrorists sneak into the building and just blow the whole thing up. You can still blame it on the same people …Bin Laden or whomever. Don’t you see how stupid your little explanation is? The real truth about 9-11 is this. In order to get the Department of Homeland Security and their goon troops with a $80 billion dollar per year budget paid for by taxpayers they had to create a huge incident. So our government didn’t really know all of the particulars about 9-11 but they “allowed it to happen”. The end result is not only endless wars in the middle east enriching CEO’s and politicians but most important of all Homeland Security is here to stay and they are here to squash American protesters or anyone who objects to our foreign policy. HLS bypassed Posse Comitatus. That’s the whole point of 9-11. The brown coats are here now…to stay.
They didn’t use molten steel to bring down the buildings. The molten steel is the by-product of the thermite reaction, and some of the structural steel was melted by the heat. They didn’t wait for airliners; they guided them in by remote control, or possibly a homing device because both planes suspiciously hit computer rooms. Terrorists can’t sneak into the building and blow it up because it takes weeks of work to properly arrange enough explosives to do the job properly.
My explanation is not only not stupid, but it’s the only one that’s supported by scientific fact. By claiming that they “allowed it to happen”, are you suggesting that our government allowed Bin Laden to execute a controlled demolition? There are only a few companies who possess the know-how to bring those buildings down in a controlled demolition, and Bin Laden didn’t own any of them.
The bomb sniffing dogs were removed two weeks before 911 while workers routed new telecommunication wires throughout the towers. I believe Neal Bush was in charge of security at one of the airports involved or influenced the Port Authority, I can’t remember it’s been so long ago. I read this article years ago and I also believe it was an Israeli company doing the work. Who knows, the “dancing Israelis”? I’m searching diligently for the article, I believe it was on WRH.com.
You’re absolutely right about that, Millard, but that’s the kind of stuff I categorize as “supporting evidence” rather than something that provides proof.
Cruise missle hit the pentagon. Plain as the nose on the end of your face.
I think you’re right, Mark, but we don’t have enough evidence to know that for sure. In bringing the truth to other people, it’s more convincing if you show them evidence that proves your point conclusively.
I personally don’t believe there were planes, but I don’t bring that up to newbies. They have a tough enough time seeing through all the lies as it is. We have to recognize that those who control the matrix are never going to let a fair investigation take place, so we have to move forward on our own. There are enough bad points in this article to just about qualify it as dis-info. An aluminum wing is not going to slice through a steel beam, the gastanks are not at the leading edge of the wing and would not make the wing solid even if they were. And all of the networks are owned by the same psychos and do always say the same thing, every day. The pentagon was hit by at least two cruise missiles to kill those particular people who were working in that section and to end their investigation.
What needs to happen, for each individual, is that we need to look at 9/11 until we understand that it was a scam. Then we need to move on and look at who, what and why, because the same nut cases are still pulling their scams.
Well there were planes, Neo, simply because it’s a lot easier to fly a remote controlled plane into the building than it is to pretend that you did.
“There are enough bad points in this article to just about qualify it as dis-info.”
Well you haven’t named any of them. Please do the math rather than guess on whether a wing could have severed the beams. The gas doesn’t have to be on the leading edge, and the psychos who own the networks don’t do the same thing everyday. They change their stories constantly, and that’s usually how they get caught lying.
“What needs to happen, for each individual, is that we need to look at 9/11 until we understand that it was a scam.”
Yes, and I’ve given you a way to do that which can’t be refuted. Most of the other evidence is open to endless speculation, and that’s no accident. It convinces people that you have no real evidence at all.
There were planes..drone planes; one had a blue Philips circular logo which is the symbol for NATO. They were doing a rehash of cold war era war games that pitted Soviet vs NATO aircraft. They hit all the law enforcement units investigating missing and stolen TRILLIONS of dollars.
The investigations would have cracked the cabal wide open. Then they got their trillion dollar opium trade up and running again, and rammed through the patriot act to squish dissent and allow them to gain total control. The 2nd amendment is the last line in the sand.
yes, there were reports of an entire floor being blown up before the collapses, and a lot of investigative work disappeared with it, but I think you have more details on this point than I’m aware of.
A lot of that was lost in WTC7 too.
I agree Hans Solo , look into the aftermath of an f5 tornado where blades of grass were found embedded into places never thought possible . As far back as the 50`s remote controlled aircraft were used . The jues now have perpetual wars that us goy are financing w/ our labor & youth .No jue will send his child to fight wars ! While our tax money guards the exploding number of poppy fields , that these jue bastards profit from . Kill the communist , or the communist will kill you !!!
I do think there was planes but I do question the wings hitting the building and going in(through) the building.
Regardless of the material of the plane or the building. If either was moving and the other was stationary the same material will do the same thing to the other. (swing wing at building/ swing building at wing) THERE IS NO WAY A 0.?” thick FLIMSY ALUMINUM WING(even filled with fuel) will blow a hole through ??.0″ thick steel(corrugated at that). At least some of the wing should have slowed enough upon impact to not penetrate fully.
“9-11 truth” should be focused on the FACT that the government lied, deceived, and benefited from this attack. That alone means there is some necks that need stretching.
And I am pissed that this country is full of spineless fag ‘men’ who would rather watch football than defend their families. FAGS. THE WHOLE LOT OF MEN IN THIS COUNTRY ARE FAGS.
When I was a boy I thought being a man would be an honor. Then I got here(manhood) and realized I am one of the only ones. The rest are too busy sucking each other off.
But I digress!
“9-11 Truth is this: There was molten steel found in the basements of all three buildings that collapsed that day, and there is video footage of a molten steel waterfall pouring out the 82nd floor of the south tower immediately before it collapsed. The molten steel was witnessed and reported by FEMA, NIST, firefighters, police, contractors, and everyone else who was on the scene on the day of the event, so there’s no discrepancy that it was present, and that’s ALL you need to know.”
Why is that “ALL you need to know”?
Once again….?
“That’s all you need to know, because these facts can be confirmed in any library, can’t be disputed by any legitimate argument, and don’t rely on “evidence” which may have been fabricated for the purpose of discrediting you, and your message.”
“That’s all you need to know” Sorry but I’m confused, am I not to read, question…… study? That statement was used twice in the OP…I will not accept anyone telling me “that’s all you need to know”. Thanks
Misty, it’s “all you need to know” because it can’t be disputed by anyone, and it proves there were explosives in the buildings.
Know whatever you like, or want to. Maybe I should have said “it’s all the proof you need”.
those I-beams would have been sliced like a hot knife going through butter…..
NO THEY WOULD NOT, NO WAY, NO HOW.
light aluminum wings filled with fuel…. will be heavier, and still fragile….
the weight of the fuel would make it easier for the wings to rip apart from
the plane.
Plane hitting a steel beam would be a sudden stop for the plane.
Metal Melting Point
………………………(C)…………………(F)
Aluminum ………….660 ……………..1220
Aluminum Alloy…463 – 671……..865 – 1240
Steel, Carbon..1425 – 1540…….2600 – 2800
Steel, Stainless…..1510 ……………..2750
* mild steel has a melting point of roughly 1500 deg
Jet fuel is essentially highly-refined kerosene.
As a normal hydrocarbon it is limited to burning no hotter than 1200 degrees.
Guided missiles done up to look like planes is more like it.
Pentagon was a missile.
PA was shot out of the air.
And Cleveland Mayor White confirmed he had the fourth plane landed safely.
Everyone saw the clean cut steel beams before they carted away all the evidence. Human intervention is the only way to achieve those clean cuts.
Fire does not bring down buildings or melt steel beams.
Never has, never will.
Watch the slow motion video’s of plane flying into building and watch the left wing be in front of the building instead of behind…..which means the films shown on TV news were edited, created, or manipulated in someway,…
and someone goofed.
Pentagon: The jet is literally reduced to smithereens, and nothing identifiable as plane wreckage exists after the crash.
MORE Bullshit.
The engines are made of STEEL…
there is always an engine or more, & a black box,
and always debris because you’re dealing with break away ALUMINUM.
It’s in plane Sight.
Just look at real physics, and apply common sense instead of choosing to believe someone else’s story, fact or fiction.
Learn.
Don’t be gullible.
Know when someone is bullshitting you.
This whole article mixes fact with fiction.
And there were engines founds, at the pantagon and NY: they were just the wrong kind for a passenger plane. Operation north woods ; look it up.
You’re both correct on your stated posts, George and Han.
many people list the melting point of steel at 2800, but if you read carefully, you’ll see they’re talking about, malleable, a red-hot solid, and NOT flowing like a liquid, as we’ve seen at WTC.
Milled steel is not structural steel (it’s cold rolled steel). The melting points vary somewhat due to carbon content.
“those I-beams would have been sliced like a hot knife going through butter…..
NO THEY WOULD NOT, NO WAY, NO HOW.”
Please do the math instead of giving me an uninformed “no way no how” opinion. Force equals mass x velocity. Subtract the empty space between the beams because no force bears upon it, and add the entire weight of the wing and fuel. Then look of the shearing force required to slice the beam. Your “no way no how” opinion will change to “Oh….that’s how it happened.”
“Pentagon: The jet is literally reduced to smithereens, and nothing identifiable as plane wreckage exists after the crash.
MORE Bullshit.”
Did you watch the video I’m referring to and see what happens to the plane in question? YOU are the one shoveling BS, and uninformed opinions based on what you think and feel and believe.
This isn’t church. I live in the world of scientific fact. Your beliefs are irrelevant. Watch the video, do the math, and actually learn enough to have an informed opinion before you start yelling “bullshit” about everything that doesn’t agree with your fantasy of what transpired.
“This whole article mixes fact with fiction.”
Well since you’re incapable of showing us how it mixes fact with fiction, you’re the one shoveling bullshit.
“Jet fuel is essentially highly-refined kerosene.
As a normal hydrocarbon it is limited to burning no hotter than 1200 degrees.”
My statement regarding maximum burning temperature referred to “any hydro-carbon”, not just jet fuel, because that excludes other possible sources of the heat. Please read carefully.
I’ll get to this one tomorrow, when I have more time. I just got my computer back after being infected with a very nasty virus. It nearly crashed the hard drive. I was lucky, caught it just in time. Damn thing slipped into a hidden folder, then proceeded to suck up all the free space I had.
Anyway, I have close to 300 articles up, so this will have to wait until I can clear most of them up.
I totally agree with Missy. Anyone telling me what to think and/or not to think gets my hackles up.
JR, this article, however well meaning, is just not plausible. Moreover, last time this conversation came up, I posted a lot of info to which you never responded. If you really wanted us not to think about the “no planes” issue, then you would stop bringing it up.
Dot
“JR, this article, however well meaning, is just not plausible.”
Please tell me specifically what’s implausible about it, and I promise I’ll be back to respond this time, as long as the local electric company and my ISP permit it.
I didn’t mean to tell anyone “what to think”, but there’s a lot of confusion, disinformation, and intentional endless argument on this subject, so I was forwarding an argument that cuts through all of that.
Hi JR,
Well, I think that Inretrospect and #1 NW Hatr have done a great job (below). All I posted before were the points I took from reading the second edition of “Planes without Passengers” by Dean T. Hartwell:
1) In November of 2003, investigator Gerard Holmgren, now deceased, announced that the Bureau of Transportation Statistics did not list flights 11 and 77 as flying on September 11, 2001. Oopsie! The BTS maintained that stance until retroactively changing it in 2004.
2) Even more curious: The two planes that were officially listed as flying that day – flights 175 & 93 – were detected by their message signals (according to pilots for 9/11 truth) AFTER they had supposedly crashed. The message system is called “ACARS, for Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System.” ACARS records put flight #175 hundreds of miles west of the WTC (in Pennsylvania) at the time of the alleged crash, 9:03am. The last ACARS communication for flight 175 was received at 9:23am over Pittsurgh, PA. Similarly, ACARS records put flight 93 over Champaign, Illinois, at 10:10am. Flight #93 was alleged to have crashed in Pennsylvania between 10:03-10:10am.
3) There was no evidence proffered of any of the putative planes at any of the crash sites, despite the myriad of individually numbered (for easy id after a crash) plane parts.
4) Similarly, no evidence was provided of any of the remains of any of the putative plane passengers at any of the crash sites. All we have is the gov’t word – no independent verification. And there was a decided lack of proper “chain of custody” for the evidence brought forth.
5) Phone calls to relatives either not possible (no cell phone coverage at putative altitude, no airphones on at least one of the planes) or nonsensical (‘Mom? This is Mark Bingham…’ etc.). Witness reports of receipt of passenger calls contradicted by available phone records (e.g., Ted Olson’s report of wife Barbara’s calls).
6) No passenger manifests or airport security video were produced to confirm that even one of the alleged hijackers was on any of the relevant flights that morning. All we have to support the idea of hijackers are the phony phone calls.
7) Not one pilot of any of the “hijacked” planes took the few seconds to punch in a “hijacked” alarm signal code as they decidedly would done had they been hijacked. In one case, the cockpit had not even been breached (according to the official story), so the pilots certainly had time to punch in the code.
8) Video fakery (that ‘nose-out’ frame is especially telling). Here’s a link to some short videos posted on JF’s site:
http://www.john-friend.net/2012/09/fabled-airplanes-scripted-witnesses.html
9) Simple physics – what would happen to real (non-virtual) airplanes hitting a steel building? They would be crushed on the outside of the building. End of story.
10) More basic physics – the planes could not have flown at the putative speed (500mph) at that altitude. Not physically possible! (If I recall, the max speed at that altitude of the WTC “impacts” was 360mph for those models of planes.)
What happened to the passengers? Not sure, but Hartwell has some good guesses. (And why aren’t they listed on the Social Security Death Index [SSDI]?)
Dot — none of this has anything to do with whether or not planes hit the buildings except for points #9, and #10. I disagree with #9, for reasons given above, and #10 refers to a 767, which we know was not the plane used. (also mentioned above)
I’ve heard all about the tail fin numbers, flight manifests, and cell phone calls, but that’s not what’s being discussed here.
I presented the no-planes argument. The mainstream story is that passenger planes hit the towers, and that’s what you believe because of eyewitness testimony. Only it sounds like you are saying that you believe it was missiles that hit the towers; I think that that is physically possible, although that probably would have wreaked havoc with the controlled demolition.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about the physics – hot knife through butter because the wings were full of fuel. That’s a good one. Up there with the nose-out video. That is just so comical – Warner Bros. probably did the video for that one.
Newton’s Laws of motion:
Newton’s first law of motion
A body continues in its state of constant velocity (>500MPH) unless it is acted upon by an external force.
Facts compared to Law #1: These passenger planes (wings) are not built to withstand these speeds and would be torn-off by sheer air resistance (external force) and would never have made it to the Twin Towers; let alone, cutting through an “exterior” steel reinforce wall (denser external force) of each of the Towers.
Newton’s second law of motion
For an unbalanced force acting on a body, the acceleration produced is proportional to the force impressed; the constant of proportionality is the inertial mass of the body.
Facts compared to Law #2: A particle beam, missile, or jet fighter are the only objects which can fly at a speed >500MPH, at altitudes <300ft. However, only a particle beam or hollow-nose aircraft filled with depleted uranium would have the inertial mass to penetrate steel reinforced concrete. That's why our Military use DU tips on mortar rounds: to penetrate concrete and steel armored tanks.
Newton's third law of motion
In a system where no external forces are present, every action force is always opposed by an equal and opposite reaction force.
Facts compared to Law #3: Putting aside the impossibility for a passenger jet to even fly in insurmountable air resistance… the potential inertial mass of the Twin Towers and the Pentagon far exceeded the velocity/mass of the "alleged" objects that flew into them. Instead of seeing plane debris and burning kerosene raining down on the streets of NYC, and seeing a crumpled mass of aluminum alloy and burning kerosene at the foundation of the Pentagon… we saw penetrations at all three points of collision.
So, if the Physical Laws of Motion disprove the "Plane Theory"; then by that disqualification we are left with a "No Plane Theory". UNLESS of course, you can find someone to "scientifically" overturn the Primary Laws of Physics.
JR- I really appreciate you keeping 911 alive… just like we should not forget "The 5th of November". However, we have already been deadlocked on this topic several times, and I don't read anywhere in your content that shows new evidence nor, existing controverted evidence which can be disputed. BTW: You don't have to study Law to understand the Laws of Physics… sometimes all it takes is some common sense and logic.
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/conclusive-evidence-the-911-planes-were-not-real/98409
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/cia-insider-tells-911-truth-time-to-re-examine-your-world-view-america/108355
Speaking on an very elementary level: Aluminum alloy scissors don't cut through rock and steel… regardless of the inertial force driving the scissors.
your argument is based on a passenger jet, but all of the witnesses said it was definitely NOT a passenger jet.
“only a particle beam or hollow-nose aircraft filled with depleted uranium would have the inertial mass to penetrate steel reinforced concrete.”
“through an “exterior” steel reinforce wall (denser external force) of each of the Towers.”
We’re not talking about steel reinforced concrete, or a steel wall. We’re talking about a few (I forget the exact number– 11? ) tapered columns at their thinnest point, with a lot of empty space and glass between them.
The article doesn’t mention the Pentagon, other than to advise people to avoid the topic. The point your making doesn’t deal with the objects that were hit by the planes, and it assumes a type of plane that we know wasn’t used.
Now I remember why I left the 9-11 Truth movement. I’m surprised Nico Haupt isn’t here. The article asks you to focus on the molten steel because it ENDS the constant debate, and provides PROOF (not conjecture, guesswork, or belief) that explosives were used.
Please LOOK AT THE VIDEO of the plane hitting the reinforced concrete structure. (I wish I had the link, but I didn’t even look for it yet) I’m NOT saying that a plane hit the Pentagon (but it is possible) My contention is that there wouldn’t be any identifiable wreckage if one did.
For calculations regarding shearing stress, you need to find the column thickness on the 82nd floor, because the WTC columns tapered, and were much thinner on the upper floors. I don’t remember how thin. Ten years ago I knew this stuff.
“For calculations regarding shearing stress, you need to find the column thickness on the 82nd floor, because the WTC columns tapered, and were much thinner on the upper floors.”
OK, let’s contend that the walls at the 82nd floor were thin enough for a 757 hollow-point aluminum nose to penetrate. The wings would have still be torn-of on impact because the structural rigidity (support) of the fuselage would have been compromised (failed). But don’t forget there was also concrete reinforcement behind the steel. The Architects that did the forensic investigations have already concluded the building was capable of withstanding this impact and burning heat of kerosene… but the Towers still dropped at gravity speed, and landed in their footprints.
“…and provides PROOF (not conjecture, guesswork, or belief) that explosives were used.”
Of course explosives (and thermite) were used, JR. There was never any doubt that explosives and thermite were used… there are many forensic scientists, police, fire fighters, and other local witnesses whom have all testified to this fact. Again, this is nothing new.
I would go as far to say that ONLY explosives and thermite were used, and what eye-witnesses saw on 911 were 7-D holographic images of planes; henceforth, the “NO PLANES” theory.
“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,however improbable, must be the truth.”– Sherlock Holmes
“But don’t forget there was also concrete reinforcement behind the steel. The Architects that did the forensic investigations have already concluded the building was capable of withstanding this impact and burning heat of kerosene…”
There was NOT concrete reinforcement behind any steel 82 floors up.
Yes, and the building DID withstand the impact, and the burning heat, despite a dozen or so columns being severed. (out of about 250 columns forming the circumference — I wouldn’t expect ti have much of an effect at all) What’s your point?
The point is what many have already stated: if a plane hit either tower it would have compromised the charges placed on each floor, disrupted the demolition, and caused unwanted collateral damage
Before 911, almost half of the office space in both Towers was unoccupied. There was also a mandated need to do asbestos abatement in both towers, in which this cost would have exceeded the lease profits.
Larry Silverstein took the easy way out and used a “contrived” terrorist act to cover the cost of replacing Twin Tower #1 and #2, as well as Building 7, which was undamaged but requiring the same asbestos abatement… so he ordered this building to be dropped (pulled).
All of this information is easily obtained from several trustworthy sources on the Internet; again, it is nothing new you are bringing to the table.
Perhaps you could tell me your point, JR. Why are you regurgitating what is already known and, which has been discussed on FTTWR several times? If your point was only to rile-up over 40-comments attempting to understand your flummoxed position on “No Planes”… then you have succeeded.
Peace Brother.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Defendants. :
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEVADA :
COUNTY OF CLARK :
JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I
1. I am 65 years of age, a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with over 19,000 hours of flight time, over 11,000 of which are in command of 3 or 4 engine jet transports, have flown over 100 different types
of aircraft in 60 different countries around the world. I retired in 2001 after 40 years of flying.
2. I am the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, and hold more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. These include the Airline Transport Pilot certificate with 23 type ratings, Flight Instructor, Flight Engineer, Flight Navigator, Ground Instructor, Aircraft Dispatcher, Control Tower Operator and Parachute Rigger.
3. I flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983.
4. During the last 17 years of my career I worked for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor. I was certificated by the FAA as a North Atlantic (MNPS) Check Airman. I have extensive experience as command pilot and instructor in the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Lockheed L-1011.
5. I checked out as Captain on a Boeing 707 in 1973 and Captain on the Lockheed L-1011 in 1985.
6. I hold 17 world records including Speed Around the World in a Lear Jet Model 24 set in 1966 and was presented the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controller’s Association) award for Outstanding Airmanship in 1968. I am a Senior Vice-Commander of the China Post 1, the American
2
Legions Post for “Soldiers of Fortune”, a 24 year member of the Special Operations Association and member of Pilotfor911truth.org.
7. I have 4 daughters, 3 grandchildren and live with my wife of 37 years, Las Vegas business woman Marilee Lear in Las Vegas, Nevada.
II.
8. 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/2003/03/27/world/main546355. shtml)
3
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
4
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.
5
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:
6
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.
7
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
8
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.
9
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
10
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).
11
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?id=DCA01MA063&rpt=fa
** http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/Certification_Register/PDF-tcds/PW/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.
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
This is the page for the Boeing 767-200 Type Data Certificate information from which was used in this affidavit:
.
This is the page that shows how dive tests are conducted:
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-335.html
This is the page for the type data certificate for the engines used on UAL175
http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/Certification_Register/PDF-tcds/PW/PW4000_FAA.pdf
This is the page that shows the type of engine used on the MD-11 that crashed into the ocean. (photo attached)
http://www.bst.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98h0003/01report/01factual/rep1_06_01.asp
16
.
Download PDF of Affidavit here
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Defendants. :
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEVADA :
COUNTY OF CLARK :
JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I
1. I am 65 years of age, a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with over 19,000 hours of flight time, over 11,000 of which are in command of 3 or 4 engine jet transports, have flown over 100 different types
of aircraft in 60 different countries around the world. I retired in 2001 after 40 years of flying.
2. I am the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, and hold more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. These include the Airline Transport Pilot certificate with 23 type ratings, Flight Instructor, Flight Engineer, Flight Navigator, Ground Instructor, Aircraft Dispatcher, Control Tower Operator and Parachute Rigger.
3. I flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983.
4. During the last 17 years of my career I worked for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor. I was certificated by the FAA as a North Atlantic (MNPS) Check Airman. I have extensive experience as command pilot and instructor in the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Lockheed L-1011.
5. I checked out as Captain on a Boeing 707 in 1973 and Captain on the Lockheed L-1011 in 1985.
6. I hold 17 world records including Speed Around the World in a Lear Jet Model 24 set in 1966 and was presented the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controller’s Association) award for Outstanding Airmanship in 1968. I am a Senior Vice-Commander of the China Post 1, the American
2
Legions Post for “Soldiers of Fortune”, a 24 year member of the Special Operations Association and member of Pilotfor911truth.org.
7. I have 4 daughters, 3 grandchildren and live with my wife of 37 years, Las Vegas business woman Marilee Lear in Las Vegas, Nevada.
II.
8. 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/2003/03/27/world/main546355. shtml)
3
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
4
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.
5
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:
6
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.
7
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
8
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.
9
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
10
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).
11
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?id=DCA01MA063&rpt=fa
** http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/Certification_Register/PDF-tcds/PW/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.
12
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
13
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
14
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
15
This is the page for the Boeing 767-200 Type Data Certificate information from which was used in this affidavit:
.
This is the page that shows how dive tests are conducted:
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-335.html
This is the page for the type data certificate for the engines used on UAL175
http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/Certification_Register/PDF-tcds/PW/PW4000_FAA.pdf
This is the page that shows the type of engine used on the MD-11 that crashed into the ocean. (photo attached)
http://www.bst.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98h0003/01report/01factual/rep1_06_01.asp
16
.
Download PDF of Affidavit here
So, are we to assume that (INDISPUTABLY)) one of THE top pilots in the ENTIRE FREAKIN’ WORLD, DOESN’T KNOW WHAT THE F%&K HE’S TALKING ABOUT?? MY @SS!!!
Sorry, but if John Lear says he couldn’t have accomplished such a feat, then that can mean only one thing…
There WAS a better pilot than him (that we don’t know about, and never will, now that he’s ‘dead’), (oops, make that TWO, one for each plane) who were totally willing to commit suicide (life can be VERY stressful for TOP pilots, you know).
Sure, I’m convinced.
As to drones… they were not nearly as well developed then as now – too much room for error.
Consider this… you have an entire building wired with explosives – set for a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions have to be PRECISE. The SLIGHTEST miscalculation can skewer the entire operation.
IF A SOLID OBJECT SUCH AS A PLANE HAD ACTUALLY HIT THOSE BUILDINGS, IT WOULD HAVE DESTROYED THE CHARGES IN THAT SECTION OF THE TOWER, AND IT WOULD NOT HAVE COME STRAIGHT DOWN IN IT’S OWN FOOTPRINT!!!
DUH!
To deny even the possibility that their technology is/was not advanced enough to create holograms real enough to be believed is not only the height of folly (imo), but tantamount to dispensing disinformation (again, imo)
I respect you, JR. You’re one of the few who has been posting here as long, or longer, than I have. I agree with you on virtually everything else.
But I refuse to ignore certain impossibilities when it comes to this subject.
Excellent reply of logic, #1.
“So, are we to assume that (INDISPUTABLY)) one of THE top pilots in the ENTIRE FREAKIN’ WORLD, DOESN’T KNOW WHAT THE F%&K HE’S TALKING ABOUT?? MY @SS!!!”
Yes, because he’s a pilot, and not s structural engineer. I’m sure he flies well, but his skills as a pilot don’t qualify any of is statements concerning what would have happened to the plane or the columns.
His discussion of the plane is mostly about what speed it could or couldn’t achieve at a given altitude. He’s probably right about that, but he’s talking only about a 767, and we’re not.
The transponder signals disappeared over an air force based recently privatized and sold to Ronald Lauder (Estee Lauder cosmetics heir), who also donated a wing to the MOSSAD training school. That’s where it looks like the planes were switched for the remote controlled planes that were used. No one’s certain they were flown by remote control either, and since they both hit computer rooms, they may have been following a homing signal, or guided in by laser.
But the point is that the planes were switched, and every witness said it definitely wasn’t a passenger jet. And since they did switch the planes, they could have launched anything, and possibly loaded it with explosives too.
“IF A SOLID OBJECT SUCH AS A PLANE HAD ACTUALLY HIT THOSE BUILDINGS, IT WOULD HAVE DESTROYED THE CHARGES IN THAT SECTION OF THE TOWER, AND IT WOULD NOT HAVE COME STRAIGHT DOWN IN IT’S OWN FOOTPRINT!!!”
That’s a possible explanation for the molten steel waterfall. Since the planes were flown into computer rooms, barrels of thermite could have been stored there, expecting to be ignited by the plane crash, in which case, you wouldn’t need charges there.
You also don’t need charges throughout the entire building to make it fall into its own footprint. If they knew where the plane would hit (the computer rooms), explosives could have been only beneath that point, and gravity would have brought everything above it straight down, as gravity always does.
Sheering force calculations disregard the material used, because it’s irrelevant at the moment of impact, and that’s all we’re concerned with when we’re discussing the possibility of columns being severed. Yes, the plane was shredded upon impact, but so were 11 columns.
Also, his credentials as a pilot don’t impress me in the least, because I’ve been lied to on this topic by respected engineers, engineering firms, ivy league universities, and many others more highly credentialed than Mr. Lear.
“Controlled demolitions have to be PRECISE. The SLIGHTEST miscalculation can skewer the entire operation.”
Yes, in most cases that’s true, but this particular controlled demolition was intended to look like the result of an attack, so if things didn’t go as planned, it just would have resulted in more casualties if it took out a neighboring building. It may have been more convincing if it did. The chosen were long gone, so why would they care?
“…gravity would have brought everything above it straight down, as gravity always does.”
BULLCR@P!!!
Buildings of THAT HEIGHT & MASS will NOT drop STRAIGHT down into their own ‘footprint’, EXCEPT by PRECISELY TIMED DEMOLITION CHARGES!!!
That’s a pure crock, JR. You’re grasping at straws.
I challenge any structural engineer to lay claim to the contrary.
He’d have his head handed to him by his colleagues.
the fact of the buildings collapsing at free fall speed is proof that columns were being severed faster than debris falls (it’s offering no resistance), since that’s the case, everything above (especially heavy objects, such as 20 floors of a skyscraper) would have fallen straight down. I”m not grasping at anything.
There is also video of the demolition wave moving downward faster than falling objects. What would prevent 20 floors of a skyscraper from falling straight down? Where else would it go?
No one is denying there were precisely timed demolition charges, but no one was too concerned about the result being perfect.
“There is also video of the demolition wave moving downward faster than falling objects.”
And why do you suppose that was? Not natural, by any means. What I (and many others) saw was a building LITERALLY disintegrate, at FASTER than normal free fall speed, given the mass involved. Only thing I know that could accomplish that would be micro-nukes (don’t claim they don’t exist. They do). Independent researchers (NON so-called ‘government’, in other words) have confirmed that the dust from 9/11 was radioactive. Demolition charges, thermite/thermite, etc. would NOT account for this anomaly. There ARE other possibilities, of course, such as scalar weapons and particle beams, but I haven’t done enough research on either to know their full capabilities.
Even given the 7 sub-levels, the debris left behind was FAR less than what should have been there.
Vaporized.
“…the fact of the buildings collapsing at free fall speed is proof that columns were being severed faster than debris falls”.
Severed, hell! Vaporized.
Thank you everyone. What this long list or arguments did was prove my point precisely. There’s an endless amount of obfuscations, lies, and distractions associated with “9-11 Truth”, but the one thing no one can dispute is that the presence of molten steel is proof that explosives were used, as stated in the article above.
If you prefer a more “common sense” argument, consider the difficulty involved in NOT using planes. You would have to set up this alleged hologram device, plant a dozen phoney witnesses, including the one I know personally, prearrange the whole affair with the news outlets, and then somehow blow holes in the sides of the buildings to make it appear as if planes hit them. Wouldn’t it be a hell of a lot easier to just send a plane through the side of the building?
And what of the mainstream media outlets reporting truth on the day of the event? Either they were in on it or they weren’t, and their reporting indicates that they had no idea this was an inside job until days later.
also, if holes were blown in the side of the buildings to make it appear as if a plane hit them, the explosives would have had to be on the inside, which would have blown debris outward. There’s been no evidence of that having happened, and if you remember the photo of the hole where the girl in white pants is waving from, you’ll see the beams bent inward, as if a plane had hit them.
I’m done.
We all know it wasn’t Osama Bin Laden sitting in his cave with a laptop directing the attack. We all know Darth Cheney directed the “Stand down” orders from the White House bunker. We all know Arabs with box cutters weren’t on video boarding the planes involved. We all know, just like the Sandy Hook farce the FBI now states was a drill and no one was killed, that the government lies with impunity. We all know who the guilty parties are. Case closed.
It’s my belief that the mother ship from planet ineptitude, cloaked itself into a news helicopter and shot a scaler beam while passing over the north tower antenna, melting all the structural steel. Drones were flown into the towers to give it the push that would cause the collapse. The nose that protrudes from the south tower is Mohammed atta suite case, we know this because his passport was found a few blocks away from Nacho Mamma’s Mexican Soul Food Restaurant.
Ladies and Gentlemen, all included, please allow me to commend you all in proving that NO one who questions the official story line is neither insane nor lacking deductive reasoning and incredible knowledge of any and all possibilities that could be the means to how this attack occurred. You have all exhibited the traits of what can be considered “conspiracy theorists”, anti-government” or even worse still, “patriot”.
Regardless, you are ALL collectively considered terrorists for doing so and
you clearly you must have the knowledge and wherewithal to how it may be remedied.
A job well done and may you be as successful in the remedy as you have been in the diagnosis!
Thank you for your voice of reason, Martist.
You’re very welcome, Inretrospect, and I appreciate your kind words. We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately! We need to hang together under any and all circumstances when there is seemingly one goal we all share.
Yes Martist, now all we need to do is find a way to cure this cancer from within.