PDA

View Full Version : John Lear on airplane wreckage



Jack White
09-23-2009, 02:37 AM
From John Lear on another forum:


Between the four airplanes which allegedly crashed on 911 there should be
approximately 9 million parts. 3 million parts each for the 767 and 1.5
million parts for the 757. In addition to the parts there should be 60 miles
of wiring for each 757 or 120 miles for both. There is 90 miles of wiring
on each 767 which makes 180 miles for both 767's. Wiring is stamped every 12
inches or so with data which includes where it is going, where it is coming
from and its maximum load capacity. The reason for this is that wiring is
braided into bundles of up to one hundred wires and when you are tracing
down a problem you have to know quickly which wire you are looking for and
identify it.

Every single part on a Transport Category airplane which means it is
certificated to the standards of CFR14 (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 25
of the U.S. Federal Air Regulations and to be certificated either it has to
be made by the factory (Boeing) itself or subcontracted to another parts
maker. If it is made by another parts maker that parts maker has to be
inspected by the FAA and given PMA Parts Manufacturer Authority.

Every single part on a U.S Transport must have a Parts Number stamped,
engraved, embossed or otherwise identified so that an FAA inspector can
pick up a part and immediately identify whether or not that parts meets
conformity. Every single rivet and screw and other type fastener has their
own code of identification for the type. Every single forging, must be
stamped just like ever other piece of the airplane must be clearly
identified with a parts number, either engraved, painted, stamped, etc. This
is so that an FAA inspector can immediately tell whether or not that part
meets conformity. This includes every single part of an engine, auxiliary
power unit, door, safety belt, wheel, hydraulic pump or whatever.

It is also because in the investigation of an accident each remaining part
is inspected for conformity.

Parts numbers must be stamped, engraved, painted in a manner that even if it
is mutilated that the part number is still visible. The alleged Boeing 767
fuselage section, allegedly having been thrown clear of the accident to the
top of building 5 will have part numbers somewhere on that piece. You will
notice that it is not burnt so identification should be easy.

Regarding the alleged engine on Murray street is extremely difficult to
understand how an engine that size could break in half behind the fan
section, considering the shaft is one piece. But whatever the case there
should be identification numbers on all of the remaining parts of the
engine. Each Boeing 767 engine weighs about 9000 pounds. The takeoff
internal temperature of the 767 engine is over 900 C so it is highly
unlikely that any of the alleged 3 remaining engine in the WTC were burned
to any extent. Forgings much larger than the Boeing 767 engine should have
been visible in the wreckage of the WTC buildings, particularly the wing
attachment to fuselage forging.

Based on the above it is impossible that any Boeing 767 crashed into either
the North Tower or the South Tower.

John Lear

David Guyatt
09-23-2009, 09:05 AM
Jack, is this the same John Lear who champions the existence of Alien UFO technology at Area 51?

Jack White
09-23-2009, 01:16 PM
Yes. What difference should that make?

He is a retired airline captain, with over 19,000 hours of flight-time, has flown in over 100 different types of planes in 60 different counties around the world.

He is the son of Lear Jet inventor, Bill Lear, and is the only pilot to hold every FAA airplane certificate, including airplane transport rating, flight instructor, ground instructor, flight navigator, engineer, aircraft dispatcher, airframe powerplant mechanic, parachute rigger, and tower operator.

He flew secret missions for the CIA in Central and Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1966 and 1983. He has flown as Captain and check pilot for more than 10 different airlines.

He held 17 world records including speed around the world in a Lear Jet Model 24, set in 1966. He was presented with the PATCO award for outstanding airmanship in 1968, and the Symons Wave memorial. He was the youngest American to climb the Matterhorn in Switzerland in 1959 and in the 1970's owned and skippered the Americas Cup boat, the Soliloquy, out of Marina Del Rey.

In 1968, John raced a Douglas B26 Invader in the unlimited class at the Reno air races.

He was a Senior Vice Commander of the China Post 1, the American Legion Post for Soldiers of Fortune. He is a 20 year member of the special operations Association.

He has seen many secret operations and bases first hand, including advanced weaponry and secret technology.

Jack

Jack White
09-24-2009, 02:24 AM
On the EF, Len Brasil disputes Lear's expertise
because he is not an aeronautical engineer
and has never piloted a 767.

Huh?

I am surprised he did not use the UFO or moon
colonies approach.

Jack

Carsten Wiethoff
09-24-2009, 05:40 AM
Hey, people, get back to your senses. All it is going to take is a little HUMINT.
Did this Len entity ever disclose his location, his telephone number or did he mention some travel he did or some hotel he stayed in?
Does anyone know his credit card numbers, bank accounts or other traceable info?
I bet not.
Guess why?

Carsten

Jack White
09-24-2009, 06:06 AM
Hey, people, get back to your senses. All it is going to take is a little HUMINT.
Did this Len entity ever disclose his location, his telephone number or did he mention some travel he did or some hotel he stayed in?
Does anyone know his credit card numbers, bank accounts or other traceable info?
I bet not.
Guess why?

Carsten

The Len entity lives in Brazil and works for a governmental agency.

Jack

Magda Hassan
09-24-2009, 06:07 AM
Carsten, Len is apparently in Brazil but was born in the US. His father Frank Colby was one of the chief scientists of Big Tobacco, a paid shill, and spent his life (well, his paid employment time at least) allegedly denying that there were any links or that smoking caused poor health in any way. We have some documents on line here if you want to see them search for 'tobacco' or 'Frank Colby'. We did our home work. So, his son seems to spend most of his life on forums and boards poo pooing the idea that there could possibly be any conspiracy and engaging unwitting people into pointless debates. Speaking of poo he was also apparently the manager or handler for this piece of shit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GG_Allin His friend. With friends like this.....

Carsten Wiethoff
09-24-2009, 06:18 AM
OK, I was not aware of that info since I never engaged Len Colby.
So now that everybody knows, what is the problem?
Is it similar to your problems with Gerald Posner?

I dont have problems with Posner. He is actually quite bright, sometimes. You just have to ignore him, when he is lying.

Carsten

Carsten Wiethoff
09-24-2009, 06:22 AM
Oh shit.

Aren't there any laws in the US worth mentioning? This stuff is sick and sickening, I will never look at it again. Something like child porn. Or snuff movies.

David Guyatt
09-24-2009, 06:45 AM
Yes. What difference should that make?



Jack, we will have to agree to disagree over Lear. I don't consider him credible.

Peter Lemkin
09-24-2009, 07:29 AM
On the EF, Len Brasil disputes Lear's expertise
because he is not an aeronautical engineer
and has never piloted a 767.

Huh?

I am surprised he did not use the UFO or moon
colonies approach.

Jack

Very interesting statement from an expert on aircraft....but as you note, I saw LB-Inc's comments - as predictable [and as commanded by his master's voice]. By the way, in Area 51 there were circular flying craft tested - not a subject for here. Lear has the knowledge needed about aircraft, in spades!!!!!!

Charles Drago
09-24-2009, 08:06 AM
Let's be careful not to become de facto surrogates for the clearly identified disinformation entities who are welcomed into the bosoms of other alleged "educational" forums.

If we must reference by name these agents provocateurs and/or their penetration targets, let us do so judiciously.

The co-founders of the DPF will not allow this forum to fall into the rhetorical traps being set for it.

We will not tacitly allow the enemy to foster the illusion of a level playing field for their lies and our truths by jousting with their surrogates.

If you truly wish to expose another forum for its ever-quickening descent into the enemy's camp, do so on its own pages.

In the meantime, the DPF will continue to welcome exposes of the enemy's strategies and tactics. But we'll accomplish this in ways that do not further their agendas.

Understood?

Jack White
09-24-2009, 12:59 PM
I know it is a distasteful subject, but the forum needs a DISINFORMATION
section for exposing people like Posner, Russo, Perry, Mack, Cronkite,
Brasil, Lamson, McAdams, Dankbaar, Files, Baker, Holt and certain unmentionable websites.

One must know who the enemy is before engagement is possible.

Before the curtain rises, a playbill is handy to know all the actors.

Jack

Charles Drago
09-24-2009, 01:26 PM
Speaking for myself:

Agreed, Jack.

But the issue is complex.

Charles Drago
09-26-2009, 03:05 PM
And thanks again to posters at the EF for linking to the Deep Politics Forum.

Please read our work in its entirety.

Honorable men and women are welcome to contribute to this site.

Agents provocateurs will be outed and banned.

Charles Drago

Peter Lemkin
09-26-2009, 05:59 PM
Speaking for myself:

Agreed, Jack.

But the issue is complex.

Ideal would be if someone would starts such a specialized site external to any forum, IMO...in case anyone wants to take up the challenge. It could be expanded to those past, present, and how to detect future ones. Just an idea.:s:

Jack White
09-27-2009, 01:08 AM
More from John Lear:

Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon for the simple reason that April Gallop was sitting at her
desk about 40 feet from the hole. She saw no airplane, missile or drone and smelled no jet fuel,
kerosene or any kind of gas. She reached beside her desk and grabbed her 6 month old son an climbed
out the alleged hole made by an alleged airplane. She has been harassed by Army Intelligence and recently
filed a suit against the U.S, Government.

In addition I am an expert in reading Flight digital Data Recorders and it is my opinion that Flight 77 was flown by
professionals and overflew the Pentagon by about 200 feet.

As to Shankvilles based on the debris there is no possibility that a large commercial airliner crashed into the alleged
mining pit. I am a certified Federal Mine Safety and Health Instructor and based on that and my aviation background
there is not possibility that an airplane crashed at that reclamation site.

As to Flight 93 getting shot down it would have been impossible to hide the wreckage of such a crash from the public
or the media because of the size of the debris field.

As to the WTC crashes it would be impossible for an airplane to hit the WTC and not have at least half of it fall back into the street.
At least the tail section should have broken off and fallen into the street. Remaining in the wreckage of the tower should have been at
least 3 P&W 4062 engines, weighing 4 tons each which simply could not have burned completely up. There were large forgings
including the wing fuselage forgings, wheel bogeys, struts and vertical horizontal tail assembly which simply could not have disappeared.

2 commercial airliners could not have totally disappeared inside the wreckage of both WTC towers.

The fact that there has not been one single piece of 4 airliners with over 9 million stamped, engraved or painted with serial and production
numbers along with 300 miles of wire is proof that no airplanes crashed anywhere on 911. In the history of flight there has never been
an airplane crash, the known site of which contained no parts of the airplanes. I have investigated 3 Learjet crashes as part of the NTSB team,
all three of which went straight in from altitude and there were plenty of parts left and in all three cases large parts of the tail remained. Both the
757 and the 767 are much larger and should have left much larger parts than the smaller Learjet.

John Lear

Carsten Wiethoff
09-27-2009, 02:51 AM
More from John Lear:



In addition I am an expert in reading Flight digital Data Recorders and it is my opinion that Flight 77 was flown by
professionals and overflew the Pentagon by about 200 feet.



John Lear

That exactly was my red pill moment. I reached the same conclusion independently of John Lear. I was not an expert in flight recorders, but I had studied flying a Boeing 737NG intensively for about 2 months in preperation for a flight simulator session I received as a birthday present.

So after reading around 1500 pages of original Boeing manuals and countless hours on Microsoft 2004 with addons, rehearsing all procedures and checklists as realistically as I could, I stumbled on the fact that the altimeter was reset on Flight 77 from normal atmosphere to QNH (I think it is called like that) on BOTH sides of the cockpit in a timeframe of a few seconds.

This can only mean two things:
1. The pilots (yes I said pilots) bothered to do this with the Pentagon clearly in sight and the firm resolve to crash into it.
2. I was seeing a white rabbit.

Carsten

Jack White
09-27-2009, 05:43 AM
Yes. What difference should that make?



Jack, we will have to agree to disagree over Lear. I don't consider him credible.

Yes we will. I consider Lear very credible on all 911 issues.

Jack

Which of these points do you disagree with and why?

........

Jerry V. Leaphart #jl4468
Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C.
8 West Street, Suite 203
Danbury, CT 06810
(203) 825-6265 – phone
(203) 825-6256 – fax
jsleaphart@cs.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS, on behalf of :
The United States of America :
:
Plaintiff, : ECF CASE
vs. :
: 07 CIV 4612 (GBD)
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS :
INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al :
: January 28, 2008
Defendants. :
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEVADA :
COUNTY OF CLARK :
JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I.
1. I am 65 years of age, a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot with over 19,000 hours of flight time, over 11,000 of which are in command of 3 or 4 engine jet transports, have flown over 100 different types
of aircraft in 60 different countries around the world. I retired in 2001 after 40 years of flying.
2. I am the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, and hold more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certificated airman. These include the Airline Transport Pilot certificate with 23 type ratings, Flight Instructor, Flight Engineer, Flight Navigator, Ground Instructor, Aircraft Dispatcher, Control Tower Operator and Parachute Rigger.
3. I flew secret missions for the CIA in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa between 1967 and 1983.
4. During the last 17 years of my career I worked for several passenger and cargo airlines as Captain, Check Airman and Instructor. I was certificated by the FAA as a North Atlantic (MNPS) Check Airman. I have extensive experience as command pilot and instructor in the Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and Lockheed L-1011.
5. I checked out as Captain on a Boeing 707 in 1973 and Captain on the Lockheed L-1011 in 1985.
6. I hold 17 world records including Speed Around the World in a Lear Jet Model 24 set in 1966 and was presented the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controller's Association) award for Outstanding Airmanship in 1968. I am a Senior Vice-Commander of the China Post 1, the American
2
Legions Post for “Soldiers of Fortune”, a 24 year member of the Special Operations Association and member of Pilotfor911truth.org.
7. I have 4 daughters, 3 grandchildren and live with my wife of 37 years, Las Vegas business woman Marilee Lear in Las Vegas, Nevada.
II.
8. 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/2003/03/27/world/main546355. shtml)
3
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
4
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.
5
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.
III.
9. My opinion, based on extensive flight experience both as captain and instructor in large 3 and 4 engine aircraft is that it would have been impossible for an alleged hijacker with little or no time in the Boeing 767 to have taken over, then flown a Boeing 767 at high speed, descending to below 1000 feet above mean sea level and flown a course to impact the twin towers at high speed for these reasons:
6
A. As soon as the alleged hijackers sat in the pilots seat of the Boeing 767 they would be looking at an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) display panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of 'hard' instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in the horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well.
Had they murdered the pilot with a box knife as alleged there would be blood all over the seat, the controls, the center pedestal, the instrument panel and floor of the cockpit. The hijacker would have had to remove the dead pilot from his seat which means he would have had electrically or manually place the seat in its rearmost position and then lifted the murdered pilot from his seat, further distributing blood, making the controls including the throttles wet, sticky and difficult to hold onto.
Even on a clear day a novice pilot would be wholly incapable of taking control and turning a Boeing 767 towards New York because of his total lack of experience and situational awareness under these conditions. The alleged hijackers were not 'instrument rated' and controlled high altitude flight requires experience in constantly referring to and cross-checking attitude, altitude and speed instruments. Using the distant horizon to fly 'visually' under controlled conditions is virtually impossible particularly at the cruising speed of the Boeing 767 of .80 Mach.
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.
Its 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. The Boeing 767 does not fly itself nor does it automatically correct any misuse of the controls. 7
B. As soon as the speed of the aircraft went above 360 knots (=414 mph) indicated airspeed a "clacker" would have sounded in the cockpit. The 'clacker' is a loud clacking sound, designed to be irritating, to instantly get the attention of the pilot that he is exceeding the FAA-authorized speed of the aircraft. The clacker had no circuit breaker on September 11, 2001 although it does now simply because one or more accidents were caused, in part, by the inability to silence the clacker which made decision, tempered with reasoning, impossible because of the noise and distraction.
C. Assuming, however, that the alleged hijacker was able to navigate into a position to approach the WTC tower at a speed of approximately 790 feet per second the alleged hijacker would have about 67 seconds to navigate the last 10 miles. During that 67 seconds the pilot would have to line up perfectly with a 208 ft. wide target (the tower) and stay lined up with the clacker clacking plus the tremendous air noise against the windshield and the bucking bronco-like airplane, exceeding the Boeing 767 maximum stability limits and encountering early morning turbulence caused by rising irregular currents of air.
He would also have to control his altitude with a high degree of
precision and at the alleged speeds would be extremely difficult.
In addition to this the control, although hydraulically boosted, would be very stiff. Just the slightest control movements would have sent the airplane up or down at thousands of feet a minute. To propose that an alleged hijacker with limited experience could get a Boeing 767 lined up with a 208 foot wide target and keep it lined up and hold his altitude at exactly 800 feet while being aurally bombarded with the clacker is beyond the realm of possibility. [NIST claims a descent from horizontal angle of 10.6 degrees for AA11 at impact and 6 degrees for UA175; see page 276 of 462 in NCSTAR 1-2].
That an alleged hijacker could overcome all of these difficulties and hit a 208 foot wide building dead center at the north tower and 23 feet east of dead center at the south tower is simply not possible. At the peak of my proficiency as a pilot I know that I could not have done it on the first pass. And for two alleged hijackers, with limited
8
experience to have hit the twin towers dead center on September 11, 2001 is total fiction. It could not happen.
IV.
10. No Boeing 767 airliner(s) exceeded 500 mph in level flight at approximately 1000 feet on 9/11 as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors because they are incapable of such speeds at low altitude.
11. One of the critical issues of the 'impossible' speeds of the aircraft hitting the World Trade Center Towers alleged by NIST as 443 mph (385 kts. M.6, American Airlines Flight 11) and 542 mph (470 kts. M.75, United Airlines 175) is that the VD or dive velocity of the Boeing 767 as certificated by the Federal Aviation under 14 CFR Part 25 Airworthiness Standards; Transport Category Transports of 420 kts CAS (Calibrated Air Speed) makes these speeds achievable. This is unlikely.
12. The 'Dive Velocity' VD is 420 knots CAS (calibrated airspeed)(483 mph). Some allege that this speed, 420 knots (483 mph) is near enough to the NIST alleged speeds that the NIST speeds 443 (385 kts.) mph and 542 mph (471 kts.), could have been flown by the alleged hijackers and are probably correct.
9
13. In fact VD of 420 knots (483 mph) is a speed that is a maximum for certification under 14 CFR Part 25.253 High Speed Characteristics and has not only not necessarily been achieved but is far above VFC (390 kts. 450 mph) which is the maximum speed at which stability characteristics must be demonstrated.(14 CFR 25.253 (b).
14. What this means is not only was VD not necessarily achieved but even if it was, it was achieved in a DIVE demonstrating controllability considerably above VFC which is the maximum speed under which stability characteristics must be demonstrated. Further, that as the alleged speed is considerably above VFC for which stability characteristics must be met, a hijacker who is not an experienced test pilot would have considerable difficulty in controlling the airplane, similar to flying a bucking bronco, much less hitting a 208 foot target dead center, at 800 feet altitude (above mean sea level) at the alleged speed.
15. Now to determine whether or not a Boeing 757 or Boeing 767 could even attain 540 miles per hour at 800 feet we have to first consider what the drag versus the power ratio is.
Drag is the effect of the air pushing against the frontal areas of the fuselage and wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers. Drag also includes the friction that is a result of the air flowing over these surfaces. If there was no drag you could go very fast. But we do have drag and there are 2 types: induced and parasite. Assume we are going
10
really fast as NIST and the defendants claim, then we don't have to consider induced drag because induced drag is caused by lift and varies inversely as the square of the airspeed. What this means is the faster you go the lower the induced drag.
What we do have to consider is parasite drag. Parasite drag is any drag produced that is not induced drag. Parasite drag is technically called 'form and friction' drag. It includes the air pushing against the entire airplane including the engines, as the engines try to push the entire airplane through the air.
16. We have two other things to consider: induced power and
parasite power.
Induced power varies inversely with velocity so we don't have to consider that because we are already going fast by assumption and it varies inversely.
Parasite power however varies as the cube of the velocity which
means to double the speed you have to cube or have three times the power.
17. So taking these four factors into consideration we are only concerned with two: parasite power and parasite drag, and if all other factors are constant, and you are level at 800 feet and making no turns, the parasite drag varies with the square of the velocity but parasite power varies as the cube of the velocity.
What this means is at double the speed, drag doubles and the power required to maintain such speed, triples.
The airspeed limitation for the Boeing 767 below approximately 23,000 feet is 360 kts [414 mph] or what they call VMO (velocity maximum operating).
11
That means that the maximum permissible speed of the Boeing 767 below 23,000 feet is 360 knots and it is safe to operate the airplane at that speed but not faster.
18. While the Boeing 767 can fly faster and has been flown faster during flight test it is only done so within carefully planned flight test programs. We can safely infer that most commercial 767 pilots have never exceeded 360 knots indicated air speed below 23,000 feet.
19. The alleged NIST speed of 443 mph (385 kts,) for American Airlines Flight 11 would be technically achievable. However the NIST speed of 542 mph (470 kts) for United Airlines Flight 175 which is 50 kts. above VD is not commensurate with and/or possible considering:
(1) the power available,* **
(2) parasite drag (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(3) parasite power (NAVAIR 00-80T-80 Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
(4) the controllability by a pilot with limited experience. 14 CFR Part 25.253 (a)(b)
* http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DCA01MA063&rpt=fa
** http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/Certification_Register/PDF-tcds/PW/PW4000_FAA.pdf
20. Therefore the speed of the aircraft, that hit the World Trade Center, as represented by NIST, particularly that of United Airlines Flight 175 is fraudulent and could not have occurred. 12
21. One more consideration is the impossibility of the PW4062 turbofan engines to operate in dense air at sea level altitude at high speed.
The Boeing 767 was designed to fly at high altitudes at a maximum Mach of .86 or 86/100ths the speed of sound. This maximum speed is called MMO, (Maximum Mach Operating). Its normal cruise speed, however, is Mach .80 (about 530 mph) or less, for better fuel economy. (The speed of sound at 35,000 feet is 663 mph so 530 mph is Mach .7998 see http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/sound.html.)
The fan tip diameter of the PW4062 which powered UAL 175 was 94 inches, over 7 feet in diameter making it, essentially a huge propeller.
This huge fan compresses enormous amount of air during takeoff to produce the thrust necessary to get the airplane off of the ground and into the air.
At high altitudes, in cruise, where the air is much thinner and where the engines are designed to fly at most of the time, the fan and turbine sections are designed to efficiently accept enormous amounts of this thin air and produce an enormous amount of thrust.
But at low altitudes, in much denser air, such as one thousand feet, where the air is over 3x as dense as at 35,000 feet, going much faster than Vmo or 360 knots, the air is going to start jamming up in the engine simply because a turbofan engine is not designed to take the enormous quantities of dense air at high speed, low altitude flight. Because of the much denser air the fan blades will be jammed with so much air they will start cavitating or choking causing the engines to start spitting air back out the front. The turbofan tip diameter is over 7 feet; it simply cannot accept that much dense air, at that rate, because they aren't designed to.
So achieving an airspeed much over its Vmo which is 360 knots isn't going to be possible coupled with the fact that because the parasite drag increases as the square of the speed and the power
13
required increases as the cube of the speed you are not going to be able to get the speed with the thrust (power) available.
It can be argued that modern aerodynamic principles hold that if an aircraft can fly at 35,000 ft altitude at 540 mph (~Mach 0.8), and for a given speed, both engine thrust and airframe drag vary approximately in proportion to air density (altitude), that the engine can produce enough thrust to fly 540 mph at 800 ft. altitude.
That argument fails because although the engine might be theoretically capable of producing that amount of thrust, the real question is can that amount of thrust be extracted from it at 540 mph at 800 ft.
22, To propose that a Boeing 767 airliner exceeded its designed limit speed of 360 knots by 127 mph to fly through the air at 540 mph is simply not possible. It is not possible because of the thrust required and it's not possible because of the engine fan design which precludes accepting the amount of dense air being forced into it.
23. I am informed that the lawsuit for which this affidavit is intended is in its preliminary, pre-discovery phase. I am further informed that actual eyewitness statements cast considerable doubt on the jetliner crash claims, irrespective of the media-driven impression that there were lots of witnesses. In fact, the witnesses tend, on balance, to confirm there were no jetliner crashes. I am also informed that information that will enable further refinement of the issues addressed in this affidavit will be forthcoming in discovery including, without limitation, the opportunity to
14
take depositions and to request relevant documentation (additional information). When that additional information is obtained, I will then be in a position to offer such other and further opinions as, upon analysis, that additional information will mandate.
24. At this stage, it cannot properly be assumed, much less asserted
as factual, that wide-body jetliners crashed into the then Twin Towers of the WTC. Any declaration that such events occurred must be deemed false and fraudulently asserted, video images notwithstanding.
Notes:
1. On any chart plotting velocity versus either drag or thrust required or power required the parasite value rises sharply after 300 kts,
2. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust or power required the curves rises sharply after 250 kts.
3. On any chart plotting velocity versus thrust required at sea level, the curve rises dramatically above 200 kts as does the curve for power required.
I swear the above statements to be true to the best of my knowledge.
_/s/ John Olsen Lear___________
John Olsen Lear
1414 N. Hollywood Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89110-2006
Subscribed and Sworn to before
me this 24 day of January 2008.
/s/ Connie Jones______________
Notary Public/Appt Exp. 11/22/09
Certificate #94-2650-1
15
This is the page for the Boeing 767-200 Type Data Certificate information from which was used in this affidavit:
<rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/15302e51a401f11a8625718b00658962/$FILE/A1NM.pdf >.
This is the page that shows how dive tests are conducted:
http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_25-335.html
This is the page for the type data certificate for the engines used on UAL175
http://www.content.airbusworld.com/SITES/Certification_Register/PDF-tcds/PW/PW4000_FAA.pdf
This is the page that shows the type of engine used on the MD-11 that crashed into the ocean. (photo attached)
http://www.bst.gc.ca/en/reports/air/1998/a98h0003/01report/01factual/rep1_06_01.asp
16

Peter Lemkin
09-27-2009, 07:01 AM
Jack, for what lawsuit was that deposition taken?

Peter Presland
09-27-2009, 09:45 AM
Thanks for posting the John Lear deposition Jack.

Before entering the parasitical world of 'financial services' I achieved Chartered status as a marine engineer, so I'm not a complete dummy when it comes to the physical laws of power, velocity, drag, momentum etc on which much of the deposition is argued. I also found his description of visibility and the problems associated with controlling the aircraft at the alleged height/speed combination similarly persuasive, even though my flying experience is limited to having obtained a private pilots licence on open cockpit Tiger Moths over 40 years ago and dabbling in the world of gliders about 15 years ago.

In summary I found the deposition VERY persuasive indeed and I would love to see a point by point rebuttal from someone similarly qualified.

All of which is not to say that there were no planes; just that I regard it as yet another wide open question (albeit a gigantic one) which, if it really is so ridiculous, ought to be easily refuted by similar recourse to the laws of physics. Also that all the things that would logically follow from such a circumstance warrant continued research.

Personally I find it reassuring that that is exactly what appears to be happening; although I do agree that to baldly assert that 'there were no planes' in any 'consensus trance' type gathering is likely to provoke either gales of laughter or the summoning of people in white coats to cart you away in a strait-jacket.

Jack White
09-27-2009, 02:19 PM
Jack, for what lawsuit was that deposition taken?

Guess you missed it in all the legalese:

Jerry V. Leaphart #jl4468
Jerry V. Leaphart & Assoc., P.C.
8 West Street, Suite 203
Danbury, CT 06810
(203) 825-6265 – phone
(203) 825-6256 – fax
jsleaphart@cs.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS, on behalf of :
The United States of America :
:
Plaintiff, : ECF CASE
vs. :
: 07 CIV 4612 (GBD)
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS :
INTERNATIONAL CORP., et al :
: January 28, 2008
Defendants. :
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEVADA :
COUNTY OF CLARK :
JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I.

Jack White
09-28-2009, 05:01 AM
John Lear and Morgan Reynolds filed the lawsuit
for the purpose of using the legal means of
DISCOVERY to learn about governmental suppression
of evidence. For instance they hope to be able to
force the release of airplane parts with records
tracing the airplanes to the hijacked airliners.
So far they have been stonewalled.

Jack

Peter Lemkin
09-28-2009, 05:04 AM
John Lear and Morgan Reynolds filed the lawsuit
for the purpose of using the legal means of
DISCOVERY to learn about governmental suppression
of evidence. For instance they hope to be able to
force the release of airplane parts with records
tracing the airplanes to the hijacked airliners.
So far they have been stonewalled.

Jack

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! :flute:

Peter Lemkin
09-28-2009, 05:07 AM
[QUOTE=Jack White;11638]John Lear and Morgan Reynolds filed the lawsuit
for the purpose of using the legal means of
DISCOVERY to learn about governmental suppression
of evidence. For instance they hope to be able to
force the release of airplane parts with records
tracing the airplanes to the hijacked airliners.
So far they have been stonewalled.

Jack

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! :flute: Why, one might ask, if the Govt. had nothing to hide in its 'official version', would it not jump at the opportunity to prove it to the ever growing more skeptical public. I see on some other Forums ONE PIECE has been claimed to have an ID number that matches ONE of the planes - without producing the parts number lists under oath. (i.e - if you doubt the official version, just 'buy' the proof offered by its supporter/protagonists.)

Peter Lemkin
09-28-2009, 09:42 AM
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13149

Jack White
09-28-2009, 09:36 PM
John Lear, in a recent posting, made a VERY interesting observation.
Since he has VAST EXPERIENCE as a passenger pilot, he wonders why
nobody has filed an FOIA request for what in the industry is called
THE ENVELOPE...on the four hijacked flights. The ENVELOPES were not
mentioned in any of the investigations.

THE ENVELOPE contains a document, signed by the AIRCRAFT CAPTAIN
on EVERY COMMERCIAL FLIGHT, which contains the final passenger manifest,
the destination, the amount of fuel on board, the names of the pilot and
flight attendants, etc., and the time the DOOR OF THE AIRCRAFT WAS CLOSED.

The chief pilot signs the document, puts into the ENVELOPE, seals it and
hands it to the CHIEF FLIGHT ATTENDANT, who hands it to a terminal
employee. The chief flight attendant then CLOSES THE DOOR. The ENVELOPE
remains ON THE GROUND in airline custody. It is required by the FAA, and
is what is opened in case of a crash. IT STAYS ON THE GROUND, THUS IS
NOT DESTROYED IN ANY CRASH. All four flights should have had
ENVELOPES available.

Jack

...I should have mentioned that the passenger mainfest (a printout of
preticketed passengers) may be augmented by the chief flight attendant
if passengers do not show up, or late arrivals are added. The manifest
in THE ENVELOPE would include the names of hijackers, if preticketed,
or their written in aliases if added at the last moment by hand. In any
event, every person on board would be accounted for.