collapse

Author Topic: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony  (Read 3582 times)

Offline Sinny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2447
  • Gold 305
  • Think In, Out and Around The Box.
Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« on: May 21, 2014, 08:15:14 AM »
This appeared on my facebook today - Re: John Lear.
Quote

A former CIA and civilian pilot has sworn an affidavit, stating that no planes flew into the Twin Towers as it would have been physically impossible.

 

John Lear, the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, has given his expert evidence that it would have been physically impossible for Boeing 767s, like Flights AA11 and UA175 to have hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, particularly when flown by inexperienced pilots:

 

‘No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors’, he stated in the affidavit.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

The affidavit, dated 28th January 2014 is part of a law suit being pursued by Morgan Reynolds in the United States District Court, Southern District, New York.

 

In March 2007, Reynolds, a former chief economist under the George W Bush administration filed a Request For Correction with the US National Institute of Science and Technology citing his belief that real commercial jets (Boeings) did not hit the WTC towers.

 

Although many, including the 9/11 Truth movement initially rejected the ‘no-planes’ theory as too outlandish, with proponents such as John Lear it is gathering traction.

Unlike any other form of statement, an affidavit becomes truth in law, if it is not rebutted.  It will now be up to critics of the theory to present their evidence and analysis to rebut the statement point by point.  If they do not – or cannot – then the US government will by ommisssion be allowing that the account given by the 9/11 Commission is wrong.

 

The 65 year old retired airline captain and former CIA pilot – who has over 19,000 hours of flight time -- also drew attention to the inexperience of the pilots who allegedly flew the planes:

 

‘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.

‘It 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.

Lear has, according to his sworn statement, flown over 100 different types of planes during his 40 years of flying and holds more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. He flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983 then spent 17 years working for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor.

He is a member of Pilotsfor911truth.org, which has consistently argued that it was impossible for jet airliners to have hit the Twin Towers in the way the 9/11 Commission has suggested. The Commission did not take evidence from pilots when it conducted its enquiry into the attacks from 2002 to 2004.
http://neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society"- JFK

Offline The Seeker

  • grouchy, old, but inquisitive...
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2927
  • Gold 405
  • The one-armed Bandit
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2014, 05:55:33 PM »
going to bump this to keep it on the board...


seeker
Look closely: See clearly: Think deeply; and Choose wisely...
Trolls are crunchy and good with ketchup...
Seekers Domain

deuem

  • Guest
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2014, 06:36:21 PM »
Quote
‘No Boeing 767 could attain a speed of 540 mph at 1000 feet above sea level ‘parasite drag doubles with velocity’ and ‘parasite power’ cubes with velocity.


I think we need to know what is the difference between these engines and fighter engines that can do this. Fighters can buzz the deck at over moc speeds. Do they have variable pitch fans or just better performance at low levels? And where did they get the 540mph from? If from video we can check that.[/quote]
« Last Edit: May 22, 2014, 10:01:45 AM by the seeker »

Offline Elvis Hendrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Gold 398
  • It is not the critic that counts.
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2014, 01:46:35 AM »
At low altitudes there is far more ambient pressure, therefore far more drag on a huge airliner. Pressure decreases by 1inch mercury per thousand feet. So at high altitudes its much easier for a huge fuselage to pass through the air. Think of the sky like a giant swimming pool, there is far more pressure at the bottom than on the top.
A fighter jet has far less mass and a greater power to weight ratio than an airliner.
therefore can operate at pretty much any altitude.
hope that makes sense.
"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."
B H.

Offline Elvis Hendrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Gold 398
  • It is not the critic that counts.
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2014, 05:50:56 AM »
Here is a quote from an aerospace engineer from pilots for 911truth..

QUOTE (Joseph Keith)

Well anyway, I also contacted friends of mine that were still working at Boeing and, because I know that those planes can't fly very fast at sea level. And if you count the frames that it takes in that video -- any of those videos, it is all the same -- it takes six or seven frames. If it takes seven frames to fly its own length which is 159 feet, that means the plane was averaging 465 miles per hour. If it took six frames, that meant the plane averaged 543 miles per hour. Well, according to the Boeing experts or Boeing uh the Boeing people themselves, the engineering department, the plane maxes out -- the specs on the plane -- the power plant will max out at 700 feet altitude at 330 miles per hour. In other words, it can't fly that fast. And, the plane will begin to shake itself apart at about 220 miles per hour at that altitude. So, if the plane were flying that fast at that altitude it would've shook itself apart before it hit the building. You see the engine with the cowlings around them are something like 12 feet in diameter on the 767 and they are built to fly at over 30,000 feet and when you're at 700 feet altitude the air is so thick that when the engine -- you max the rotation of the turbine -- the air, they can't suck the air in and those things start acting as a brake."

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8743&hl=
"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."
B H.

deuem

  • Guest
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2014, 07:18:43 PM »
Quote
If it takes seven frames to fly its own length which is 159 feet, that means the plane was averaging 465 miles per hour. If it took six frames, that meant the plane averaged 543 miles per hour.

My suggestion is to find this same type plane in the air on say take off and count the frames to see if they are right. Need standards to judge against. By the way, I am not doubting what they say, just saying some other video proof would help. On landing they go very slow so that would not count. Get some film at altitude similar to this event and see how the frames match. It has to be ground based video that is not also moving.
 
Second would be the testing of these engines. They must do some kind of full speed testing in a lab. Do they starve the test center of air when going at full throttle? Other wise it should shake, rattle and roll on the test bed also.
 
And even 2 frames of film would give the amount of movement in a 30th of a second. Just need a good measurement on the scaling. For every added frame the math average would be better or you could tell if it was speeding up or slowing down.

Offline ArMaP

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9941
  • Gold 751
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2014, 01:20:44 AM »
And even 2 frames of film would give the amount of movement in a 30th of a second. Just need a good measurement on the scaling.
And the frame rate of the original video. Using a video that was converted from 24 to 30 frames per second (for example) will give the wrong results.

Offline Elvis Hendrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Gold 398
  • It is not the critic that counts.
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2014, 01:39:14 AM »
This is interesting from MIT.

Eduardo Kausel
Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(Quote)

Using various publicly available video recordings as described in this article, I have
been able to obtain reasonably accurate estimates of the speed of flight of the planes that
collided onto the Twin Towers. A summary of the results is as follows.


Target Flight Aircraft Impact Time Velocity
                                                                        km/hr mph
North Tower AA-11 Boeing 767-200 8:46:20 AM   691 429
South Tower UA-175 Boeing 767-200 9:02:48 AM 810 503
Pentagon AA-77 Boeing 757-200 9:38 AM             555 345


The velocities listed in this table for the two WTC planes are in excellent agreement
with flight data based on radar provided by the NTSC1. The radar speeds are basically 10%
larger, a difference that could easily be explained by the higher altitude at which the aircraft
may have remained visible to radar and the probable speedup caused by the descent. Indeed,
during their final approach, the airplanes ¾whose transponders had been disabled¾ were
flying as low as some 300m (1000 ft) above the ground (i.e. the height of impact), an altitude
that is barely above the rooftops of the skyscrapers in lower Manhattan, so radar is likely to
have been blind to them. By contrast, the estimates given herein are based on the last mile of
flight prior to collision.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 01:43:37 AM by Elvis Hendrix »
"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."
B H.

Offline Elvis Hendrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Gold 398
  • It is not the critic that counts.
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2014, 01:54:41 AM »
The main point for me here is the question of is it even possible to manoeuvre the aircraft, when it is so far beyond its normal operating parameters ?

apparently a 767 has a VNE (velocity never exceed ) of 360 knots indicated air speed.
So it looks like the aircraft was at least 100 knots faster than that!

so you've got an aircraft WAY out of its envelope at sea level pressure being manoeuvred with deadly accuracy by a very unexperienced pilot.

it just dosent add up.
"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."
B H.

deuem

  • Guest
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2014, 04:12:21 AM »
Another thing I am not sure of but don't they take the throttles to full speed on take off and then back down once they cleared the runway? I know they are not going very fast yet but the engines don't tear themselves apart? So if they can stand full throttle at take off then why not for say the last minute of flight? Even if it was going to tear itself apart, they did not care! 
 
I would think that the normal pilot would never do this because they are responsible for the plane. But if you are going to fly it into a brick wall, Who cares if you bust it up! Like driving your car with no oil. Yea it will work but for how long? So even if you hit full throttle and the engines quit, you would have enough glide speed to get there. What's the glide ratio on those planes?
 
Elvis, The 767 VNE is for what altitude?  and what happens if you exceed it? Just thinking a hijacker would care less if he hurt the plane when in a minute he would drive it into a building. The sign on the road say 60 mph, easy to break that rule. My cars RPM gauge said 8,000 red line. I spun it up to over 10 many times. Under 8, no damage, just wear and tear. Over 8, I paid for it with new parts quickly. But Did I do it? Yes, all the time.
 
What I think I am saying is that the rules are set up to baby the plane and never get near the limits. Now how do they know those limits unless a test pilot ran the plane to the limits and over to failure. Even if the plane fly into failure mode, would they care? No!

Offline Elvis Hendrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1480
  • Gold 398
  • It is not the critic that counts.
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2014, 04:40:33 AM »
The VNE if I remember correctly is for 35 thousand feet, but its only for indicated airspeed, in reality at that altitude the aircrafts true airspeed would be faster than that, due to the pressure / density and temperature of the air.
maybe it is possible to do what the pilot did but it seems a long shot imho.
Im not an airline pilot so I don't know how those things behave when exceeding vne.
I just know when I was at vne in the helicopters it would start vibrating and I certainly wouldnt be pulling any hard turns incase the blades came off.
but helicopters and  airliners are very different animals.
"Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration – that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we're the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."
B H.

Offline The Seeker

  • grouchy, old, but inquisitive...
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2927
  • Gold 405
  • The one-armed Bandit
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2014, 05:56:17 AM »
Quote
You see the engine with the cowlings around them are something like 12 feet in diameter on the 767 and they are built to fly at over 30,000 feet and when you're at 700 feet altitude the air is so thick that when the engine -- you max the rotation of the turbine -- the air, they can't suck the air in and those things start acting as a brake."

Deuem, that statement above explains why they throttle back as soon as the go wheels up; the engines are more efficient in thick air at lower rpm...


seeker
Look closely: See clearly: Think deeply; and Choose wisely...
Trolls are crunchy and good with ketchup...
Seekers Domain

deuem

  • Guest
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2014, 07:45:28 AM »
1 knot = 1.15 mph
1 km/hr = 0.62 mph
360 knots = 414.28 mph

Target Flight Aircraft Impact Time Velocity
                                                                        km/hr mph
North Tower AA-11 Boeing 767-200 8:46:20 AM   691 429 = 372.79 knots
South Tower UA-175 Boeing 767-200 9:02:48 AM 810 503 = 437.09 knots
Pentagon AA-77 Boeing 757-200 9:38 AM             555 345 = 299.79 knots
 
From http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103

Performance
767-200 - Max cruising speed 914km/h (493kt), economical cruising speed 854km/h (461kt). Range of basic aircraft with JT9Ds 5855km (3160nm), medium range version with CF6s 7135km (3850nm). 767-200ER - Speeds same. Range with PW4056s 12,269km (6625nm), with CF6s 12,352km (6670nm).
 
 
Max speed 914 km/hr = 567 mph  = 492 knots
 
So the top speed of the plane is well within the remarks. Most everything I read is that if it did this at 1,000 feet it would start to tear itself apart. But again, Why would they care?
They had 99 virgins waiting for them in the after life. In some statements they said that the wings were already starting to buckle and shake before hitting.
 
What you would want to do with this plane and what you could do with it are two different things. Why would an un-experienced pilot know that putting the metal to the floor was a bad thing? He would just floor it a mile out and give it the biggest hit he could.
 
As far as throttling back Seeker. Unless they are over a city with sound regulations, I think they keep it floored until they hit the point of airport return. That is the point where if the engines gave out they could turn around and land at the airport by gliding home. They have a name for this point. I forgot it. Every plane is different. Anyways this is the point where you can relax in the flight. Not just take off but till you get to that height. Then relax. I would say if they throttled back right when the wheels left the ground they might stall and drop. It is the main reason they try and get a lot of altitude under them right at the start.
 
In every flight I have ever been on it seemed to me we did full throttle until we hit an altitude and then throttled back. Taking off uses the most fuel and they want to get into cruising flight mode asap. Otherwise they would just take off and rise at a few feet per minute till they go to 30,000 feet. IMO.
 
So for the moment I will pass on the pilots statement of the air being thick and braking the plane. Until we can get by the take off and prove what he said. It is not convincing yet. And what a good pilot would do and a crazy man would do is not the same.

Offline The Seeker

  • grouchy, old, but inquisitive...
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2927
  • Gold 405
  • The one-armed Bandit
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2014, 07:49:34 AM »
Deuem, you are right, the hijackers wouldn't care; all I know is what John Lear told me sitting in his den; that he couldn't fly a 767 through the streets of Manhattan and hit one of the towers; I respect his opinion on the matter. I will sit back and watch now...

carry on...


seeker
Look closely: See clearly: Think deeply; and Choose wisely...
Trolls are crunchy and good with ketchup...
Seekers Domain

Offline WarToad

  • The Roundtable
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
  • Gold 160
  • PRC Black Sheep
Re: Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2014, 08:37:41 AM »
Agree with you Deuem.  What an experience lucid pilot would do and what a terrorist nut-job hell-bent-on-destruction would do, are two very different things.  When you have embraced imminent death, it opens up a lot of possibilities someone who embraces life would never consider.
Time is the fire in which we burn.

 


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC
affiliate_link
Free Click Tracking
Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

* Recent Posts

Re: By the stars, John Lear makes a headline on Rense by Gigas
[Today at 11:05:28 PM]


Re: By the stars, John Lear makes a headline on Rense by The Seeker
[Today at 02:48:26 PM]


Re: By the stars, John Lear makes a headline on Rense by Gigas
[Today at 02:45:11 PM]


Re: By the stars, John Lear makes a headline on Rense by The Seeker
[Today at 11:26:22 AM]


Underwater Drones by spacemaverick
[Today at 10:22:14 AM]


Re: 411 by Irene
[Today at 09:27:25 AM]


By the stars, John Lear makes a headline on Rense by Gigas
[Today at 09:19:52 AM]


Re: More Jobs Down the Drain Sam's Club Closed 63 Stores today by petrus4
[January 21, 2018, 10:13:18 PM]


Re: 411 by Gigas
[January 21, 2018, 08:46:05 PM]


Re: Kavalan Whisky! by Irene
[January 21, 2018, 06:47:33 PM]


Re: 411 by Irene
[January 21, 2018, 06:29:38 PM]


Re: Alinsky's guide to control... by ArMaP
[January 21, 2018, 09:42:49 AM]


Re: Mars Structure Examined by Eighthman
[January 21, 2018, 08:23:27 AM]


Re: More Jobs Down the Drain Sam's Club Closed 63 Stores today by starwarp2000
[January 21, 2018, 07:48:10 AM]


Re: Mars Structure Examined by starwarp2000
[January 21, 2018, 07:34:16 AM]


Re: Alinsky's guide to control... by starwarp2000
[January 21, 2018, 07:26:35 AM]


Re: I think im he reason for the gov shutdown by robomont
[January 21, 2018, 02:59:07 AM]


Re: I think im he reason for the gov shutdown by petrus4
[January 21, 2018, 02:32:20 AM]


Re: Penney for your thoughts by petrus4
[January 21, 2018, 02:28:36 AM]


Re: Penney for your thoughts by hoss58
[January 21, 2018, 01:02:50 AM]