9/11: Seismic Proof + Video Fakery = Inside Job

[James H. Fetzer]

• All Blog Posts
  
• My Blog
  
• Edit Blog Posts
  
• Add
  
• Optionsâ–¼
  

John Lear's Affidavit in the Judy Wood lawsuit against NIST and its contractors

• Posted by James H. Fetzer on July 27, 2009 at 7:35pm
  
• View My Blog
  

This affidavit was the subect of "The Real Deal" interview with John Lear today:

John Lear swears and affirms as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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/...rld/main546355. shtml)
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>

For more, http://911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/john-lears-affidavit-in-the