Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers

reply to post by soulpowertothendegree


He's not the first pilot that said it would be impossible for inexperienced let alone veteran pilots to fly a commercial airplane into the two towers at that altitude. There were other veteran pilots that have stated it would also be impossible to crash a commercial airplane into the pentagon at the angle and decent that it crashed.

Pilots for 911 Truth

reply to post by soulpowertothendegree


CIA pilot and that was over twenty years ago...

I did not read all the comments since I was involved in an earlier discussion about this matter at another site. It's my understanding that Lear did NOT say no planes were involved, instead he said no 767's were involved--that it was impossible for that specific plane to do what was done that day. Many eyewitnesses that day also said the planes did not look like normal passenger planes...

reply to post by chrismarco


Was there a point to your post?
Do you have anything to add to the conversation that is taking place?
Care yo give us your personal opinion on what he said?
Or do you just use sweet one liner hit and runs?

reply to post by soulpowertothendegree


This is real old news! He stated this and was on Coast to Coast maybe 6mths after 911.

reply to post by soulpowertothendegree


It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that it would be impossible to fly a plane into the towers...that is about as stupid a claim as I have ever heard and I have heard some doozies.

Thats like saying someone couldn't drive their car into the side of a barn or run a bike into a car...

Anyone who has ANY experience flying will admit they could fly a plane, even a jumbo into a building the size of the towers.

Flying a plane is not "rocket science"... or brain surgery. Flying is just not that hard a thing to do. If you can drive a car, you can fly a plane. Taking off takes some knowledge and skill, landing a plane even more so, but just strictly flying is rather easy. Passenger plane pilots are professional and such are required to have more experience, training and skills for the obvious reasons, but just some fool flying a plane? Happens a lot every day.

There are over 200k private planes in the US...the number of people with pilot's licenses are (of course) even greater than that.

bbracken677
reply to post by soulpowertothendegree

 

It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that it would be impossible to fly a plane into the towers...that is about as stupid a claim as I have ever heard and I have heard some doozies.

Thats like saying someone couldn't drive their car into the side of a barn or run a bike into a car...

Anyone who has ANY experience flying will admit they could fly a plane, even a jumbo into a building the size of the towers.

Flying a plane is not "rocket science"... or brain surgery. Flying is just not that hard a thing to do. If you can drive a car, you can fly a plane. Taking off takes some knowledge and skill, landing a plane even more so, but just strictly flying is rather easy. Passenger plane pilots are professional and such are required to have more experience, training and skills for the obvious reasons, but just some fool flying a plane? Happens a lot every day.

There are over 200k private planes in the US...the number of people with pilot's licenses are (of course) even greater than that.

Are you thinking that john said it would be impossible to fly any jet into the building?

That isn't what the debate is about, he is either saying that no plane hit because the damage we see when the plane hits does not represent what should happen or that it was not a commercial boeing as they would not be able to reach the speed at the altitude the plane was at without causing damage to the plane mid flight.

Now also those towers are not that large when you are controlling something going 500 mph.
Do you have experience behind a plane? Or are you just assuming that if you can drive a car you can fly a plane...
I can drive just fine but I would not be comfortable behind the sticks of a plane.

You don't think that these hijackers did anything extraordinary with the planes and the maneuvers that are documented?

Lear is a crackpot and should be ashamed of himself.

Two major problems with the so-called No-Planes "Theory" (among many others):

1) The eyewitnesses. People all over New York reported seeing the planes. Consider the testimonies of first-responders alone. How do you dismiss all those firefighters and EMT's who where at the scene that day and witnessed the planes? Liars? Brainwashed?

2) There's no scientific support for Lear's claim that the video footage of the plane impacts exhibits "impossible physics". To the contrary, all the research that's been done by physicists/engineers (independently) and published in scientific journals, agrees that the planes would have easily penetrated the towers and that what's seen in the video footage is to be expected and violates no physical laws. Here are some examples of that research:

T. Wierzbicki, X. Teng, (2003). "How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center", International Journal of Impact Engineering, Volume 28, Issue 6, Pages 601-625, 10.1016/S0734-743X(02)00106-9:
"Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column."

Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., and Fukuda, R. (2005). ”Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks.” Journal of Structural Engineering., 131(1), pp.6–15, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:1(6):
"Based on the results of the analysis using a detailed finite element model, the damage situation of each structural component around impacted stories and the destroyed components were evaluated. As a result, the damage situation of the outer wall of WTC1 and WTC2 and the velocity reduction curve of the aircraft for WTC2 showed good agreement with the actual phenomena."

Karim, M. and Fatt, M. (2005). ”Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics., 131(10), pp.1066–1072, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:1(6):
"When the aircraft impacts the building at the top speed [1](240m/s) with a full fuel tank and the exterior columns have the original column thickness of 9.5mm., it is observed that all columns fail and the aircraft penetrates through the exterior wall. It was found that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage columns. The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130m/s. It was also found that a Boeing 767 traveling at top speed would not penetrate exterior columns of the WTC if the columns were thicker than 20mm."

Brachmann, Ingo. (2008) "On Efficient Modeling of High-velocity Fluid Solid Impact". Dissertation. Purdue University. ISBN 9781109390056:
"The modeling technique used in this study was tested using data from tests of solids impacted by fluid (Chapter 2) and a concrete mass impacted by an F4 aircraft (Chapters 3 and 4). The results of the tests were all positive and provided the confidence to proceed on to the modeling of the WTC-1 building and the Boeing 767 aircraft.
. . The cuts on the North facade of the WTC-1 seen in the photographs (Fig. 7.1 to 7.6) were similar to those determined by calculations for the two models of the impacting aircraft (Fig. 7.8)
. . . Calculations using the detailed model and the E-model provided satisfactory distributions of the damage observed on the damage to the north facade of WTC-1."

reply to post by Sremmos80

Are you thinking that john said it would be impossible to fly any jet into the building?

I am not thinking that, it is exactly what he said:

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.

Now also those towers are not that large when you are controlling something going 500 mph.
Do you have experience behind a plane? Or are you just assuming that if you can drive a car you can fly a plane...
I can drive just fine but I would not be comfortable behind the sticks of a plane.

I do have experience flying a plane. I could take you up, give you the controls and not feel uncomfortable about it at all. Of course, I would not let you take off or land without any experience, but just flying it, steering, changing altitudes no problem. One of the first things an instructor does, during the first orientation flight is just that. He will also direct you to put the plane in a stall to demonstrate that it is not a big deal unless you are landing or taking off and are at low altitude.

No doubt you would not feel comfy not having any experience. But that would quickly resolve itself once you actually put one through some simple maneuvers...I would be comfy flying a Boeing, but landing it would be another story altogether.

You don't think that these hijackers did anything extraordinary with the planes and the maneuvers that are documented?

There have been all kinds of comments regarding the maneuvers they performed and frankly, I don't see anything but their inexperience showing, or perhaps their lack of fear regarding dying.

If you are not familiar with what a plane is capable of, you are likely to make maneuvers in an overpowered state. Since you are not familiar, but are familiar (via ground school) with what can happen if you attempt maneuvers with insufficient power, I would expect a semi-knowledgable newbie to "put the peddle to the metal" so to speak when turning or climbing and perhaps even when descending. Also, being a newbie I am sure you (or anyone) would not be familiar with the planes limitations and as such may exceed the safety limitations when turning, climbing or descending. The stated limitations for aircraft are for "safe operating" and not absolute limits. Rather they are limits that, if exceeded, would result in stressing the plane in such a way that would require unscheduled maintenance....something you want to avoid when possible. Aircraft downtime is big bucks. Exceeding the safety limitations does not mean that wings will likely fall off immediately. What it means is that aircraft parts are stressed to a point that they will have to be replaced sooner than scheduled or...eventually failure will occur. Note the use of the term eventually.

Aircraft maintenance: Every part on an aircraft has a "life" of x number of hours and will be replaced at the scheduled time regardless of how well the part is operating. For instance: a generator my have a scheduled life of 10,000 hours of operation. This means that it will most often exceed that life, if given the chance. For safety concerns (you cannot just pull over to the side of the road if your generator quits, or aileron or hydraulic pump) parts, including wing components, are replaced when they hit their "scheduled" period. FAA rules.

reply to post by bbracken677

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.

You put the wrong part in bold so I helped you out with that one.
He is not saying it is impossible to fly any plane into the towers, he is saying it is not possible to fly a run of the mill boeing 767
at the level they did and they speeds they did.
Not that no plane would be able to hit the towers... that is crazy

I do have experience flying a plane. I could take you up, give you the controls and not feel uncomfortable about it at all. Of course, I would not let you take off or land without any experience, but just flying it, steering, changing altitudes no problem. One of the first things an instructor does, during the first orientation flight is just that. He will also direct you to put the plane in a stall to demonstrate that it is not a big deal unless you are landing or taking off and are at low altitude.

No doubt you would not feel comfy not having any experience. But that would quickly resolve itself once you actually put one through some simple maneuvers...I would be comfy flying a Boeing, but landing it would be another story altogether.

Would you let me do all of that while flying the plane at almost top speed?
Would you agree everything becomes exponentially harder when the plane is going top speed?
Would those direction changes and altitude changes be no problem then?
As I am sure you recall those planes made some last minute changes... The 2nd plane almost didn't even hit the tower... It had to make a last second correction, would a novice pilot be able to handle that?
You are also the first person with flight experience to say that jumping into a boeing would be no prob outside of landing it... Maybe that job isn't as hard as every one thinks...
I also see you didn't address how easy it would be to hit something when going almost top speed....

Now the pentagon was a different story, this guy had the target in sight, does a crazy 360 turn while desecending and then straightens out and accelerates all while getting as close to the ground as he can as is able to hit almost the GROUND floor of the building WITHOUT hitting the grass....
Tell me how that is just easy as pie and an inexperience pilot would have no problem with that...
Evidecne of the damage shows the plane was barley 10 feet off the ground... A boeing jet that is 10 feet of the ground going almost full speed??????? And we are told a pilot that could barley drive a single engine plane was able to do that? And your here telling me that that would really not be that hard?
This man just used boeing as dart and hit bullseye.... But I am sure that is really not that hard to do and I could jump behind the sticks of a plane and have no prob.... Sure

Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The Twin Towers

He's being absurd or the poor guy has lost his mind and actually believes it. (which would be sad for him) Glad to see this is in the LOL forum where it belongs.

reply to post by Sremmos80


First of all...how is it physically impossible for a boeing 767 to hit the towers?

Second, you ask if I would let you do those things...are you that obtuse? These guys were hell bent on suicide...I am not. I fail to see the significance of your question or point.

Third, You are saying that simply because they were going at high speeds that makes it harder to line up on a building? Really? At least, that seems to be what you are implying.

Put yourself in a car traveling at 200 mph...would it be harder to hit a pickup truck sitting still in a parking lot at such a speed? Oops...missed it! dang.

Regarding the Pentagon hit, I was not aware, having seen photos of the damage, that the plane somehow missed the ground? I think you are referring to pictures that were taken with a slightly raised hill between the picture taker and the damaged building where the "grassy knoll" obstructed part of the crash site creating the illusion that showed damage to the building and not the ground in front of the pentagon.

I can assure you that I could easily plow a plane into a building the size of the towers, even a 767. Much ado about nothing from people that have never had their hand on the stick, so to speak, or people with agendas. Just ask a pilot. Don't take my word for it... Find a pilot with no agenda and ask them for yourself.

reply to post by bbracken677


Seems to me the idea of the planes achieving the speeds they did at the altitude they were at is a hot button and one that some established pilots disagree with each other on.
Some say that a commercial boeing could not have reached that speed without losing structural integrity, fluttering is the term I hear a lot when this topic comes up

If they were just going crusing speed while they did it then it would be a different story, it is the fact they accelerated past any set limitations of the planes and then did the maneuvers they did

You say that flying is no big deal and that flying at high speeds is not much harder, so I asked if you would let me make those simple altitude changes and and steering be no big deal at 500+mph? Because they made some of those simple steering and altitude adjustment on the approach, but again that is no problem for an experienced pilot right?

Um yes I am definitely implying that traveling at 500 mph and trying to hit a target would be difficult... You would be naive to thing otherwise. I am sure you are very familiar with the fact that any movement at speed like that can drastically change your course and a false move can ruin your whole day


Yes traveling at 200 mph and having to hit a truck after having to go down hill and making turns while accelerating and not braking would be very difficult... Extremely difficult, are you a professional stunt driver as well? Shoot finding a car that can go 200 mph is going to be difficult.. Do I have to buy my own or are you going to supply this car?

It would be even more difficult for a 16 year old that just got his/her drivers licences and mom wont even let them take out the family van because she is scared it will get ruined

Grassy Knoll at the pentagon is a new one to me... First time anyone has told me that there was a hill of undisturbed grass blocking where the plane hit... Got a picture or a link that backs that?
I have seen plenty of pictures and discussed the site many times and that is honestly a first.
How high was the knoll? did the plane go above the knoll and then drop down to hit the bottom of the pentagon?
Why is this knoll not present anywhere else? Where is the knoll on the video we do have of the impact? How does a commercial become a small blur on a screen? Why did the pentagon confiscate every video around the pentagon? Why is there not damage where the engines would have hit?
Why does the FDR state no damage prior to the impact when it was hitting telephone poles? Would those not have caused significatn damage? I mean they plane was going over 400 mph..

reply to post by Sremmos80

You say that flying is no big deal and that flying at high speeds is not much harder, so I asked if you would let me make those simple altitude changes and and steering be no big deal at 500+mph? Because they made some of those simple steering and altitude adjustment on the approach, but again that is no problem for an experienced pilot right?

The assumption was, that I could take you up and let you fly my plane and you would realize it is not as complicated as people seem to think it was. You followed that up by asking if I would allow you to stunt pilot and my answer was no. Would you allow someone to drive your car down the interstate at 100 mph? You probably would not because a) it's your car b) it is a very doable yet dangerous thing to do and c) you would prefer to not risk your life. Same for me. I didn't say it wasn't dangerous, I said it could be done. Flying a plane along a course is no problem, quite easy in fact. Introduce exceeding the safety limitations of the plane is, of course, introducing risk and danger and not something the normal person would want to do....at least for no reason. Given that the suicide pilots were .. suicidal.. they were not too concerned with the safety limitations of the plane. Nor was there an instructor sitting next to them to prevent them from "flying crazy". Two very different scenarios.

If you and I made a suicide pact and decided that you would fly us into a building, my concern would be to make sure we got there in one piece lol but whatever we ran into, crashed into, our act of terrorism would be considered at least partially successful.

With regards to your remarks about speed and hitting a building, you are not flying a plane as you would a car through a winding course...you are not constantly turning the yoke as a child would on a circus ride. You have plenty of time, if your eye hand coordination is reasonable, to line up on the target and take it right on in. Just as you would a car aiming for another car for instance.

This is a pointless discussion. I am sure I could hit the building, but I am not going to test the theory and you, a non-pilot, are asserting that it is extremely difficult.

Regarding the "grassy knoll" ... it was just a slight rise in the lawn that someone took pictures behind using it to obstruct (I think intentionally) the complete view of the crash site. I will see if I can dig that pic up from somewhere. Been years since I saw it, back when I was reading a lot of the "false flag proof" most of which was proved false.

I will see if I can find a link and will report back.

BTW, do you believe a fully inexperienced person could be talked down, flying a jumbo to a safe landing?

reply to post by bbracken677


Would you let me do all of that while flying the plane at almost top speed?
Would you agree everything becomes exponentially harder when the plane is going top speed?
Would those direction changes and altitude changes be no problem then?
Was the original set of questions after you said you would have no problem giving me controls
I didn't ask you to allow me to stunt pilot. I simply added speed to the simple things you said I would have no problem achieving.
Are slight changes in altitude or turning really considered "stunting"?
It was you that said the speed would be no big deal, so would the speed change how simple flying is or not?
I believe it would change the difficultly greatly as does speed in driving a car

These men did not just line up the towers and go straight in... Far from it...
These planes had to make last minute changes to the flight path to hit the towers... That is the whole point is that they made those going at incredible speeds with no experience doing such
The second plane almost missed the tower... It had to make a radical change right before to correct it..
Pentagon did a descending corkscrew turn...AFTER he had already lined up the target..
Hey why didn't the FDR show that there was damage to the wings for the telephone poles??
Why did was there no marks where the engines hit?
You don't find it strange that all the engines were not found? I am sure you are aware what they are made out of and just how massive they really are
I think you are referring to the pictures taken by the guy on the road. Those are the only ones i can recall that there is a hill present.
Look for some more pictures, I can assure you there is no knoll that is blocking the view of the ground at the impact zone....

Oh and what does landing a plane have to do with anything? No plane on 911 made anything close to a landing so what does the ability of someone being able to be coached into a landing?
Are you saying the terrorist had some one coaching them in flight? If so by what means would that be possible and we have no record of?

reply to post by soulpowertothendegree

To assume a sworn affidavit MUST be true? Is FALSE. It also does not require any legal response or any response at all.

Especially when the signers reputation is suspect. Its just another piece of paper in a world FILLED with BILLIONS of affidavits. And not surprising...a good many of sworn statements on a lot of things and topics...are incorrect and opinionatedly one-sided.

His statement is just that: his opinionated statement.

And who says the US has to accept or rebut the statement? Where? When? In which court or trial are you speaking of? Who's responsible for the government to make it? When will this happen?

That infers its a known person or group. And to my knowledge....there isnt any one body of or single person in any official capacity to do that. Not now or later....the point of some sworn statement is moot.