According to...

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 claimed 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.

(read more)

Views: 533

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

That's creative!

I never pay attention to "conspiracy theory" anything. So what exactly do they think happened? Any why is this being put forth NOW???? (before a presidential election) hmmmmmmm

I think they think that the videos depicting the crashes were special effects of some sort. I can't imagine what else. 

Agreed. What annoys me about the conspiracy theories is there's always some expert involved and I have to concede that they know more about the subject area than me yet something still is fishy. No conspiracy theory (JFK, Moon landings) ever seems to resolve as just being accepted as the truth. Conspiracy theorists would say that's the whole point - everyone's in on it - but I don't believe basic human nature would allow that many people to keep their traps shut.

They couldn't get a conspiracy theory off the ground without some "expert" to make it seem plausisble. They are seldom well-known scientists, engineers, or other specialists. They just have some credentials. I think they tend to be attention whores or people with a gripe against some part of the system.

So what was it I saw crash into the 2nd tower while I was watching it live on CNN that morning?

I wonder if the story is that what you saw was computer generated graphics. Then it will tie in to the timed explosions conspiracy.

U, tell us the debris on the ground, the clouds of dust in the streets after the buildings fell, and the people running to escape the dust were also CGG and we will know you are woo-ing us.

Don't ask me. I'm laughing at the idea.

Apparently 'they' managed to generate and stream the computer graphics live to the cameras operating on the top of the Empire State Building, which is how I watched it. Those clever, clever bastards... :/

Plus, all those cell phone videos.

And all the phone calls from passengers to loved ones? And where are all those passengers? A mass grave in Pennsylvania? Gitmo? Area 51?

It happened and it happened the way we saw it, and the many engineers and scientists who have explained the evidence (and lack of evidence) have explained it satisfactorily to all but those infected mentally with the conspiracy weakness.

As has been noted already, one of the biggest problems with conspiracy theories is the huge amount of resources needing to pull them off, meaning lots of people sworn to secrecy.

Well, when the fuck was the last time anything was kept secret by a large number of people? No deathbed confessions? By now, WikiLeaks should have told us about the conspiracy, I'd think.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service