4 Responses to Affidavit by John Lear

1. Obwon says:

   February 2, 2012 at 4:38 am

   …And this does not even take into account that the planes did not hit “squarely perpendicular” to the buildings surfaces. Meaning that the moment the nose of the craft meets resistance, the rest of the aircraft begins to rotate in the directions of the smaller angles.

   “Eyewitness” testimony must be balanced against eyewitness testimony to the contrary, then examined in light of the possible/impossible. We know that in the hours, weeks and months, even years after events, “eyewitnesses” will “remember” vividly, events they could not have witnessed. This is why such assertions must be weighed against what was possible or not.

   Captain Sculley’s aircraft, with both engines cut, glided to a Hudson river landing. It was heard by many people on Riverside drive, prompting a flood of 911 calls. While flight 11, supposedly screamed down the Hudson at 800 ft, with both engines thundering at full throttle, while the aircraft continuously broke the sound barrier presenting a sonic boom all the way down the west side, without causing a single 911 call about the racket. Unlike Air Force One, which overflew the harbor at subsonic speeds, very far from the southern most tip of Manhattan, and which did set off plenty of 911 calls.

   Then there’s the “Fireman’s video”, where the firemen, because of the supposed speed of the craft, could not have heard it until it had already passed overhead. By which time, the craft should very likely have been obscured by that telephone building, and about only a second or two from impact. Quite suspiciously, the firemen hear the plane, find time to turn to watch it, and still there are about 5 to 6 seconds to impact. Hardly a wonder then, why that video has undergone at least 30 cuts and splices and the frame rate and other data about it will not be released.
   It’s much more likely than not, that any forensic inspection of that film will prove it a fraud.

   Reply
   • Morgan Reynolds says:

     February 2, 2012 at 9:16 am

     Thanks. I’ll add two things: according to an account which I’m not going to search for now, the Naudet video of the hit at the North Tower first surfaced at 1am September 12 at the Spanish language network (why?), so there was sufficient time (15+ hours) to manipulate the video. Next, we have the “brothers” interview with Charlie Rose in which the alleged camera man, Jules Naudet, a self-proclaimed 1995 graduate of the NYU Film School, says he didn’t know how to operate the camera he used to film the reported gas leak! C’mon, what do they teach at film school? “It was practice…so that was my way of learning.” And Jules says he could see “very clearly…American Airlines” on this loud plane, going “extremely fast,” it’s “big,” between two buildings, super-human vision here. He did everything but claim it was a Boeing 767 with tail number N334AA.

     Reply
     • Obwon says:

       February 2, 2012 at 10:10 am

       First thanks for your well reasoned reply.
       Now let me say this; The thing I found most troubling about the Naudet “Firemans video” is the time lines in and around it. But I didn’t come to that realization until I’d read something a person with sound engineer training posted on Pilots For Truth.
       Essentially he pointed out that the sound from a jet at 800 ft. would reach the ground and be heard about a second after the jet had passed overhead. But, if the jet was traveling at supersonic speed, there’s a compression wave formed that is inaudible to the human ear that arrives first. The sound “wake” of the craft is also narrowed, because the craft is moving faster than sound. Thus the sound arrives, for the observer, even later, as much as two seconds later.

       Now if you look at the video, you see the fireman turning his head. Theoretically the Jet has passed over head at least two seconds ago! Yet the Fireman is looking directly perpendicular to where the craft could only have been two seconds ago. He then pretends to follow the craft until it disappears behind the telephone building about a second or so later. Which is why neither him nor Naudet should have been able to see any logo on the jet, by the time it came out from behind the building the angle would have been to sharp. But more importantly, it should have disappeared from view, almost simultaneously with them hearing it.

       All that remains to confirm this is to get a hold of the unedited copy of the video (fat chance eh?) and the frame rate etc.,

       Thanks for the note about him not knowing how to operate that camera. I didn’t know he’d said that. But he certainly seems to have done a good job of zooming an framing. I’ve heard many experienced people cite this as expert performance.

       Reply
2. joseph p bell says:

   February 1, 2012 at 9:14 pm

   a book called “102 Minutes :”,author ???? describes explicitely how the towers would never have gone down ,being hit by one jet liner . Dear Mr. Lear ; That picture by UN popular mechanics ,clearly show how fraudulent CHERTOFF and his relatives are . Thank you .

   Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.