15 votes

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

TITLE SHOULD REALLY BE: "No Boeing 767 airliners" hit the Twin Towers, instead of "No Airplanes" as per what's in the affidavit.

"The affidavit, dated 28th January 2014 is part of a law suit being pursued by Morgan Reynolds in the United States District Court, Southern District, New York."

US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth

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

John Lear, the son of Learjet inventor, Bill Lear, has given his expert evidence that it would have been physically impossible for Boeing 767s, like Flights AA11 and UA175 to have hit the Twin Towers on 9/11, particularly when flown by inexperienced pilots:

‘No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors’, he stated in the affidavit."

Read More:


UPDATE: Some Good comments here & questions. Made me think for sure.

I looked for an actual PDF copy of the affidavit, but appears it has been deleted from all the sites that had posted it. There are copies of the text though.

1) Shared by Ceg. http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2012/03/911-ai...

2) http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/911-affidavit-by-john-le...

UPDATE 2: PDF of affidavit. Thanks DocNo2. https://wikispooks.com/w/images/d/dc/Bill.Lear.affadavit.pdf

I'm thinking that if this exists (the Law Suit) we should follow it at least & see where it leads.

Nothing posted by me or any of us should be considered something that's definitive or implied as definitive. My belief is that we are all here to gather info & judge it for ourselves. Believe what we feel is true & not believe what we feel is false. Our job is not to try to convince others to believe that we our self believes, nor ridicule or belittle those who have a different slant on subjects that are posted. Just my two cents, for what it's worth.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

You're pathetic. You'd have

You're pathetic. You'd have us believe that all the different people who videotaped the second plane hitting the WTC digitally faked their videos. It is amusing to see conspiracy kooks make claims like this and then act hurt when nobody takes them seriously.

You are free to believe what you want.

I see you have no answers.

Eleven different videos of the second plane none of them consistent with the other.

No physical evidence of a murder weapon being a commercial airliner.

But wait, there's more.

I prefer being pathetic idiot to a ignorant patriot.

Free includes debt-free!

Well, this thread is

Well, this thread is certainly living up the the stereotype of Ron Paul supporters believing in the nuttiest conspiracy theories.

How altruistic of you to save us from liberty itself.


Free includes debt-free!



Free includes debt-free!

He doesn't say no planes hit the towers.

He says no Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors.

I think many agree that there was no Boeing 767. The issue is, what did?

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels


That's what I am asking. What then do they think hit the building? What other type of plane? There's implications behind that answer but it is not discussed or even hinted at.

Also, the article does not include any footnotes on its claims. That's a fairly obvious red flag as far as I am concerned.

Military Aircraft

Witnesses said that the plane was grey, and had no windows (like a normal commericial airliner does).

It looked like Military Aircraft, and this would also support the idea that its flight path was guided (to ensure success).

maybe this


this one is slightly different: http://youtu.be/xsmc_rS2jOo

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy

Seems plausible

Thanks for the link.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

So, what was it that we saw flying into the towers?

Just curious.

I wonder too

I can only think that he means it was another type of plane. I have heard it argued that the planes were of another model/type, but I don't remember which one it is claimed to have possibly been.

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy

Sworn affidavit my ass

Where is the proof? I don't see any signed document. I don't see any video. Why should I trust this blog post that this man gave this statement? That he is who the blogger says he is? That even if he is who the blogger says he is that his credentials that make him an expert?

Those are things that reporters (are supposed to) include with their facts, because without them there is no more reason to believe the story than there is reason to believe in the story of Santa Clause.

Ron Paul - Intellectual hero

I agree. This article may be factual, but it does not

give the reader any way of determining whether that is the case or not.

I'm going to take this one with a huge grain of salt until more evidence is presented.