John Lear/Michael Morrissey/Rob Balsamo Exchange on Planes/No Planes on 9/11

[James H. Fetzer]

Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:53:12 -0700 [09/26/2009 07:53:12 PM CDT]
From: "John Lear"
To: "'Michael Morrissey'" , [e-mail]
Cc: [Show addresses - 23 recipients]
Subject: RE: John Lear on Pilots Forum

Flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon for the simple reason that April Gallop was sitting at her

desk about 40 feet from the hole. She saw no airplane, missile or drone and smelled no jet fuel,

kerosene or any kind of gas. She reached beside her desk and grabbed her 6 month old son an climbed

out the alleged hole made by an alleged airplane. She has been harassed by Army Intelligence and recently

filed a suit against the U.S, Government.


In addition I am an expert in reading Flight digital Data Recorders and it is my opinion that Flight 77 was flown by

professionals and overflew the Pentagon by about 200 feet.


As to Shankvilles based on the debris there is no possibility that a large commercial airliner crashed into the alleged

mining pit. I am a certified Federal Mine Safety and Health Instructor and based on that and my aviation background

there is not possibility that an airplane crashed at that reclamation site.


As to Flight 93 getting shot down it would have been impossible to hide the wreckage of such a crash from the
public or the media because of the size of the debris field.


As to the WTC crashes it would be impossible for an airplane to hit the WTC and not have at least half of it fall back
into the street.

At least the tail section should have broken off and fallen into the street. Remaining in the wreckage of the tower should have been at

least 3 P&W 4062 engines, weighing 4 tons each which simply could not have burned completely up. There were large forgings

including the wing fuselage forgings, wheel bogeys, struts and vertical horizontal tail assembly which simply could not have disappeared.

2 commercial airliners could not have totally disappeared inside the wreckage of both WTC towers.

The fact that there has not been one single piece of 4 airliners with over 9 million stamped, engraved or painted with serial and production

numbers along with 300 miles of wire is proof that no airplanes crashed anywhere on 911. In the history of flight there has never been

an airplane crash, the known site of which contained no parts of the airplanes. I have investigated 3 Learjet crashes as part of the NTSB team,

all three of which went straight in from altitude and there were plenty of parts left and in all three cases large parts of the tail remained. Both the

757 and the 767 are much larger and should have left much larger parts than the smaller Learjet.

John Lear

From: Michael Morrissey [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, September 26, 2009 1:27 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Jack & Sue White; John Lear; Jim Fetzer; David Hawkins; Field McConnell; Ace Baker; Big Guy; MARCUS ICKE; Rosalee Grable; Bruce Rideout; roy schaeffer; Rolf Lindgren; Sha Llel; Jeff Hill; michael brick; Morgan Reynolds; Donald Stahl; Patrick Dority; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Joseph Keith; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: John Lear on Pilots Forum

By that I mean STJ911.org, who rely, last I checked, primarily on Hoffman, who believes Flight 55 hit the Pentagon and Flight 93 may have been shot down.

It is asking too much of me or anyone else to compare all the material available at the Pilots site and STJ911.org (with its links to Hoffman's site) and determine what the points of agreement and disagreement are. I take David Griffin as my point of departure, because his conclusions are laid out clearly, but even that is difficult to compare with the huge amount of material available on even just these two (three) sites. Someone -- or a team of people -- needs to do this.

The impression I have, though I admit I have not dug into it recently, is that Hoffman and STJ911.org support the govt story re Flight 55 and 93, except for allowing for the possibility that 93 was shot down (though I am not sure about the latter), and also support the govt story with regard to the WTC except for the explanation of why the buildings "collapsed." Can you correct me on any of this? I won't hold you to any of this or quote you or take your opinion as representing P4T. I would just like to know your opinion, as someone who has been deeply into the details and whose judgment I respect.

Best regards,

Michael

On 26.09.2009, at 21:32, Pilots For Truth wrote:

Not sure who you mean by the "Jones boys", but if its Steven Jones, he is a member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth and also endorses our work. He has posted our findings in the JONES.

We do have one page summaries of our findings left margin of home page in the form of a press release, easy to print, easy to hand out.

The details can be found in our films.

Rob

--- On Sat, 9/26/09, Michael Morrissey wrote:

From: Michael Morrissey
Subject: Re: John Lear on Pilots Forum
To: [e-mail]
Cc: "Jack & Sue White" , "John Lear" , "Jim Fetzer"
Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 1:57 PM

Hello Rob,

It's not really that I can't afford the $80. I am already (long) convinced that the "crashes" of 77 and 93 were faked. I was just wondering if the Pilots had confirmed this, and apparently they have. It seems to me that what you (and we) need is a short (preferable free) video endorsed by the Pilots stating these conclusions, if that doesn't already exist. This is the one that I would urge all my contacts to watch. Those who need the details could buy the $80 version.

I surmise that you have enough data to refute Jim Hoffman and the Jones Boys re 77 and 93. That I think you should do directly, since as I've said, I think their agenda is to obstruct investigation of everything other than controlled demolition. You don't have to advocate "no planes" or video fakery to prove the govt story is false.

Best regards,

Michael

On 26.09.2009, at 16:42, Pilots For Truth wrote:

Hi Michael,

If you are limited with your budget, we do stream all our presentations for free on google video, just do a google video search using the full title of the film(s) and you'll find them, albeit in much less quality.

The only exception for now is our latest release "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" (WTCA). It is not streaming on the web for public view yet as we do have to recoup some cost of making the film or there will no longer be a Pilots For 9/11 Truth nor future presentations/analysis.

Once the film hits their destinations, im sure someone will probably upload it.

If its just speed questions you're looking for, pick up WTCA. We prove the speeds impossible for a 767 using precedent, data and flight crew who actually have time in the aircraft reportedly used on 9/11.

Keep in mind, this does NOT mean we have validated "No Plane Theory". All we have proven is that it is impossible for a stock, unmodified, 767-200 to have obtained such speeds as reported. We have once again proven the govt story false. What you do with that information from there is up to you. We wont speculate.

Rob

--- On Sat, 9/26/09, Michael Morrissey wrote:

From: Michael Morrissey
Subject: Re: John Lear on Pilots Forum
To: [e-mail]
Cc: "Jack & Sue White" , "John Lear" , "Jim Fetzer"
Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 9:43 AM

Thanks, Rob. $80 is hefty price for a retired English teacher, but if you think it is all necessary...

I would like to know if anyone else on this list has the package, if they recommend it, and if they have a problem with anything in it. Not that this will prevent me from buying it, but I would like to know. It may also give me a heads up for things to pay particular attention to in the videos, which I suspect are going to put a lot of pressure on my non-techie brain in any case. I have seen lots of videos, like most of us, but very few few from anybody whose opinions are trustworthy. Pilots talking about 9/11 is about as trustworthy a source as I can imagine.

I have just listened to your interview with John Lear, and have read through the comments. I honestly don't think John's possible former associations with the CIA are relevant. Ditto his views on aliens, moon landings, holograms, and the role of Mossad in the JFK assassination. Technical questions are technical questions, period.

P4T seems to be the last refuge for open minds. I appreciate and share the mistrust that many have expressed about Hoffman/Ashley/Green/Arabesque, 911blogger (Alan Giles), and the Jones Boys. I've put my two cents in on that, too (see my articles and diaries at OpEdNews), which has got me banned from STJ911 and 911blogger (no great loss). Have you noticed that these people pretend to support David Griffin (and vice versa), although they differ with him significantly on 77 and 93? I'm quite sure they are afraid of him, given his huge (and deserved) popularity. Michael Green is the only one who has come close to challenging Griffin, but as I have pointed out a couple of times, this guy is as phony as they come. I much prefer someone like John Lear who is honest about his background than people like Green (and also Hoffman et al.) who come out of nowhere with an obvious agenda that serves the govt (suppress discussion of everything except controlled demolition -- a limited hangout to keep us busy for the next 50 years).

Best,

Michael,

On 26.09.2009, at 14:26, Pilots For Truth wrote:

Hi Michael,

Thank you for correcting the author of the quote, to the group. Apology accepted. :-)

I moved your thread to Alt theory because i didnt have time for a reply and to explain how many threads we have already covering the information you sought. So i left a link behind in hopes of (and leading you to) you would find the other threads on Lear, and in fact, you did.

There is a lot of discussion regarding Lear in our Alt theory forum. I also personally did an interview with Lear regarding many of the FAQ's about Lear being a member in good standing in our organization. You can find this interview in the Latest News Section of our forum. A simple search will find it.

The reason i havent had time to reply to your emails or posts until now is because we just recently released our latest presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" yesterday which covers the speed issue in full and interviews with Captains from United and American Airlines.

My suggestion would be to pick up all of our DVD's as its the most economical (less than 10 per DVD) in our 7 Pack Special and just spend a rainy day cuddling up with your favorite beverage and watch. You will then have an excellent grasp of what P4T is all about, it will answer many of your questions, and you will be well informed of govt lies based on factual analysis of data performed by aviation experts. Here is a direct link to the package...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store/#7PDVDM

Hope this helps,

Rob

--- On Sat, 9/26/09, Michael Morrissey wrote:

From: Michael Morrissey
Subject: Re: John Lear on Pilots Forum
To: [e-mail]
Cc: "Jack & Sue White" , "John Lear" , "Jim Fetzer"
Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 7:37 AM

Hi Rob,

Sorry. I copied it from page 2 of the Lawson thread "John Lear Swears and Affirms" (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17660&st=20), and I see the author was "lunk," not you, so again, my apologies for this carelessness. This is the same thread where you ended up banning Lawson, and I will be happy to copy the whole thing and pass it on to this group, but can't they go to the page and read it themselves? They can also join the forum, I think. (I'm not a pilot, either.)

Somebody has put my post in Study > Research > Alternative Theories, I guess because that is where a couple of other threads about John Lear appear, but I think this is a bit misleading since in his affidavit, and in the two recent letters from him I copied, there is nothing about alternative theories. He is simply presenting technical arguments for why the official story cannot be true. And I am simply wondering if there has been any substantive and competent (I do not regard Anthony Lawson as competent) disagreement about what he said here (about speed and parts, not holograms, moon landings or aliens). I have not found any yet, and am therefore inclined to conclude that he is correct.

I want to order one of the Pilots CDs, but there are so many I don't know which one to order. Which do you recommend? Do any of them incorporate the arguments that John Lear has made? I have seen the CIT video online, and found it very persuasive, so I don't need a copy of that.

Best regards,

Michael

On 26.09.2009, at 10:24, Pilots For Truth wrote:

Michael,

I dont know exactly where you copy/pasted the below "Extreme Pilot" quote from, but it wasnt from me. I am the first member at the forum and my registration date is Aug 2006, not March 07.

Also, if you can understand why i banned Lawson after taking the time to read through, why not show that to the whole group?

As for your wquestions, please review the member agreement when you signed up. The post made on that forum are the sole responsibility of the author and may not reflect the opinions of P4T. Please do not quote it as such.

--- On Sat, 9/26/09, Michael Morrissey wrote:

From: Michael Morrissey
Subject: Fwd: John Lear on Pilots Forum
To: "Rob Balsamo"
Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 4:14 AM

Hello Rob,

I have now (belatedly) read through Lawson's thread on John Lear and seen your remark below, which seems reasonable to me. You were right to ban Lawson, and I don't blame you for opting out of this Fetzer email exchange, especially since Lawson tried to corrupt it as well. Seems to me, though, that John's arguments have not even been touched. Why should we have to "assume" he is correct or not? These are technical points that knowledge people must be able to either definitively confirm or refute. I will continue looking for something like this on the forum, but if you have more to add, please do.

Best,

Michael

Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Morrissey

Date: 26. September 2009 09:57:32 MESZ

To: Jack & Sue White , John Lear , Jim Fetzer

Subject: John Lear on Pilots Forum

I've just started reading through the thread Lawson started on John Lear, and found this, which is Rob Balsam (Extreme Pilot), which probably explains why he hasn't replied to my email:

Extreme Pilot

Group: Valued Member
Posts: 3,160
Joined: 30-March 07
Member No.: 875

QUOTE (forthetrees @ Jul 19 2009, 07:35 PM)

I'm way over my head here, but I do have a question or three. Assuming Mr. Lear is correct in all of his facts and analysis on flight dynamics/physics (which I have no problem assuming), then:

1) isn't the main importance of his affirmation the fact that it shows the official story is incorrect? If so, then it's not necessary to go a step beyond that to support the demand for a new, full investigation.

2) rather than proving "no planes" isn't it possible to work backwards from Mr. Lear's description of the flight dynamics/physics involved and describe the type of aircraft & engines it would take to physically accomplish the task of hitting the WTC at those speeds & altitude with that degree of precision?

3) if all of Mr. Lear's information is correct, then doesn't that make the official verision of AA 77 at the Pentagon immensley more impossible?

Thanks.

1. yes
2. yes
3. probably, yes, too.

I am going to ignore Lawson's contributions. He has been banned from the site, I think, and it is obvious why. There seem to be plenty of people who accept John's arguments, and I haven't found any disagreement yet that seems to be coming from a competent person.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Morrissey

Date: 26. September 2009 09:45:59 MESZ

To: Jack & Sue White , John Lear , Jim Fetzer

Subject: John Lear on Pilots Forum

They have moved my post from "Lobby" to "Alternative Theories," where there has been one response (unsubstantial and not worth repeating). I see there have been other topics posted on John, one by Anthony Lawson, which I have not read through yet, but I will try to keep this one focused on the arguments in his two recent letters and the affidavit, all of which I copied in the post. If any of you are in the forum, you might want to join in, in order to keep the topic up front, but if you do please stick to the facts or you will be contributing to the distraction game. I am trying to insist that John's arguments be dealt with as such, without consideration of other things he may have said about moon landings, aliens, or holograms. This is not easy. If I get anything reasonable, I will post it here so that John can see it and respond.

Wish me luck.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Morrissey

Date: 25. September 2009 17:30:07 MESZ

To: Jack & Sue White , John Lear , Jim Fetzer
Subject: Re: how do real aircraft crash parts look?

I have posted a new topic on the Pilots forum ("Lobby") entitled "John Lear on speed and parts," asking what the reaction has been to the arguments he made in his affidavit and in the two recent letters he sent around recently to us. I copied all three items in the post. I hope I will get some reactions. If I do, I'll pass them on.