An Interview with Pilot John Lear

John Lear

Reynolds: The first thing is the bio.  The one thing I was curious about the 17 world air records you held, are any of them still records?

Lear: I doubt it, maybe 4 or 5 are still good, not very many.  It’s been, what, almost 40 years?

Reynolds: OK, well, records are made to be broken.

Lear: I always say “held 17 world records, instead of hold.”  [laughter]

Reynolds: That answer is going to make print.  Now I heard you on another interview say that within 5 minutes of the event on the morning of 9/11 that it was a scam.  Now is that true?  Did you catch on that quickly?

Lear: I don’t remember saying that and that’s not true.  It took me maybe 3-4 years to ever become interested in the technicalities of it.  I was just trying to figure out how they got these pilots trained and I went on the Art Bell show a couple weeks later after it and I was explaining the process of teaching someone with no aeronautical experience at all, putting them in a simulator and teaching them how to hit a building 208 feet wide at maximum speed and that was my take and it then was only in 2006 I heard something that [Dick] Eastman said and I said, “Wait a minute, what?  No airplanes?  What’s this all about?”  And that’s when I really got interested and then I started hearing about your stuff and listening on your stuff and realizing, “That’s what makes sense.”

Reynolds: [laughter] OK, how about that!  It took a non-pilot to wake up the pilot about, “They didn’t use planes.”

Lear: No, it seems awfully stupid but I’ll tell you one thing, 99% of the pilots that I know still don’t believe it was no planes and I’ve got some fairly qualified guys who don’t even think about it, who never thought about it.

Reynolds: You know on the morning of 9/11 I didn’t …well, I was basically evacuating the building I was in two blocks from Capitol Hill but my question right away was, and I wasn’t overly influenced by the TV broadcasts because I didn’t see but maybe 5 minutes of the smoking tower, but my question internally was, could planes really do that, because my image was that a plane’s relatively fragile, it’s lightweight aluminum, and could it really put a big gash in a steel tower…

Lear: Sure, it was on TV [laughter].

Reynolds: [laughter] And you know, this is just a comment, I said, it’s kind of like looking around to your left, looking to your right, and saying, well, aren’t the experts, wouldn’t they speak up on this issue?  Don’t they have a question?  But then I let it go, really until the Iraq invasion which I knew was a trumped-up, false pretext invasion, that was a critical event for me because I said, if they’d lie about this, what else would they lie about.  Ooops…

So we both began to learn after 2003 about false-flag operations or the strategy of tension they call it in Europe, subsequently about how much rot there was at the top.

Lear: Yes.  I started to put it all together, and I don’t remember which year it was, but why did we pick on Afghanistan or why did we pick on the Arabs?  And of course you have to go back to 1960 and the Report from Iron Mountain that the government bought and paid for and I’m trying to remember which Institute did it but the question was, what would we be able to do to make the economy prosper infinitely?  Would it be medical research?  Medical science?  Would it be space research?  Would it be education?  What would support the economy the best?  And the summary of the Report from Iron Mountain was warfare, that’s the only thing that’s going to support the economy the best.

Reynolds: Yes, that’s outrageous and preposterous to an economist but it certainly can provide employment but destruction of people and property, which is the essence of warfare, of course it’s the continuation of politics by other means, but destruction is the source of prosperity?  It’s just an upside down idea.

Lear: So here we got down with Vietnam, then we had Panama, and then we had Grenada, and we started running out of little guys to fight, to pick a fight with.

Reynolds: The real disaster was the fall of the Soviet Union, you know, we had to create a new enemy, a best enemy.

Lear: We have to create a new enemy, who can we pick?  Well, what choice do we have?  We can’t pick on China.

Reynolds: And even China, we didn’t have a worthy adversary.  Not even a fake one, given our muscle-bound military.

Lear: To pick on Arab Muslims sounded pretty good because there’s two billion of them and we could keep that going forever because that would keep us involved in the Middle East.  We took over Iraq, you know, we’d have plenty of oil and we could siphon that off to Israel and the most important thing was Afghanistan and we needed to get in there first because we needed the Hindu Kush.  The reason we needed the Hindu Kush which occupies the northern provinces of Afghanistan, is it is the best in altitude and weather and rainfall during the year, even better than the golden triangle for producing the poppy.  In 2001 The New York Times said that the output of the poppy in Afghanistan was 5% of the world’s production.  And in 2007 they wrote an article and said it’s now 95%.  Well, it wasn’t the Taliban that did that, it wasn’t Al Qaeda that did that, it was us that did that.  We took over Afghanistan specifically to get into that poppy market because that’s where all our black funds come from.  The military was tired of going to Congress on bended knee begging for more money to make more super classified deals.  They need cash and they need a lot of it and the only way is to control the complete drug output, drug sales of the world, which they do.

Reynolds: And now they’ve got not only the huge increase in their off-budget, their clandestine drug incomes, but they’ve got on-budget doubling of their funding.  Let’s go back, that’s a topic, this overview, it’s really interesting to get your take, but let’s go down to the whole plane/no plane issue and begin by asking whether the official hijacking story could even be possible.  For example, I know that there was zero hijacking of a Boeing 757 or 767 since they were put in commercial service in the United States and there hadn’t been a hijacking for 10 years in the U.S. prior to 9/11 and the only hijacked 767 was that Ethiopian Airlines off Comoros, so is it even really plausible to have a hijacking of a Boeing 757/767 given the precautions or the barriers extant on 9/11?

Lear: No, and it boils down to this: you’re the hijacker and you’ve got two pilots up there.  How’re you going to kill ‘em?

Reynolds: Can you even gain access through the door?

Lear: Yes, the door is pretty…but suppose that you put a knife to a flight attendant’s throat and had her open the door.  OK, you get in the door and there are two pilots.  Now just tell me, say you’re a hijacker and you’re going to kill these guys because you want to fly the airplane.  How do you do it?

Reynolds: Well, first of all wouldn’t you threaten them with death and instruct them to leave the cockpit?

Lear: No, no pilot is going to go for that, none.  No pilot is going to let his airplane be taken over by somebody who says leave and get in the back and have a drink or so while we take this airplane somewhere.

Reynolds: OK.

Lear: They’re going to fight.

Reynolds: So you have to kill ‘em.

Lear: So you have to kill ‘em, so what I’m asking you is how do you kill ‘em?  The only way to kill ‘em is if you had a sharp knife is to slit their throats and get their carotid artery.  Now what will happen then is that you will have blood all over the cockpit.

Reynolds: There’s going to be a struggle as well.

Lear: Of course, the pilot is going to get up and he’s going to fight and there’s just going to be all kinds of things happening in the cockpit that one hijacker is not going to…it’s impossible.  It cannot happen, one hijacker going in the cockpit, killing both pilots, sitting in the seat and then flying.  First of all, he kills these two pilots and gets both of their carotid arteries, blood all over the place, blood all over the controls, everything sticky…

Reynolds: Is the plane going to be upset, disturbed flight?

Lear: No, it’ll be on autopilot.

Reynolds: OK.

Lear: It’ll be on autopilot going out.  So starting with that…

Reynolds: Here again we’re pretending that the official story has any content, supposedly the hijack alert code, which is what, 7500, that wasn’t even punched in, even though the pilots, according to the official story, the pilots would be aware that there were problems back in the cabin.

Lear: Yes, 7700.

Reynolds: It would be sent quickly, I mean it would take two seconds at most.

Lear: Yes, but you’ve got to figure out that the last thing in their minds is there’s going to be a hijack and that they’re not going think of putting out 77 until things look really, really out of control.

Reynolds: OK, so you’re saying that that part of their story is plausible?

Lear: Yes.

Reynolds: OK.  There are so many internal problems with the official story, for example, what’s with the alleged commuter flight from Portland, Maine?  [laughter]  To get to flight 11, which supposedly hit the North Tower, the first hit of the day.  What do you think they’re telling us there?  That these hijackers and this long planned operation took a chance on just making, boarding the flight 11 plane?  Why are they telling us this stuff that is so hard to believe?

Lear: I don’t know.

Reynolds: OK, I don’t know either.

Lear: Flight 11, there is no record of it ever taking off, right?

Reynolds: Right.  Both American flights, there is no official automatic data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the ACARS system.

Lear: I just can’t understand why the supervisor went in after all the controllers got together that afternoon and recounted exactly what their memories were from the morning that that happened until it was all over and then you remember that they did that with a tape recorder and their supervisor and took that tape and cut it into a billion pieces so that it could never be heard again.  I’d sure like to hear that tape.

Reynolds: Yes.  I would too, assuming that that story is true.  It’s probably true.  It seems plausible.  Of course they can insert these plane images on the controller radar and there were 4-6 military exercises underway that day, which is why one of the controllers asks, “Is this an exercise?”

Lear: Yes.  Is this an exercise or is this for real?  They have ways with the (Boeing) E-4B, I saw that on TV, incidentally it was interesting they said there were four of them, I didn’t know there were that many and of course there could be an extra one.  They always leave an extra one when they make those great big airplanes.

Reynolds: Is this an aircraft you’re talking about, the AWACs type?

Lear: The President One.  There are four of them.  I thought there was only two.  I’d like to get another view of the one that flew over the White House that the guy got the two or three second shot of, remember that?

Reynolds: Yes, I remember that.

Lear: There is a huge hole, an opening at the top of the E-4B and I don’t know what that is, whether that’s for a laser or projecting an image or what it is but it’s on all of ‘em.

Reynolds: This is the Air Force One?

Lear: Air Force One, it’s called an E-4B, it’s a Boeing 747 highly, highly modified for the President.

Reynolds: OK.

Lear: So what I’m going to tell you is that those things have all kinds of communications, they have ways of putting radar signals on radar which aren’t there, airplanes taking off and flying and answering back, that kind of stuff.

Reynolds: Another question I have is about the air traffic control procedures because this went on for nearly two hours, nearly two hours, from a little after 8 in the morning until after 10 in the morning.  Wouldn’t they have, when they have one aircraft confirmed hijacked, alerted…they seemed very slow on the FAA getting other aircraft alerted.

Lear: They only had one number to call, NORAD, and that number was busy and was busy throughout that whole time.  They couldn’t get through.

Reynolds: Oh, to scramble interceptors?

Lear: Yes.

Reynolds: Oh yes, I’m talking about alerting other airline captains on all the commercial aircraft in the air at the time which might be a couple thousand, right?  There’s what, 14,000, 16,000 commercial flights daily?

Lear: There wouldn’t be that many in the morning and if it was not close to another airplane if it was not close to another airplane or within 5 or 6 miles or whatever their safety distances they probably wouldn’t bother saying, there is an airplane we have no control with, turn left 10 degrees to avoid it.  I never heard anything like that.

Reynolds: Let’s go back to the overall strategy of hijackers.  Why wouldn’t they fly a bigger plane, let’s say a 747, although a 767 is pretty large wide body, take off from one of the three airports serving greater New York City and minimize their exposure to intercept.  In other words, do a ten-minute turnaround flight and crash it into the World Trade Center because you’d presumably do more damage and you’d minimize your intercept exposure.

Lear: Hmmmm.  That’s an interesting question.

Reynolds: In other words, even the official story isn’t designed to persuade very well, although it’s such a complex operation they’re bound to have a lot of gaps and inconsistencies, things that they would have to tidy up later or just bull rush the thing with the corporate media.  So many things don’t make sense even on the government’s own terms.

Lear: Well, how many 747s take off for LA or wherever from Boston, New York and Dulles in the morning?

Reynolds: Yes, we’d have to look at that but there would have to be some.  OK, but they don’t even need a real take off as we know.  The BTS data expose the lie on two of the four flights right away.

Lear: Yes, they just put those on the radar with the E-4B and just put it there on the tape so it would look like there was an airplane.

Reynolds: Let’s put aside the fact that corporate media confirmed 10 of the accused hijackers alive, it was a case of stolen identity in other words, let’s suppose you had a general aviation certificate, you had some training in puddle jumpers, what does it really take in terms of experience and training to fly a 767 as well as a John Lear or similar, 707, DC-8 or L-1011?  Any of these large jetliners?  What does it really take?  I mean it’s just so incredible to believe that some of these misfits, patsies, it’s just not plausible that they could fly these planes, is it?

Lear: It’s absolutely and totally impossible.  I’ve heard some commenters say, oh yeah, I got in a 747 and I had no trouble flying it around.  I don’t believe that.  I believe that if he got in a 747 and put him at 8,000 feet over Boston and said, OK, turn around and hit the World Trade Center.  It’s ridiculous.  There’s too much going on that you have to do, you know, controlling air speed, finding out where you are.  Here’s some guys who can’t even fly a Cessna and they’re suppose to navigate to New York.  How are they going to navigate?  They probably can’t even read a compass.  If you went generally south you’d probably find it but you’re sure not going to see it from 90 miles away.

Reynolds: [laughter]  On the website, and I don’t think this article is up there any more, by Nila Sagadevan, who I’ve met by the way and he lives in southern California, he had a pretty good article about how impossible it would be to take over and he starts with a photo of a cockpit of a 767 and you see how many controls and instruments there are, it’s just bewildering.  It’s not like a little stick and a throttle.  It’s just ridiculous that anybody could believe a story like what the government puts out.

Lear: Yes it is.  It’s just totally ridiculous.  It cannot be done.

Reynolds: This is before we even get to the science so to speak, I mean this is just from a human point of view, given the technical skill that is required to fly one of these large jetliners.  Just impossible.  What’s going on where they’re selling this stuff?  It’s almost like a suicidal story in that it can’t be expected to endure and it’s almost like, and this is exaggerated but it’s almost like a death wish for the corporate media whose credibility has sunk quite low already.

Lear: Yes.

Reynolds: And of course they’re married to this.  They’re going to go over the cliff ultimately.  I’m almost optimistic based on this argument that we can win.

Lear: I sure hope so.

Reynolds: That leaves some of these other issues almost secondary but I want to ask them nonetheless and that is, could a John Lear on his first attempt or a younger John Lear hit a tower which is 208 feet wide at some incredible speed?

Lear: I’ve already said I couldn’t and pilots far more qualified than I have tried it and can’t do it.  208 feet at allegedly 500 mph?  It’s just impossible.

Reynolds: I don’t think people appreciate how fast you’re going.

Lear: It’s too hard to line that thing up from such a distance at such a speed.

Reynolds: Right.  And you in an earlier interview remarked about maybe you could after a number of passes, have some landmarks, because you just can’t correct at the alleged speed we’re talking about.

Lear: If you had time to do this six or seven times and know that you’ve got to cross this building first and then this building second and then this building third and you’ve got to be in a turn and then pass directly over this building.  But there are just so many stories in the aviation community, I always get these stories of people who have tried it thousands of times now, tried to hit the World Trade Center and very few, very few have been able to hit it, especially with a large airplane, it’s too much mass to line up and at the last second and make the turns that would be required to get you on course, number one to hit it dead center and number two to hit it 34 feet right of dead center.

Reynolds: These airplanes like flying buses, right?  They’re not meant to be highly maneuverable and what you might be able to do with a fighter-interceptor or even a missile is different, right?  A missile you might be able to have that thing programmed to hit a tower?

Lear: Yes, you could because you have a different control system depending on how it’s guided and you might be able to do that at 500 mph.

Reynolds: OK, let me get you on record on the speed issue, I think has been satisfactorily resolved.  The official government story is that an airliner going 442 mph hit the North Tower at about 1,000 feet altitude and a plane allegedly going 542 mph hit the South Tower.  That is NIST and it’s kind of an average of some other calculations.  Some people believe it was even higher.  So the question is, could one of these 757s or 767s get anywhere near that speed at such low altitude?

Lear: No.  Flat ass no because VMO Velocity Max Operating is 360 knots (a knot equals 1.15 miles) and that’s what they are certified to do and in order to fly at 360 knots they have to do a number of tests that will take them up to 400 knots, dive tests, actually they go 360 knots and they have to put it into a 10 degree dive for 30 seconds and be able to recover and not exceed 420 knots.  And what that is proving is that if for some reason that happened, that the inherent drag of the airplane will slow it down without the pilot doing anything himself.  What they want to do is…

Reynolds: It’s like self-correction, stability, self-correcting stability of the plane.

Lear: Right.  The faster you go, the more it wants to climb and so the faster you go, the more down trim you need and pretty soon you run out of down trim and there’s no way to keep it from climbing except brute force and I’m just saying that a very novice pilot pushing forward at whatever speed he ended up at, 410, 420 knots pushing forward and then trying to keep on course to hit a 208’ wide building dead center, it’s impossible.  It cannot happen.

Reynolds: [laughter] OK.  I’ve seen a YouTube video about the wingtip vortex that, I’ll call it really a vortex in general, any aircraft, you can show that if they drop a bomb or napalm and you can see that that disturbed wind creates a vortex effect.  Have you devoted any thought to that, that there is no evidence of a plane having gone into a tower in terms of the impact on the explosion appearance.

Lear: You mean leaving a vortex trail?

Reynolds: Right.

Lear: Yes, it was…(garbled) temperature and dew point that morning.  No, I don’t think that would have happened.  I don’t think at any speed, well, it could have.  It could have.

Reynolds: In other words, you’re dubious about whether there would necessarily be evidence of a vortex in the explosion if there were such airliner crashes.

Lear: Oh, I see what you mean.  We’re talking at cross purposes here.  You’re thinking through the smoke?

Reynolds: Yes, yes.  In other words, the explosion itself would be disturbed and show evidence of the vortex.

Lear: Absolutely.  You bet it would be.  Absolutely.

Reynolds: But there is no evidence of that in the explosions that they set off.

Lear: No.  Like there is no evidence of strobe lights.  They say…(garbled), maybe they’re too dim.  Those things are pretty bright and they’re put on there for a reason so that they’ll alert other airplanes that you’re coming there and there’s three of them on the 767, one on the tail and one on each wing and out of the 41 videos that I’ve seen, I’ve never seen a strobe light.

Reynolds: Very good.  That’s something I’ve forgotten about.  That’s a powerful argument, an indictment of the videos.

Lear: Yes.  Just go out to the airport and look at the strobe lights on a day, on a morning like that, and just see what you think yourself, whether you would be able to see the strobe lights.

Reynolds: Absolutely you can see them.  They are very brilliant.

Lear: In 41 videos and I’ve seen all of them, I haven’t seen any indication of them and I’ve looked very carefully.

Reynolds: Powerful point.  Let’s go to the flight data recorder, the FDR, which you analyzed, the Pentagon data NTSB allegedly turned over to

Lear: Right, the recorder that the NTSB allegedly turned over to pilotsfor911truth and I got a copy of it and went from take off to where they overflew the Pentagon and there are a number of things they found out.  The most important thing is I found nowhere where there would have been a struggle.  Now there are 156 channels on the flight recorder and it records everything that goes on in the cockpit.  It records the throttle movement and of course the yoke movement, what we call the stick, it records everything, and so the whole time, the whole flight, there is no movement that would indicate that that airplane was hijacked or that a pilot got out of his seat because getting out of the seat, you know, it’s cramped quarters, you’ve got an electrical button or a manual button and you push it back, then you undo your seat belt and then you’ve got to push the armrest up, and then you’ve got to climb back there, at some point you’re going to bump something.  And of course you’re on autopilot so it’ll bring it right back but that’s going to be recorded on the flight recorder.

Reynolds: These data confirm that it was a flight from Dulles toward the west in some particular way, and you’ve got all the GPS coordinates so you know where the plane was at each moment in time and then it did a U-turn and came back over the Pentagon but not only is there no evidence of a disturbance, of a hijacking, but it was an overflight in that they don’t have the altitude right for a crash.

Lear: Right, and that’s because the flight data recorder records three altimeters: the pilot’s altimeter, the co-pilot’s altimeter and the altimeter that’s hidden away in the flight data recorder and that is set at 29.92 which we call normal barometric pressure.  The reason they set it there is it would be too complicated to, every time there was a change in barometric pressure to set the one different down in the flight data recorder.  So all they did was set it at standard and then it there was a crash they would compute it from what the pilot’s and co-pilot’s altimeter said and find out the exact altitudes that they needed to find out.  Now, the most interesting thing I found here is that at 18,000 feet on your descent anywhere in the United States is where you change from local barometric pressure to standard barometric pressure.  That’s because above 18,000 feet, 200-300 feet isn’t going to make a difference because there is 2,000 feet difference in altitude up there so you’re not going to need to worry about that, but when you’re below 18,000 feet you’ve got to be sure that your altimeters are set at the same barometric pressure as all the other airplanes, so in the flight 77 tapes what happens is exactly at 18,000 feet the co-pilot altimeter is set to 30.23 which is Ronald Reagan National Airport and 30 seconds later the pilot’s altimeter is set to 30.23 inches of mercury, which is the barometric pressure at Ronald Reagan National Airport.  Now, there are several questions I have, if only Hani Hanjour is flying this airplane, why is he setting the co-pilot’s altimeter?

Reynolds: [laughter]

Lear: And the next question I have is, where did they get the altimeter settings?  They’re not talking to anybody.  Air traffic control never gave ‘em the altimeter setting.  How in the hell do they know what it was?  They were 150 miles away when they did this so you cannot pick it up from the automatic transmission information system at the airport which broadcasts for only 50-60 miles, so where did they get this information?

Reynolds: So in other words, this is a fraudulent tape or FDR data because these are obviously professional pilots.

Lear: These are obviously professional pilots.

Reynolds: [laughter]

Lear: Think about it, because it’s normal, you do that all your life, your whole life is setting your altimeters and gonna up 18,000 feet and going down 18,000 feet.  When they get down to the Pentagon altitude was 110 feet.  They thought that, well, because of the transmission time after the hit would not give it enough time to get into the recorder, that that seemed reasonable.  But the problem here is that 110 feet is off the flight data recorder and the flight data recorder is at 29.92 so you have to take the difference between 29.92 and 30.23 and you have about 400 feet of difference.  So they passed over the Pentagon at about 400 feet because somebody who was in charge of this, and I suspect it was Chick Burlingame because I don’t think he was the brightest crayon in the box, he didn’t realize that the flight data recorder recorded altitude at 29.92 instead of local, so they thought when the pilot’s altimeter read 110 feet, that would be low enough, but once you change and correct the actual recording of the flight altitude, you get it flying over at about 400 feet.

Reynolds: Mentioning Chick Burlingame who was a real person but we know he didn’t die flying flight 77 airliner on 9/11 but it raises the general question that is often asked, well, what happened to the passengers, or at least some of the names were real people.  In this case, what would you imagine, his daughter was murdered under mysterious circumstances.

Lear: Yes, I think they began to communicate and I think that whoever was in charge of the program said, you can’t do this and killed her.

Reynolds: So Burlingame may still be alive in Tahiti or some place.

Lear: They’re all somewhere doing something.  We don’t have as many passengers to deal with as the government tells us disappeared because there weren’t that many real people.  There’s many that had no Social Security, no driver’s license, no identification of any kind, no appeal for a [law] suit or money for the thing and you get down to numbers that aren’t very big for actual people.  Now, probably some people did get killed but I don’t know what they did with them.  If you look at them, aren’t they mostly government employees?

Reynolds: Yes, or have military-industrial-complex contacts or private contractors, etc.  That right away says they’re just names put out there and then go on with their lives under new circumstances.  And that raises this whole general issue, Jerry Leaphart, the attorney, made this interesting point, people will say, ah, this is way too big a conspiracy, it would involve too many people, so somebody would have ratted it out from the inside by now.  He makes the point that, hey, everybody here is involved in the military-industrial-intelligence-complex where secrecy is an everyday procedure.  So it’s just business as usual.

Lear: Right.  Same thing with the Apollo mission.  I tell people Apollo never went and they say, well, that would be impossible because there’s too many people that knew about it, that worked on it and everything.  There were 200-300,000 people who worked on it but secrecy is part of the program and not everybody gets to know, all they know is about what they’re doing.

Reynolds: Yes, yes, yes.  And there’s lots of independent proof that Apollo is a fraud.  What about the flight simulator that you were going to hire and put six different pilots in to see if they could hit the tower?  My puzzlement is why wouldn’t the owner rent that to you?  Was it a question of price or was it a question of you were going to expose part of the 9/11 story as fraudulent?

Lear: I think it was I was going to expose part of the 9/11 story and I’ll tell you why.  The first lady said, Yes, we’ll be happy to do it at $600 an hour, when would you like to do it?  And then after a few minutes, she said, Hold on just a second.  A guy with a middle east accent came on the phone and he said, No, under no circumstances would we be interested in getting involved in something like this.

Reynolds: [laughter] It’s just not committing corporate suicide I guess.  OK, what about holography?  You’ve been an advocate of secret technology that might have been used on 9/11 to project an airliner image and even sound.  That’s an unproven part of the approach that we both take and I’m not sure it’s necessary because there are so few reliable witnesses that we know are not actors that claim that in New York City or at the Pentagon that they saw such an airliner.

Lear: The Pentagon of course was a flyover, there’s no …

Reynolds: At the Pentagon you’re saying there was a large aircraft, a jetliner-type aircraft, to do a flyover.

Lear: That was Burlingame.

Reynolds: That was on the right morning.

Lear: Yes, so there was no necessity for any holography.  At Shanksville there was no necessity there because nothing happened there.  And there was nobody to see it there.

Reynolds: Well, nobody claims that they were witness to a crash but there were rural residents there who claim they saw a struggling aircraft of some type.  So I kind of put some credence to that because they aren’t actors.

Lear: Yes, I heard that too and also that there was an airplane doing aerobatics around there, a jet.

Reynolds: Yes, so there might have been some real aircraft doing some monkey business but there wasn’t any crash?

Lear: No.  See the problem as I see it, and maybe you don’t agree, is that WTC building 7 was to be hit by flight 93 and something happened after the last World Trade Center [building] got hit to the projector or whatever they were using to fake airplanes going into a building.  They had to come up with a plan between 11 o’clock and 5 o’clock and I say 5 o’clock because 5 o’clock was when the first reporter was allowed in to Shanksville to take pictures.  So it took them six hours to dig that hole or not dig that hole but blow it up and put in evidence of a crash and put people…

Reynolds: They didn’t do a very good job [laughter].

Lear: No, not in the 5-6 hours they had and that was why that was such a shoddy job.  Now, as far as holography and the World Trade Center, the points against that are the fact that there are so many different bank angles and trajectories that it doesn’t seem to be one single holographic projection which you would think they would need to do.

Reynolds: Yes, and the aircraft have different appearances.  Sometimes it seems almost black and other times maybe gray and more United livery-looking, sometimes it looks more like an American airliner with bright aluminum, no consistency there.

Lear: Right.

Reynolds: OK, so that is open for future facts to reject or confirm.  I want to ask a couple of questions regarding the media.  At one point I believe you had an interview scheduled with Alex Jones but it never happened.

Lear: Yes.

Reynolds: What did they say?  That they were going to move it to another time but they never called you back?

Lear: Ten minutes before the program the producer called me and said, John, there’s been a real mix up here and lack of communications and we’re not going to be able to do it today.  And he didn’t say, We’ll get back to you in the future.  He just said, We’re not going to be able to do it today, and that’s all there was.

Reynolds: Was that about 2-3 years ago?

Lear: Yes.

Reynolds: Maybe they found out suddenly that you didn’t believe they used planes on 9/11, or maybe they found out something else they didn’t like but they don’t like that for sure.

Lear: Yes, well it had to be that.  It was some kind of mix up because when I first got the call from the producer he was just delighted that I would come on their program.  And it was just at the last minute that …

Reynolds: And when they were just delighted, how many days earlier was that?

Lear: A week.

Reynolds: OK, they found out something they didn’t like.  And that raises this whole general issue of, it’s still the case that no planes is a minority conclusion but I do have the impression that we’re gaining ground.  I was looking at some YouTube videos about this and we have the facts at our back and the other side doesn’t.  They just want to hush us up and preserve some kind of, they don’t have any wreckage, they don’t have any deceleration in these videos, the preposterous holes and on and on.  And I just wonder what is going on?  Is it your opinion that V.I. Lenin’s bromide is at work here?  To control the opposition, we shall lead it?

Lear: Yes.  The Sy Fy channel came in here and did six hours of interview and I told ‘em every kind of secret I knew and showed ‘em maps and gave ‘em the information and addresses and all this and I ended up with a minute and 10 seconds with nothing that was relevant to anything they were doing.

Reynolds: Was the overall show, did you think it was giving some truth about what…

Lear: It was the same stuff, it was about area 51 and it’s always the same bunch of guys talking about it and none of the guys know what’s going on up there.  But then the Jesse Ventura group called about four weeks ago and said, Yes, we’d really like to do it, you’ll hear from us in a week and we’ll be filming in about 18 days and we’re really excited about this, da, da, da.  Never heard another word from them and the stuff they did on area 51 was just real shabby, I mean it was just old, driving down a dirt road and saying, Who knows what might be over there?

Reynolds: [laughter] Well, when it comes to some of these issues you’re as radical as anyone I know, John.  [laughter]  You believe we’ve got various kinds of aliens, right, who’ve been in contact and some of them good, some of them bad, that we humans are living on the moon and there are at least intelligent beings living on Mars, right?

Lear: No doubt about it, not only on Mars, on every planet, satellite and moon in this solar system is just teeming with life.  We’re just in a little nursery here that’s protected by the Van Allen belt and we aren’t going anywhere—we didn’t go the moon and we’re not going to Mars.  This is a nursery, we’re growing up and this is where we’re going to stay until we get grown up.

Reynolds: Would getting grown up involve entirely different technology to get outside the Van Allen belt?  We would use some kind of flying saucer instead of rocketry, wouldn’t we?

Lear: No, no, getting grown up means learning how to live your life with integrity and without envy, hate or greed.

Reynolds: Yes, I understood that but I was fast forwarding beyond the culture.  Suppose we had this cultural revolution, right?  [laughter]  I’m just going back to a technology issue here.

Lear: The Van Allen belt is built there specifically so we can’t get out of here.  That’s what it’s there for.

Reynolds: Is the Van Allen belt purely negative?  Or is it part of our protection?

Lear: It’s a belt of radioactivity that extends from 500 miles to 25,000 miles.

Reynolds: And then there’s a slump and then I believe there’s a second outer Van Allen belt.  I think there’s two but of course they kinda merge.

Lear: They could have and I heard that story that it was us that made the second one by accident, by trying to blow a hole in the first Van Allen belt.

Reynolds: Really?  That’s another story I hadn’t heard.  I know that James Van Allen who died in the late ‘90s, somewhere fairly recently, for whom the radiation belt or belts is named, was a big proponent of unmanned space flight [laughter].  He was the head of the physics and astronomy department at the University of Iowa, so he was on the government payroll in effect.

Lear: Yes.

Reynolds: One issue I always like to ask a guest on 9/11 is what is your intermediate and long range forecast regarding, Can we win?  It depends on things we can’t control clearly but we can keep at it and I believe we should and I’m keeping at it as well but it depends on some of these external conditions about the receptivity to the truth here and in a way, I think in a way we’re going to win.  I haven’t been this optimistic recently, but things are starting to fall apart in other areas of life, especially finance and the economy.

Lear: We will win but it won’t be a win where we’ll have a parade down Fifth Avenue saying, We Won.  It’ll be a gradual thing.

Reynolds: I take it that means the truth will out, but it’s not going to result in convictions of real perpetrators, prosecutions and convictions.

Lear: No, I don’t think that will ever happen.  But now we have this big deal about 2012 and planet X and planet Nibiru and all of that stuff coming up which I think is sheer baloney.  I don’t know how that fits in but they are sure getting people stirred up like they did over Y2K, you know, just another thing for us to worry about and prepare for and buy a lot of duct tape for.

Reynolds: Be afraid, be very afraid and put all your trust in me, your protector.

Lear: [laughter]

Reynolds: …which is a gigantic government which is nothing but lies and mass murder, terror and enemies.  It’s just such a racket, as Marine General Smedley Butler’s book titled it, War Is A Racket.  That is the end of my questions and topic areas.  What occurs to you that we should add?

Lear: One day we’ll have to get into the moon thing but it won’t be now because it will just confuse things.

Reynolds: Yes, in a way we touched on that, at least when I pointed out your radical views on aliens, life, etc.  Let’s plug your website, what do you want to say about that?

Lear: You want to visit It shouldn’t be called my website, it’s not, it belongs to Roger Schmitt but I do a lot of contributing and we’ve got a lot of good pictures on it and we’ve just recently put two really spectacular pictures of what we call space stations on the moon.  I mean they’re obviously buildings and obviously landing areas for somebody up there.  Who it is I don’t know but a couple of the guys we have working on doing the computer work on the pictures that I come up with have done excellent jobs of bringing out the actual form of what’s up there.  And what I did is, a few years I walked into Powell’s bookstore up there in Portland, Oregon and bought every NASA book on the shelf, for no reason at all I just bought ‘em.  Now it turns out it was a massive coup because it contained all the pre-1970 NASA photographs that have been published and of course pre-1970 was before they really started seriously airbrushing all their photos so there is a lot of stuff there that they haven’t airbrushed out, that is so obviously man-made that there is no doubt about it.

Reynolds: What about the Hubbell telescope?  It should have enough power and resolution to give us photos of the alleged sites of the Apollo landings and the materials left there.  Why don’t we have those to confirm the Apollo stories?

Lear: Because we didn’t land there.  [laughter]

Reynolds: They don’t want to take those photos and make them public.  If they could, if the government stories actually were true, they could put a stop to all the suspicion that the Apollo moon landings were faked.

Lear: I have the three official landing [latitude and] longitudes that NASA’s put out for Apollo 11 and none of them are in the same place and none of them are like the pictures we see of Armstrong and Aldrin walking around.  And also some of this stuff on the moon, the early telescopes Palomar and the one at Berkeley, Mt. Wilson, they have some fantastic of the near side but they say they are under a quarantine and they won’t be released for at least 10 years.  Why not?  Why can’t we see the pictures?  Is there something that we shouldn’t see?  They would be fantastically clear.  We’re talking about a 200-inch telescope.  We could see an ant.

Reynolds: So they claim they’ve taken all the pics needed to confirm Apollo landings but they won’t release them?

Lear: Those are even before Apollo.  The lunar orbiter pictures were the ones that were taken for the Apollo landings and there were five of those made by Lockheed and that was lunar orbiter one, two, three, four and five.  And I’ve got some spectacular photos of that and one I got by accident.  You don’t write to NASA for those photos, you write to a subcontractor.  Either by accident or on purpose, somehow they sent me a 16×20 negative of lunar orbiter 2 162H which shows the north face of Copernicus which has so much stuff on it, it has clearly a little excavator, it has vehicles, it has a building, it has many buildings, it has all kinds of stuff on it.  It’s just fantastic and I got these in 1998 and it was like five years before Las Vegas got its technology to the point where they could print these because they were in negative form and nobody has a projector that can make a positive of a 16×20 negative but finally when they did in five years I got it and it’s just spectacular and it hangs in my room.  We scanned the picture into four different pictures and put them on in the best resolution we could and you can go there and look yourself and see all the cool stuff we found.

Reynolds: Are you familiar with Jack White’s work on this?  He’s got a couple of websites where he contributes.  One is his but the other one is that  He’s got an analysis of a bunch of NASA photos.

Lear: OK, I’ll take a look.  I just heard about those about a week ago.

Reynolds: I like his work.  It will be interesting to see what you make of it.  Alright John, thank you.

Lear: Thanks Morgan.  If you think of anything else, give me a quickie call and we’ll go from there.

To read John Lear’s affidavit in my federal lawsuit against the 9/11 NIST contractors, go here at the top and click on his pdf.


This entry was posted in 911. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to An Interview with Pilot John Lear

  1. johnlear says:

    The Van Allen belts are highly radioactive bands surrounding the earth in the shape of a donut. They extend from about 500 miles up to about 25,000 miles up. In 1962 the military launched several hydrogen bombs from Johnston Island in the Pacific (200 miles west of Hawaii) in an attempt to blow up the band. They only made it worse and shut of a electrical equipment in Hawaii for 3 days. They had discovered EMP. (Electro Magnetic Pulse).

    All of the populations on the planets in the solar system which total about 40 including their satelites and moon aren’t affected by the Van Allen Belt however, some, like Mars, have their own Van Allen belts.

    Van Allen belts were put there to keep us in. It is pure fiction that any space mission went through, around, in between, over, under or sideways through the belt as NASA would have you believe.

    Most of us would prefer not to believe that so the secret is safe.

  2. onebornfree says:

    Dear Mr Reynolds, it seems to me that the simplest explanation usually works the best.

    In the case of 9/11 that would mean that the planes into building videos, [including the famous Fox 5 “live” network footage], are ALL demonstrable fakes from start to finish, both from a scientific perspective [Newton’s 3rd law of motion etc.], and because of huge number of technical anomalies within the videos themselves, such as: [1] the lack of visible plane vortex patterns in smoke, [2]sunlight/shadows in contradictory directions, [3]impossible soundtracks, [4]impossible camera zoom-ins/edits [5] impossible locations, etc. etc. [the list is pretty much endless 🙂 ].

    For example, see “Killtown’s short analysis of one such “plane into building” video:

    “False In One ,False In All”?

    I would propose that if a researcher comes to _that_ conclusion [i.e all of the plane into building videos are indeed total fakes], then it is not a wild leap in logic to assume that the building collapse sequence videos were also faked from beginning to end, using the exact same methods [i.e.computers].

    This would mean that the impossibly fast collapses of WTC 1 and 2, plus all of the other WTC complex collapse sequences shown on “live” TV that day , including the collapse of WTC7 , were _all_ totally fabricated computer simulations/animations, nothing more.

    To my [non-legally and, non scientifically trained] mind, the legal principle known as “False In One ,False In All”, would suggest that in light of the obvious falsity of the “plane into building” videos, that it would at least be prudent, methodologically speaking, to assume that all of the collapse videos were also faked, until such time as they could be independently verified somehow.

    [ To my mind, even without the proven falsity of the various “plane into building” videos, there was/is still enough overall falsity surrounding government/media accounts of the events {take your pick!} for it to be methodologically unsound for investigative scientists to automatically assume that the collapse sequence videos [or any others] actually portray real time events and can be relied on to draw realistic conclusions about what happened, but that’s just me. ]

    Having said that, I have to say that the chances of such verification regarding building collapse video sequences are pretty thin, given unexplainable science/physics details such as the speed of the collapses depicted [and yes, I’m well aware of prof.Judy Woods research], the manner of collapse depicted [i.e. top down], plus the large number of technical anomalies found within each sequence [shadow/sunlight discrepancies, impossibly repeated smoke patterns, strange bird and helicopter flight patterns and speeds, other buildings moving around, etc. etc.- [again, as with the plane into building videos, the list of obvious technical anomalies is pretty much endless!].

    3000 Victims?

    And if we then examine the question of the claimed number of victims- would it not again make perfect sense [methodologically speaking 🙂 ], if we employ the principle of “False In One ,False In All”, to assume, _before_ actually looking closely at any actual evidence, that the victim “evidence” given to date is also most likely false as well, once the falsity of the plane/building videos has been clearly established?

    And what do you know?[surprise surprise!] – when victim lists are closely examined, it does indeed appear that many of the names on those lists and many of the portraits as well, have indeed been fabricated out of wholecloth [or the modern computer equivalent], using portrait image morphing software etc. See “The Vicsim Report” at:

    Speaking for myself, since I believe that all of the plane into building videos are fakes from start to finish , and having then ruthlessly applied the principle of “False In One ,False In All” to all other 9/11 evidence I have reviewed to date, at this point in time I remain pretty much convinced that as well as the “plane through building” sequences being fakes, that all of the collapse sequence videos and the victim memorial lists are probably poorly rendered computer generated fabrications and nothing more as well [although it is indeed possible that a small number of people really died in those buildings on that day]. Regards, onebornfree.

  3. Ivan Martin says:

    Morgan, I need to retract my 30 March suggestion that the Embassy Suites Hotel car park was deliberately separately targeted. Working thru Dr Judy’s very detailed book, I have since found its street maps on pages 216 & 223 showing that cars were weirdly ruined in the whole area around the WTC, including half a mile away on FDR Drive. So it is still unknown why all of the buildings in the overall area, including between FDR Dr & WTC, were not also turned to dust.
    I’m using ‘ruined’ instead of Judy’s ‘toasted’ for the cars because here in Oz the word ‘toasted’ still strongly implies heat/fire as the cause. That would be very misleading as her abundant photographic evidence shows many of the ruined cars could not have been the result of normal fires.
    But on my thought that the whole 9/11 exercise was simultaneously a military power demo to the rest of the world (perhaps ‘don’t mess with us, & keep buying our T bonds’?), I’ve since also heard an interview with Judy in which she opined that the Minneapolis bridge collapse was caused by the same secret weapon. What better way to further intimidate potential military enemies than to let them know you can take out any or all of their bridges whenever you wish?

  4. Ivan Martin says:

    Thanks Morgan for this interesting interview with John Lear. I would agree completely with you if only you would say “no airliners” instead of “no planes”. Certainly, no airliners hit the towers or Pentagon. But something left the gash in the first tower’s side. The gash remained there, complete with people visibly moving inside it, until the building dustified, so I cannot accept that it was a projected hologram.
    We now know from Dr Wood’s suburb work that 9/11 was probably a global demonstration of a weaponised version of a Hutchison effect type secret technology. As well as the PNAC’s “new Pearl Harbour”, it would have been a show of military force to the senior military of the rest of the world. Although the car park near the Embassy Suites Hotel would have required separate targeting because it was not contiguous with the WTC block, its cars were also ruined in the demonstration, presumably to leave no doubt that vehicles, including military ones, were as vulnerable as buildings to this super weapon.
    We do not know for how long prior to the first plane impact the towers were being irradiated by this weapon.
    The steel verticals in the towers’ external walls could have already undergone sufficient molecular dissociation to weaken their sheer strength enough to allow smaller weapon-type planes to penetrate. (Remember those same verticals turned almost completely to dust only an hour or two later.) I am postulating these smaller (remotely controlled) weapon-type planes penetrating the already weakened but not quite fallen towers on the basis that “after eliminating the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
    One of these planes appeared to have a pod hanging under it, and both appeared to project a visible light flash onto the tower just before impact. The visible flash might have been only a small fraction of an energy burst from another, or related, high tech weapon (in the pod?) that could also have had a role in weakening the tower structure just in front of the plane.
    With the whole 9/11 event being an unprecedented display (to those who understood) of military power, why wouldn’t they also test/demo other applicable high tech stuff that they might have developed? We know it was some sort of missile that hit the Pentagon, possibly yet another development they took the opportunity to test in the midst of the sheeple’s confusion.
    Where John Lear suggested the Shankesville plane had been intended for Building seven but their hologram projector broke down, in my postulated scenario above something would have delayed deploying Building seven’s intended remote controlled plane until too much of the main towers’ dust had cleared. It would then have been too visible that the plane was not the airliner they had planned to claim.
    Just a few thoughts.
    And after studying 9/11 intermittently for five years I now find Judy Wood’s analysis the very first to actually explain what happened. She has weeks of meaty info at
    (hope I’m allowed to post that!)
    Best regards,

  5. Lear makes an important point; I’ve also had opportunity to ask other pilots about the ‘no planes’ farce on 9/11 and none of them can even go there. I’ll usually begin by asking if an aluminum-skinned airliner and its wings can slice through a steel & concrete building as if the structure were only a cloud; and they’ll respond, of course not.

    Then I’ll ask, ‘well, what about the alleged planes on 911?’ – after which they always say, ‘oh that was different.’

    Different? How the heck would the laws of physics be different on 9/11? Obviously they would not. Apparently most pilots are not willing to commit ‘career suicide’ by agreeing that ‘no planes’ on 9/11 is the only plausible explanation for the event.

    Incidentally, you can read the response from a somewhat ‘well-known’ pilot after being confronted with NPT on his blog:

    BTW, really enjoying your new blog – it’s interactive now! YIPPEE! 🙂 …most of all, thanks Morgan for all your efforts over the years exposing 9/11 corruption; man, you’re like a Pit bull that never lets go!

  6. Thanks. I’m just starting to be my own webmaster so there will be a few glitches along the way.

  7. Geoffrey Walker says:

    morgan, your website appears to be broken. what happened to your previous articles? none of the links work, and all that appears is the lear interview from dec. 2010.

  8. Woop says:

    Hi Morgan, what happened to all the content on the “old site”? Are you in the process of migrating it here?

    Anyway, good interview with John Lear. I’ve listened to John, as you may know, for years, and have seen his posts at ABOVE TOP SECRET and the moon site mentioned in the interview.

    I have two questions: first, John concedes no big Boeings hit the Towers, yet says the reason why Bldg 7 came down, was on account of some screw up with Flight 93, which was slated to crash into Bldg 7. This “hit” at 47 stories is more impossible than the ridiculous scenario at the big Towers. Thus, his position is illogical and inconsistent.

    My second question: if the Van Allen belts made the moon flight per Apollo impossible, how is it that the moon is colonized, Mars has a thriving Martian society of humans, and other heavenly bodies have been subjected to human colonization?

    When I read or hear this from an intelligent person, an experienced person, a bright person, a person once employed by Central Intelligence, this line of discussion leads to something I don’t like saying. What I am saying here, is this just disinformation, to tarnish and diminish what genuine truth-seekers are trying to put out?

    Is John Lear acting as a disinformation agent? Morgan, you and I both like John, but have you considered this a real possibility?

    Thanks for answering, Morgan.

    • I’m going to ask John Lear to reply because you’ve scored two good points here. Thanks.

    • johnlear says:

      I have two questions: first, John concedes no big Boeings hit the Towers, yet says the reason why Bldg 7 came down, was on account of some screw up with Flight 93, which was slated to crash into Bldg 7. This “hit” at 47 stories is more impossible than the ridiculous scenario at the big Towers. Thus, his position is illogical and inconsistent.

      Let me explain. What ever device they used to simulate the crash into WTC 1 and 2 whether or not it was holograms or video insertion either became disabled or malfunctioned and therefore could not be used at the 10:30 or 11:00 oclock proposed crash sequence for Building 7.

      In order to account for Flight 93 they had to make a fake crash site. They chose Shanksville because it was far enough away nobody would come stumblnig along and see what was going on. It took them about 6 hours to prepare the fake crash site and at 5:00 oclock they let the pes into Shanksvills to see the bopdies and wreckage.

      It was a really poor showing but now their problem was how do they fake an airplne crash into Buildng 7. Their thinking was that nobody could be so stupid as to believe that a 47 story building would collapse just due to fire. But they went with it and hoped beyond hope nobody would ask questions.

  9. k says:

    Your theories go completely unfounded. I’ve read many articles debunking the myths created by the Apollo 11 conspirators. If Apollo 11 can be verified… which it has… don’t you think that 911 will too?

    • Not sure what you mean by “myths created by the Apollo 11 conspirators.” Please cite your best 2-3 pieces of evidence that prove government tale that it landed men on the moon July 20, 1969. And what are your favorite websites proving the moon landing was no hoax? You believe a lying administration like Nixon’s and an incompetent government agency like NASA put together millions of subcontracted parts together and all systems worked just fine the first time out? I don’t. Wonder why gov’t never sent anyone again to that green cheese place, despite vastly superior technology today? I’m no expert on the moon landing but find the critics/skeptics carry the day (and night!), not the government and corporate media.

  10. Keith Bond says:

    Hi Morgan, good interview with John Lear, whom I happen to like.

    I’ve listened to John over the years, but I am still perplexed in an apparent contradiction:
    the Van Allen belts preclude human flight to the moon, yet humans are living on Mars, the moon, and other heavenly bodies, per John Lear.

    As a chemistry professor said in one of his comments back to me, “what gives”?

    Incidentally, Morgan, I like the new format of your site, but only hope you go on more internet radio programs, because I enjoy your information.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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