22 votes

Lear Jet Boss Amazing Court Affidavit on 9/11 Revisited

Lear Jet Boss Amazing Court Affidavit on 9/11 Revisited

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




DR. MORGAN REYNOLDS, on behalf of :

The United States of America :

Plaintiff, : ECF CASE

vs. :

: 07 CIV 4612 (GBD)



January 28, 2008

Defendants. :




JOHN LEAR, of full age, being duly sworn, deposes and says:


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


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.


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, www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546355. shtml)


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


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.


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.


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:


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.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If you go to Youtube and watch

'911 Intercepted', by 911 Pilots for Truth, it gives a more detailed version of Mr Lear's fact based analysis, along with traffic controller and aeronautical engineering analysis. I have confered with many military and commercial pilots over the years, asking if the Cesna trained pilots could jump into a commercial jetliner like and make the alledged feat? Every single one stated 'absoulutely not'!

"no windows ... blue logo ..."


Eyewitness on 9/11 Mark Burnback was able to get a good view of the plane that hit the World Trade Center, because he said that the plane was flying very low. He explained to FOX News that the plane had no windows, a blue logo, and did not look like a commercial plane.

Fox NewsCaster: "Mark Burnback, a Fox employee, is on the phone with us. Mark witnessed this... Mark were you close enough to see any markings on the airplane?"

Mark Burnback: "Hi gentlemen. Yeah there was definitely a blue, circular logo on the front of the plane towards the front. It definitely did not look like a commercial plane. I did not see any windows on the side. It was definitely very low...

"Mark, if what you say is true, those could be cargo planes or something like that. You said you did not see any windows on the side?"

Mark Burnback: "I did not see any windows on the side. I saw the plane was flying low. I was probably a block away from the sub-way in Brooklyn and that plane came down very low, and again it was not a normal flight that I have ever seen at an airport. It was a plane with a blue logo on the front and it just looked like it did not belong in this area."

Republic Broadcasting best talk radio in the truthosphere

Unless I'm logged in, this

Unless I'm logged in, this thread isn't even showing up in it's Off-Topic quarantine zone.

modified remote-controlled 767 tanker-transports

.. w/ re-inforced wings, pod / missile to soften before impact and trigger the massive load of fuel in the hold.


There were 2 flights out of Boston for each 911 flight #. What happened @ Cleveland International Airport?




Why did all four 911 flights take off ~ 23% occupancy instead of near 100% capacity?

Who ran security at the 911 airports? Bush brother . . .

Who was in the White House that fateful morning? Bush senior ...

Warren Buffet never does fundraisers ... except for 911. Guess who showed up?

I could go on like this all day long, tonight, tomorrow, and the next day ..

Republic Broadcasting best talk radio in the truthosphere

FBI found hi-jackers but the FAA found no planes.

There's an inconvenient truth for government.

All that American hate wasted.

Free includes debt-free!

I get the Before-It's-News "news feed"

and usually read three or four stories on it but I take each one with a one-pound box of salt. Before-It's-News is notorious for running stories with no links (in this case no WORKING link) and no references but with plenty of speculation presented as fact.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

I knew this would be moved to

I knew this would be moved to Off-Topic..

Nystrom & crew are very quick to censor anything of substance.

Actual .pdf file

for those that don't 100% trust beforeitsnews


He used to be on my friend

He used to be on my friend list at a forum best known lately for banning long time members. He used to help out on 911 threads. He really took some troll hits, but he is completely credible and knowledgeable. Kind of a down to earth guy.
As far as I know, he still has a long time thread running over there, kind of coversational. I don't know if he still posts though.

RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home

Look at Lear's videos on youtube

Pretty much any of them. There is a machine on the for collecting human souls. Humans were an experimental creation of alien beings. There's no god, but aliens create the appearance of miracles from time to time; when Eisenhower found out about this he had "In God We Trust" put on currency to encourage public belief in God. The earth is hollow, with a sun at the center. Two US Navy submarines were lost while they were exploring the ocean that is under the Nevada desert.

The planes people thought they saw (and filmed) on 9/11 were holograms. WT7 was supposed to have a holographic plane fly into it, but the projector failed so they had to come up with an alternate plan (and fake the crash site for flight 93).

Why don't people take him seriously? Hard to say.

Next time you have the chance to fly

a 767 under 800' altitude at over 500 mph and hit a 208' wide target, let me know.

Clack on Clack off.

While I agree with Mr Lear,

While I agree with Mr Lear, what explanation is there for the video of planes hitting the towers?

There is no video of the

There is no video of the first so called plane, but there is footage clipped from a local NYC news cam view of what appears to be a fat missile headed towards the 1st tower, and then kaboom.
The video of a 2nd plane going into the building is quite a trick really. The camera man was in front of something reflective, something the reflected opposite of the tower. Funny thing, the plane going into the building was seen in total in the surface that was not facing the building - in other words a projection not a reflection.
The other problem with the video is that there was no roaring or rumbling of an aircraft of any kind, while it did pick up voices and street noises. Not logical. Fake.

What most people don't know is that the Pentagon was running 6 wars games that day. At least one of those drills was a scenario of the towers being hit by planes. It was running on the video in the generals' command center that day. If memory serves me correctly, they were running more than one simulation of the towers being hit.

This is something I noticed, but it seems almost no one else did. We were switching channels around, and landed on Peter Jennings. He said that all parent networks were switching to local NYC reports, while the regulars had some kind of meeting or something. But, the feed didn't switch to NYC immediately. There was a broadcast pause, and then back to Peter Jennings. He was sitting in a wood straight back chair with papers in his hand against a green screen. He was looking at the top page. Then he looked up and said, "Is this the script? Is this the script I'm supposed to read from?"
Then the feed cut to local NYC.
Sometime later, the broadcast went back to NBC network, and Peter Jennings looked at the camera and around, and asked, " Are we back? Are we live now?"

It was a ruse, people. It was all scripted. The network footage played over and over again, except that each network's sky background was a different weird color. And one of the network's footage had a bridge in it that shouldn't have been there, and the bridge moved in the background. LOL
Another network showed footage of a sky view of the city, and there was a building missing - the same building that google mapping had missed. But, really that old building is still there to this day.
It was all being fed from the simulations from the Pentagon command center. That is why every network was saying exactly the same things, exactly the same way. Scripted. I don't think the anchors knew what was going on at first.
The early part of the NBC broadcast with Peter Jennings is where the film proof is that it was all scripted.

RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home

Forgot to mention: The

Forgot to mention: The sound recorded of what hit the 2nd tower was a hissing kind of sound. Missiles make that sound.
The military has outfitted huge missiles to look like commercial aircraft, little wings, tail, and paint job.
They also have taken old commercial airliners and outfitted them to be flying bombs with missiles. This is what I think hit tower 2. I sent an early video and screen captures to a friend who was a retired general Air National Guard, and he sent it to an AF retired general friend. I thought I had seen evidence of a missile fired from the second plane. They both agreed that a missile was fired from the undercarraige of plane/bomb #2.

RON PAUL 2012 * Restore America * Bring The Troops Home

The explanation is that the

The explanation is that the videos we were shown are all fake. September Clues clears proves this.

ytc's picture

Refreshing to see this again. . . perhaps only to be swept

under the rug as other posts-for-truth are treated.

I wouldn't be surprised if the same entity that "produced" this illusion of new pearl-harbor is working full-time on another diabolical, destructive spectacles of a "false-flag operation".

We don't want another blow to our psyche that was brought upon us by 9/11 + anthrax mischief.

Bump for truth!

Bump for truth!

Is he saying a plane did not hit the towers?

Or it was a different kind of plane?

There were no commercial jets

There were no commercial jets flown into the buildings. The only thing eye witnesses seen were rockets or a small grey missile. Only people who seen planes flying into the toweres were those who were watching tv that day. Those in ny that we're looking up at the toweres only seen and heard explosions or what a few have said was rockets or missiles. But no human seen a plane fly into the towers in real life. That's been proven years ago.

There is a false movement in the 9/11 truth movement that claim the offical story is correct that planes flew into the nuildings. It was tv fakery and this post just adds to the slready mounting evidence of that. Those Planes were super imposed in the "replay" videos and also the controlled live delayed video. This is why the fade to black accrued when the the "aircraft" animation layer of the plane was seen coming out the other side of the tower fully intacted lol! The towers came down but had nothing to do with planes.

Well, he's pointing out the

Well, he's pointing out the FACT that a 767/757 cannot fly 550 MPH at sea-level. It is because the airplane is only design to cruise at high altitudes at that speed.

The fastest a 767 can fly at sea-level without its wings ripping off is 450 MPH.

The speeds we were told the airplanes flew was much faster than what is physically possible. That's all he's pointing out.

There were also no Wake vortices in the smoke, and a steel building is much stronger than an aluminum airplane, so you would not expect an airplane to simply disappear inside a steel structure like it is butter.

If you watch the film September Clues, they go over in great detail exactly how it was done.

There are conflicting "camera angles" of the airplane approach- some show a flat approach (the shot from Brooklyn) others show a dive-bomber approach with a steep decline right before impact. It's a TV hoax.

The laws of aerodynamics were not suspended on 9/11. The airplanes shown on TV did not exist.


Good thing this was plastered all over the newspapers and TV news media just like Ron Paul's victories!

Thank you for this post

Mr. Lear has all along rejected the plane claim as a phony. It's mind control, and we all suffered it.