\nVia TBP<\/span><\/p>\n
![\"Ex-CIA](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/911-no-planes-678x381.jpg.webp\" "\\"Ex-CIA")
<\/figure>\nEx-CIA and commercial jet pilot John Lear claims that the Twin Towers were not bought to the ground by planes crashing into them on 9\/11, and now detailed information has been posted online corroborating his account.<\/strong><\/p>\n In Lear\u2019s expert opinion the official claim that two planes crashed into the towers is actually \u201cphysically impossible.\u201d<\/p>\n The grandson of Learjet founder Bill Lear, John Lear is a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot who has flown over 100 different types of plane during 40 years of active flying. He holds more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certified pilot, and has flown secret CIA missions in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.<\/p>\n 9\/11 Plane Hoax<\/a>\u00a0explains the theories.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n THE EVIDENCE THAT NO REAL PLANES WERE USED ON 9\/11<\/b><\/p>\n We are supposed to believe that both planes were entirely inside the towers, with no pieces showing. A Boeing 767 is 156 feet wide and 159 feet long. The distance from: the outer perimeter of the North Tower at the alleged point of contact by AA Flight 11, to: the central 47 massive inner core beams that are cross-braced is 60 feet.\u00a0The distance from: the outer surface of the South Tower at the alleged point of contact by UA Flight 175, to: the core structure of that building was 37 feet. The differential in length in relation to the North Tower with respect to plane length and a building length that is measured in terms of the distance to the core structure is about 99 feet. The differential length for the South Tower is approximately 122 feet. A 767 is 159 feet long so most of the plane has got to be outside of the tower in both cases since there is simply no room for the entire length of the plane to crumple into. Why didn\u2019t we see 99 feet of AA Flight 11 sticking out of the North Tower or broken off, crumpled up, and\/or crumbling to the ground below? Why didn\u2019t we see 122 feet of UA Flight 175 sticking out of the South Tower or crumpled up, and\/or crumbling to the WTC plaza below?<\/p>\n There is no plane or plane wreckage at all to be seen in the hole of either tower in any video or photos.<\/p>\n [youtube https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=D55l4afJeMc?feature=oembed]<\/p>\n Of course, as per Lear\u2019s theory, there are no planes to be seen in the holes of either tower or on the street below because there were no real planes.<\/p>\n We would expect a sharp deceleration as the plane crumpled to fit into the 60 feet of space (North Tower, Flight 11) and 35 feet of space (South Tower, Flight 175) from the perimeter to the central steel core. Instead, in the videos, both planes enter the towers entirely at uniform motion.<\/p>\n A Boeing 767 is 156 feet wide. The width of the hole in the South Tower was 106 feet wide and the width of the hole in the North Tower was 125 feet wide. 50 feet of the Boeing 767 that allegedly struck the South Tower cannot fit into the size of the hole that is in the North Tower\u2026a hole that was supposedly created by a Boeing 767 with a wingspan of 156 feet. 31 feet of the Boeing 767 that is said to have hit the North Tower cannot fit into the size of the hole that is in the North Tower\u2026a hole that was supposedly created by a Boeing 767 with a wingspan of 156 feet. Some people may say that the wings of the Boeings merely folded back as the aluminum portion of the wings came in contact with the exterior steel columns. However we can see this is not what happens in the videos. Even so the aluminum wings would not neatly fold back they would be torn off.<\/p>\n Isaac Newton\u2019s Third Law of Motion: \u201cFor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction<\/em>.\u201d High school physics states that the force an airplane exerts on a building is the same as the force a building exerts on an airplane. Let\u2019s apply Newton\u2019s Third Law to Flight 175. In the 9\/11 story, Flight 175 strikes the South Tower at 450 m.p.h. Now imagine that the South Tower moved at 450 m.p.h. and struck a stationary Flight 175. We would not expect that Flight 175 would be undamaged. We would not expect that it would simply disappear into the South Tower. Any video that shows an aluminum airplane with a fibreglass nose cone gliding through a steel and concrete building violates Newton\u2019s Laws of Motion.<\/p>\n The above diagram shows that Flight 175 was intersecting with eight (8) floors that consisted of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external support columns at the other, where each floor was covered with 4-8\u201d of concrete, representing an acre of concrete apiece and posing enormous horizontal resistance to any airplane\u2019s penetration into the building.<\/p>\n In the impact videos, notably the Hezarkhani, Luc Courchesne, Spiegel TV and Evan Fairbanks videos we see what we are told is a plane cartoonishly pass through the steel face of the tower like a ghost. As the alleged plane makes contact with the tower there is no bending, buckling or breaking of the plane. No wings breaking or other parts of the plane breaking apart. This is impossible. It is cartoon physics. It melts into the side of the tower like a knife through butter. A passenger jet is a hollow aluminum and plastic tube which is highly vulnerable to impacts with flying birds. The \u201cplane\u201d we are told is Flight 175 is depicted as being simultaneously both half in the South Tower and still completely intact, a pair of buildings made with 200,000 tons of steel each. When the tip of the plane\u2019s fuselage hits the steel exterior of the South Tower the fuselage should be breaking up. That would cause the wings to break off.<\/p>\n From the holes left in both towers after \u201cimpact\u201d we are supposed to believe the wings sliced clean through the 14 inch steel beams but this is simply impossible. The fragile mostly hollow aluminum wings would not slice through all the 14 inch steel box columns of the WTC towers and leave a Wylie Coyote style hole. An airplane wing can be sliced in half by a wooden telephone pole:<\/p>\n [youtube https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=2zt1oTYhcgo?feature=oembed]<\/p>\n Aluminum plane wings will not cut through 14 inch steel regardless of speed and weight.<\/a>\u00a0Not only is it impossible for the wings to have cut through the steel columns but it is absolutely impossible for the fragile wing tips to have also cut through the steel columns.<\/p>\n The wings would break off immediately upon contact and the plane would explode. It would not enter the tower and then explode. The plane would simply be obliterated to pieces by the 14 inch steel box columns and the steel and concrete floor trusses before it got anywhere near the inside of the tower.<\/p>\n Newton\u2019s First Law of Motion: \u201cA body remains at rest or in motion with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.<\/em>\u201d The plane did not slow down as it made contact with the tower. How can the plane fly at the same speed through the steel\/concrete face of the tower as it did through the air? This is impossible. The \u201cplane\u201d also violates Newton\u2019s First Law.<\/p>\n THERE ARE NO VERIFIED AIRPLANE PARTS<\/b><\/p>\n Apart from one or two props placed there like a bit of tire and a bit of engine\u2026parts that didn\u2019t even match a Boeing 767 and like the laughable bit of engine on the Pentagon lawn there were no real plane parts or debris to be seen and no black boxes were ever found at ground zero. In reality, if a plane had hit the tower it would have crushed up like a car hitting a wall and its wings would have broken off and the majority of the plane would have fallen to the street below. The street below would have been littered with plane debris and the charred remains of the passengers yet it wasn\u2019t because there was no plane.<\/p>\n NO OFFICIAL CRASH REPORTS<\/b><\/p>\n FAA Regulation 121 requires a comprehensive investigation of all crashes of scheduled commercial flights yet there are no official crash reports on the 4 incidents because there were no planes.<\/p>\n \u201cTHE AIRCRAFT WOULD LITERALLY FALL OUT OF THE SKY\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n Experienced commercial and military pilots have stated that the speed and manoeuvres of the planes that hit the World Trade Center are impossible to have happened. They state they could not replicate the alleged flights themselves. Two experienced pilots using flight simulators on the morning of 9\/11 could not hit towers at 500 mph in six attempts. In reality a 767 fly can not fly that fast at sea level. Pilots For 9\/11 Truth state that the speed and sharp manoeuvres would have resulted in the plane breaking up from the stress on the aircraft frame due to the the speed and air pressure. It would be extremely difficult for the pilot to actually hit the tower even if the wings didn\u2019t break off due to the stress.<\/p>\n Capt. Russ Wittenberg is a former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Capt. Russ Wittenberg is a unique individual in that he had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft Flight 93 and Flight 175.<\/p>\n This is what he has to say:<\/p>\n Video interview 9\/11 Ripple Effect 8\/07:<\/p>\n \u201cI flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9\/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that\u2019s alleged to have hit the South Tower.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t believe it\u2019s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it\u2019s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding \u2014 pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G\u2019s.<\/p>\n And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn\u2019t do it and I\u2019m absolutely positive they couldn\u2019t do it.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 7\/17\/05:<\/p>\n \u201cThe government story they handed us about 9\/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.\u201d \u2026 Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have \u201cdescended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon\u2019s first floor wall without touching the lawn.\u201d\u2026<\/p>\n \u201cI flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9\/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that\u2019s alleged to have hit the South Tower.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t believe it\u2019s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it\u2019s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding \u2014 pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G\u2019s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn\u2019t do it and I\u2019m absolutely positive they couldn\u2019t do it.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFor a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible \u2013 there is not one chance in a thousand,\u201d said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727\u2019s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737\u2019s through 767\u2019s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.<\/p>\n \u201cThe airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall.<\/p>\n The airplane won\u2019t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. \u2026 To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous\u2026<\/p>\n It\u2019s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building.<\/p>\n There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. \u2026 The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cPLANES\u201d HAVE A CGI APPEARANCE<\/b><\/p>\n In all of the footage the alleged planes hitting the twin towers clearly do not look real. The planes have a computer generated appearance. In the different footage we see the planes changing shape and color, missing wings, are featureless and blurred. Pilot John Lear made the observation that the plane has no strobe lights. The plane also casts no shadow.<\/p>\n NO RECORD OF FLIGHTS TAKING OFF<\/b><\/p>\n According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9\/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9\/11 concerning the two flights.<\/p>\n Although flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9\/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9\/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS. The flight that was labelled flight 11 by air traffic control was 10 miles from Manhattan at 8:46am. If flights AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then there are only two planes, not four, to be accounted for. Investigators who have checked the tail numbers for the planes which departed as UA 93 and UA 175 on 9\/11 (namely N591UA and N612UA respectively) believe that these planes are still in service. If so, and if AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then the number of Boeing 757s and 767s destroyed on 9\/11 was not four, as the US government maintains, but rather zero.<\/p>\n Both UA 175, plane number N612UA and UA 93, plane number N591UA, were \u201cstill registered and valid more than 4 years after [their] alleged destruction.<\/p>\n Pilots For 9\/11 Truth, have confirmed that United 175 received a message at least twenty minutes after it allegedly crashed into the World Trade Center. This proves that the flight never smashed into the Center but instead flew for some time that day, a point advanced in the book \u2018Planes Without Passengers: The Faked Hijackings of 9\/11\u2019.<\/p>\n NO PLANES ANYWHERE<\/b><\/p>\n Most people in the 9\/11 Truth community accept that no planes were used at the Pentagon and Shanksville; the evidence shows no real planes were used for the towers either.<\/p>\n In conclusion we can be 100% certain the planes were not real. Apart from defying the laws of physics with impossible crash dynamics the planes do not even look real. The question is: are the planes digital composites (CGI) inserted into real video or is it a 3D projected image using advanced technology not known to the public? Richard D Hall\u2019s 3D radar data analysis has confirmed that the trajectory of the \u201cplanes\u201d in all the videos match up with the radar data. If video fakery was used i.e the planes were digital composites, the question can be asked why would they go to the trouble of making sure all the \u201cplane\u201d videos match up with the radar data but do such a poor job of rendering the planes which look like poor quality CGI, Why does the wing momentarily disappear in six different videos? This is a still from the Hezarkhani video showing a digital composite plane on the top and the original \u201cplane\u201d from the Hezarkhani video underneath: http:\/\/imageshack.com\/a\/img198\/7545\/n16q.jpg The digital composite plane looks more realistic. Here is a video showing how easy it is to create a digital composite plane and insert it into real video: https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=Rml2TL5N8ds Here is another example of a digital composite plane inserted into the Evan Fairbanks video: http:\/\/imageshack.com\/a\/img834\/7263\/qsm.gif Why would they create such poor quality CGI planes that look different in different videos? If the planes were a digital composite it should look the same in every video. Based on Richard D Hall\u2019s radar data analysis (http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=b5DgFcpsxes), the witness testimony and the fact the left wing disappears in 4 videos and the right wing in 2 videos the evidence points to the plane being a 3D projection. Richard D Hall believes there may have been a solid object, probably a small missile at the centre of the \u201cillusion\u201d, with an image of a Boeing 767 being projected around it.<\/p>\n ADVANCED HOLOGRAM TECHNOLOGY?<\/b><\/p>\n The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.\u201d<\/p>\n This technology was reported in the media before 9\/11 pertaining to military psychological operations (PSYOPS).<\/p>\n Washington Post<\/p>\n \u201cWhen Seeing and Hearing Isn\u2019t Believing\u201d<\/p>\n![\"John](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-21.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"Twin](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-22.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"9\/11](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-23.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"Twin](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-3.png.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"9\/11](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-24.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"9\/11](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-25.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"9\/11](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-26.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"9\/11](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-27.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"9\/11](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-28.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"WTC](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-29.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-30.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"9\/11](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-31.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"9\/11](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-32.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"9\/11](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-33.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"9\/11](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-34.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"9\/11](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-35.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n![\"9\/11](\"https:\/\/cdn.newspunch.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/image-36.jpeg.webp\")
<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.theburningplatform.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Threat468X60_DAD_2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n