Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit Towers

[nrmis]

[Wakeymedia]

This no planes nonsense is straight from the bowels of COINTELPRO and its ilk.

[insidejob]

Wakeymedia

Lear's argument need to be properly refuted. For instance, what happened to the engines of the planes that hit the towers? Your response is:

[TonyGosling]

[nrmis]

There were a few video's posted in the reply section which were interesting. As this is now in 'controversies' I'll post this one up...
[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUoqwUVOxHE&list=PLsCtrcMNlJqTLTD_kCHs kDo2J0XaoxEJM&index=3[/url]

[scienceplease 2]

Hi nrmis,

Outsider and myself (and other people) have discussed this at length on this thread.

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=18875

To summarize, the Ace Baker American PsyOp series is well produced, compelling and very watchable, promotes this viewpoint....
Unfortunately Ace Baker, himself, is not a compelling or particularly trustworthy person. I think the general consensus is that to disseminate 9/11 truth we should promote incontrovertible facts such as WTC7's freefall and other fact-based anomalies and then address the question: was there any planes there at all? Currently we are in MH370 territory: no physical evidence equals no real conclusion.

Similarly Lear also has some craziness associated with him from the UFO angle which rather destroys the value of his affidavit as far as public perception is concerned. It seems to be a psyop - a smear against the likes of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds and her affidavit which confirms the collusion of CIA with Usama Bin Laden before 9/11.

[nrmis]

I see. Thanks.

[scienceplease 2]

[nrmis]

[scienceplease 2]

[Cigarette_Smoking_Man]

I'd like to weigh in here on this one, as it is definitely a topic of choice for me, and something that I have researched and investigated very thoroughly over the years.

I firmly believe that no planes were involved on 9/11, at all. It's as simple as that. But, to put it more accurately, I can state with considered research that the video record of 9/11 is completely illegitimate; comprising of faked and doctored footage (both primary and secondary, i.e. "live" and amateur) and has NEVER been properly authenticated by ANY researcher (regardless of what side of the fence they sit on).

The fact is, at this point any 9/11 investigator who is not, at the very least, entertaining the idea of no planes and faked imagery is just not worth their salt as a researcher. Period. I know that may sound harsh, but it's absolutely the way it is. 9/11 investigators do not need to all completely agree with each other's conclusions (that's not what I'm saying, so don't get me wrong), but those researchers who ignore, ridicule, and don't even give these facts the time of day at all are way, way behind (and deliberately so in many cases). It is interesting that lots of 9/11 Truthers are completely fine with accepting the theory of no plane at the Pentagon, and are even now starting to wake up to the idea that there was probably no plane at Shanksville either. But, the WTC towers? "No way! Not on your nelly, Batman! They have to be real, don't they? I mean, hey, we all SAW the videos..."

But all that aside, let's get to the meat of this. The first thing we need to do is step back and examine this aspect purely in terms of Newtonian Physics and aeronautics. Forget the legitimacy of the images for a moment, step away from as many biases and preconceptions as possible, and just consider logically whether what we were shown and told as part of the 'storyline' of the day is actually scientifically possible in any way, shape or form.

So let's just pose some basic questions and see if we can answer them.

Can a Boeing Commercial Airliner travel at speeds of almost 600MPH at 700ft altitude? No. Commercial Airliners can reach a cruising speed of around 550MPH max, but that is at cruising altitude, which is 30,000ft in the air. The reason for this is that the air is much thinner at high altitude, whereas at 700ft, the air is much, much thicker; the engines simply wouldn't be able to cope or suck the air in fast enough. Ultimately, the plane would automatically slow itself due to the nature of how aeronautics works, and could NEVER reach that kind of speed. The official details about the plane speeds and approaches are simply laughable.

Could a Boeing Commercial Airliner completely penetrate a reinforced steel and concrete building like a hot knife through butter? No. These planes are constructed mostly from a lightweight aluminium, with the exception of the engines. As well as this, the nose of these planes is just a carbon composite! The idea that this hollow tube could have sliced cleanly through massive steel box columns and girders, and a strengthened mesh of reinforced concrete is ludicrous. Even if, for arguments sake, we suggest that the plane may have been able to do some damage and cause partial penetration, it would NEVER have disappeared all the way in. The simple fact here is that what we have been told AND what we have been shown are not in any way accurate representations of what a 'crash' or an 'impact' actually LOOKS like. The videos do not show a crashing plane, they show nothing that can be interpreted as PHYSICAL whatsoever. The only thing they show is an image merging entirely flawlessly and seamlessly into the side of the building. That single image breaks almost every physical law in the book! Where is the reaction from the plane?! We should see a massive amount of crushing and distortion of the plane upon initial impact, the nose should have splintered and flattened, the various parts of the plane, such as the wings and stabilisers should have sheared and broken, and essentially the entire plane should basically have been pulverised and we should be able to witness this pulverisation. When we watch those images though, we don't even see a single piece of the plane come off, not even the tail! There isn't even obvious deceleration occurring, which is very telling! Not to mention the absolute complete absence of wake vortexes. No wake vortex, no plane.

What happened to the Envelopes for the four 'supposed' flights, and why won't the FAA properly obey FOIA requests and release them? For anyone not aware, the Envelope is basically a series of documents that is created for every single commercial flight in the US. It contains all the official stamped and sealed data pertaining to each flight, such as, finalised passenger list, crew list, flight path, emergency deviations, amount of fuel, and wheels off and take off times. There are two copies, one of which goes with the pilot and the other is filed in FAA archives. There should be four separate envelopes for each of the 9/11 flights that would confirm many official details about the flights that have never been released, or are not based on accurate or factual sources. FOIA requests have been sent to the FAA requesting the release of the envelopes, and guess what? The FAA cannot and will not release them. In my considered opinion, the reason why is rather simple: these documents do not, and did not ever exist, as there were no flights. The only thing the FAA responded with to these requests was give out a passenger list, but it was nothing but a draft of the original Reuter's press release! Are we supposed to believe that the FAA does not have the original and official passenger information? What is going on here?

I'll wrap for now, but end on a final point, which is to say that I've always found that the 'no-planes theory' (though I don't usually like to call it that) provides a very logical answer to the question about why fighter jets were not scrambled to intercept the hijacked flights on 9/11. The simple answer being that there were no flights to intercept, and therefore no reason to launch jet responses. You can't intercept flights that didn't exist.

[scienceplease 2]

Hi CSM.

Don't you even think that not even one of the flights was real? For example, taking out people to Cleveland so that they could join the Witness Protection Program?

There is a lot to be said for fake planes:
- You can rehearse fake planes. They can be crashed into the buildings again and again, until you have the images just right.
- You can select exactly where the planes need to crash... like into particular parts of the WTC where explosives are rigged to simulate collapses "at the point of impact" or target the empty part of the pentagon (empty except for the Accounts department and Naval Air Command) or land in pre-existing holes.
- No problem with drones going astray and missing the target. A few feet one way or the other and the whole show could go wrong.
- No problem with pilots that can't fly
- No problem with interceptions either, as you say, you can't intercept a non-existing target. You still need to stop the fighters finding empty space where the radar blip says it should be...

All you have to do is ask the right cameramen to stand in the right position and for the media to interview the right people.

[outsider]

It appears a drone was destroyed over the Pentagon lawn, not at the official 'entry point', but to the left.
See 'Behind the Smoke Curtain: the 9/11 Pentagon Attack' by Barbara Honegger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRQ9r5Vc9-o
And it did not hit the Pentagon.

[Jake loves truth]

It's a bit much for us to contemplate the No Plane Theory. A refined title for no planers would be No Boeing Theory. What ever did or didn't hit the WTC buildings was NOT a Boeing as alleged by the US government and media. Telling people there insane for being a no planer is unproductive. The question I would ask is why we're the only people who witnessed a "plane" news personal. Why are there witness who are not news personal giving statements that there was no plane, only explosions. The entire 9/11 conspiracy movement has shifted away from the reality of that day. WTC 1,2 and 7 were looted and then destroyed. 9/11 was a bank robbery and a false
Flag.

[outsider]

[fish5133]

Watched footage that people were filming on their mobiles which had many independant eyewitness to the second plane --and most of them say it was not a commercial airliner but grey and possibly no windows or logos.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

Thanks for giving us a perfect example of how psychological warfare, paid for by the way, works. By taking one aspect of a terror attack, no planes at the Pentagon, and transfering it to another, the New York world trade centre.
The entire world, via an infiltrated media, is then supposed to be conned.
It's a cheap kids party, sleight of hand, distraction trick.