Prepare tin foil hats - no planes hit the twin towers

[Atlas23]

http://neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers (a source worse than the DM?)

A former CIA and civilian pilot has sworn an affidavit, stating that no planes flew into the Twin Towers as it would have been physically impossible.

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.

‘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.

So obviously the planes that everyone saw fly into the buildings were actually holograms projected by the corrupt media helicopters.

 

[Fenris]

So obviously the planes that everyone saw fly into the buildings were actually holograms projected by the corrupt media helicopters.

I don't think he is saying NOTHING hit the towers, just that they were not pilot controlled 767's.

 

[Jono8]

lol. That is all

 

[the wopster]

Complete and utter ******** and an insult to those who died

 

[Outcast]

Wait..

So the video feeds (to the world) were actually CGI ?

I believe it was a black flag op but to say those planes didn't actually crash into them ?

star out your swear words...

 

[Nerusy]

I don't think he is saying NOTHING hit the towers, just that they were not pilot controlled 767's.

+1

OP, what you put in the title was not what he said.

Ah I see you got it from the title of the article, I absolutely hate article titles, they're always false and misleading.

 

[Fenris]

an insult to those who died

I don't see how it is an insult to those who died, if anything it is an honour that people care enough to continue investigating the matter regardless of how outlandish.

 

[Jokester]

Wacko!

Conspiracy theories only work if they have an element of believability to them. To claim they weren't hit by aircraft given all the thousands of witness testimonies, videos and of course the fact that 2 planes otherwise disappeared with all passengers onboard (some of whose remains were found at the scene by the way) is quite frankly an offence to those who died.

 

[Outcast]

Hmmmmm

 

[Tefal]

So someone with absolutely no engineering back ground specifying what happens to all kinds of materials in an incredibly complicated event.

well I'm convinced

 

[Energize]

I don't see how it is an insult to those who died, if anything it is an honour that people care enough to continue investigating the matter regardless of how outlandish.

They aren't investigating anything, they are using a tragedy to promote their own personal conspiracy agenda.

 

[bazzabear]

Conspiracy theorists, keeping us entertained with utter guff since JFK.

 

[GeezerButler]

The US Government didn't investigate it properly either and are using the tragedy to promote their own policy of aggression against 'failed states'

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Way to discredit yourself forever.

Well played, that man

 

[Xordium]

Conspiracy theorists, keeping us entertained with utter guff since JFK.

Yes, but it also means that now and then the governments can pull of some pretty shady stuff and we are all primed to dismiss it.

 

[PhysicsMan94]

Whilst this man is obviously talking nonsense (as do most conspiracy theorists), the report by NIST claiming to explain how WTC-7 (the one not hit by a plane) experienced rapid structural failure was inadequate at best. The reports explaining the collapse of the 2 towers hit by planes were perfectly sensible and acceptable, but the collapse of WTC-7 remains a mystery as far as proper science is concerned.

 

[Hyburnate]

Conspiracy theorists, keeping us entertained with utter guff since JFK.

Conspiracies have been going on before then but JFK was sort of accepted to have people conspire baring in mind that the original reports couldn't have happened IIRC (Weren't original reports that it happened on the Grassy Knoll and yet it was then proved impossible?)

 

[dowie]

I don't think he is saying NOTHING hit the towers, just that they were not pilot controlled 767's.

thanks for clearing that point up - his claims seem so much more reasonable now... oh wait....

 

[Tefal]

Whilst this man is obviously talking nonsense (as do most conspiracy theorists), the report by NIST claiming to explain how WTC-7 (the one not hit by a plane) experienced rapid structural failure was inadequate at best. The reports explaining the collapse of the 2 towers hit by planes were perfectly sensible and acceptable, but the collapse of WTC-7 remains a mystery as far as proper science is concerned.

one thing to ask about WTC7 is why would they bother?

seriously most people you ask only think that the twin towers fell, wtc7 seems a competently pointless target that could only serve to expose the conspiracy.

People get obsessed with technical details and often miss the motive or simply assume its because the government is of bond villeneque evilness

 

[Werewolf]

Whilst this man is obviously talking nonsense (as do most conspiracy theorists), the report by NIST claiming to explain how WTC-7 (the one not hit by a plane) experienced rapid structural failure was inadequate at best. The reports explaining the collapse of the 2 towers hit by planes were perfectly sensible and acceptable, but the collapse of WTC-7 remains a mystery as far as proper science is concerned.

WTC7 was from memory hit by a large chunk of debris (hundred ton+), which damaged it.
It was also from memory built around an existing structure (church or something?) so it was weaker when damaged in certain ways than other structures of a similar size would have been.
It also caught fire, and was basically left to burn because the fire service had lost so many people already they didn't want to/couldn't risk losing more for a low value building where people's lives were not in danger.

When you realise those three things it suddenly becomes a lot clearer.
In fact the last item alone would likely result in most buildings collapsing, as any uncontrolled/contested fire in a building can result in it collapsing (as can be seen in everything from house fires, to warehouse fires, to office buildings and shopping malls).

Steel framed buildings can collapse in very odd ways (they can twist for example) depending on what parts of the structure fail in what order even without external damage happening first.
When it's a building that was effectively designed around/above an older structure the stresses on the frame get complicated, especially when you then damage them in a way that wasn't expected (I doubt many buildings have been designed with the impact of tens/hundreds of tons of debris hitting them from above in mind).