CIA Pilot Presents Evidence that No Planes Hit Twin Towers on 9/11

 (22 July 2016)

Ex-CIA and commercial jet pilot John Lear claims that the Twin Towers were not bought to the ground by planes crashing into them on 9/11, and now detailed information has been posted online corroborating his account.

In Lear’s expert opinion the official claim that two planes crashed into the towers is actually “physically impossible.”

The grandson of Learjet founder Bill Lear, John Lear is a retired airline captain and former CIA pilot who has flown over 100 different types of plane during 40 years of active flying. He holds more FAA airman certificates than any other FAA certified pilot, and has flown secret CIA missions in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Basically, you don’t want to argue with John Lear about flying and planes. He is as close as you can come to being American intelligence and aerospace aristocracy.

9/11 Plane Hoax explains his theories.


We are supposed to believe that both planes were entirely inside the towers, with no pieces showing. A Boeing 767 is 156 feet wide and 159 feet long. The distance from: the outer perimeter of the North Tower at the alleged point of contact by AA Flight 11, to: the central 47 massive inner core beams that are cross-braced is 60 feet. The distance from: the outer surface of the South Tower at the alleged point of contact by UA Flight 175, to: the core structure of that building was 37 feet. The differential in length in relation to the North Tower with respect to plane length and a building length that is measured in terms of the distance to the core structure is about 99 feet. The differential length for the South Tower is approximately 122 feet. A 767 is 159 feet long so most of the plane has got to be outside of the tower in both cases since there is simply no room for the entire length of the plane to crumple into. Why didn’t we see 99 feet of AA Flight 11 sticking out of the North Tower or broken off, crumpled up, and/or crumbling to the ground below? Why didn’t we see 122 feet of UA Flight 175 sticking out of the South Tower or crumpled up, and/or crumbling to the WTC plaza below?

There is no plane or plane wreckage at all to be seen in the hole of either tower in any video or photos.

Of course, as per Lear’s theory, there are no planes to be seen in the holes of either tower or on the street below because there were no real planes.

We would expect a sharp deceleration as the plane crumpled to fit into the 60 feet of space (North Tower, Flight 11) and 35 feet of space (South Tower, Flight 175) from the perimeter to the central steel core. Instead, in the videos, both planes enter the towers entirely at uniform motion.

John Lear 9/11

A Boeing 767 is 156 feet wide. The width of the hole in the South Tower was 106 feet wide and the width of the hole in the North Tower was 125 feet wide. 50 feet of the Boeing 767 that allegedly struck the South Tower cannot fit into the size of the hole that is in the North Tower…a hole that was supposedly created by a Boeing 767 with a wingspan of 156 feet. 31 feet of the Boeing 767 that is said to have hit the North Tower cannot fit into the size of the hole that is in the North Tower…a hole that was supposedly created by a Boeing 767 with a wingspan of 156 feet. Some people may say that the wings of the Boeings merely folded back as the aluminum portion of the wings came in contact with the exterior steel columns. However we can see this is not what happens in the videos. Even so the aluminum wings would not neatly fold back they would be torn off.

Twin towers torsion

Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” High school physics states that the force an airplane exerts on a building is the same as the force a building exerts on an airplane. Let’s apply Newton’s Third Law to Flight 175. In the 9/11 story, Flight 175 strikes the South Tower at 450 m.p.h. Now imagine that the South Tower moved at 450 m.p.h. and struck a stationary Flight 175. We would not expect that Flight 175 would be undamaged. We would not expect that it would simply disappear into the South Tower. Any video that shows an aluminum airplane with a fiberglass nose cone gliding through a steel and concrete building violates Newton’s Laws of Motion.

9/11 no planes

The above diagram shows that Flight 175 was intersecting with eight (8) floors that consisted of steel trusses connected at one end to the core columns and to the external support columns at the other, where each floor was covered with 4-8” of concrete, representing an acre of concrete apiece and posing enormous horizontal resistance to any airplane’s penetration into the building.

In the impact videos, notably the Hezarkhani, Luc Courchesne, Spiegel TV and Evan Fairbanks videos we see what we are told is a plane cartoonishly pass through the steel face of the tower like a ghost. As the alleged plane makes contact with the tower there is no bending, buckling or breaking of the plane. No wings breaking or other parts of the plane breaking apart. This is impossible. It is cartoon physics. It melts into the side of the tower like a knife through butter. A passenger jet is a hollow aluminum and plastic tube which is highly vulnerable to impacts with flying birds. The “plane” we are told is Flight 175 is depicted as being simultaneously both half in the South Tower and still completely intact, a pair of buildings made with 200,000 tons of steel each. When the tip of the plane’s fuselage hits the steel exterior of the South Tower the fuselage should be breaking up. That would cause the wings to break off.

From the holes left in both towers after “impact” we are supposed to believe the wings sliced clean through the 14 inch steel beams but this is simply impossible. The fragile mostly hollow aluminum wings would not slice through all the 14 inch steel box columns of the WTC towers and leave a Wylie Coyote style hole. An airplane wing can be sliced in half by a wooden telephone pole:

Aluminum plane wings will not cut through 14 inch steel regardless of speed and weight. Not only is it impossible for the wings to have cut through the steel columns but it is absolutely impossible for the fragile wing tips to have also cut through the steel columns.

Twin towers hoax

9/11 truth

9/11 John lear

The wings would break off immediately upon contact and the plane would explode. It would not enter the tower and then explode. The plane would simply be obliterated to pieces by the 14 inch steel box columns and the steel and concrete floor trusses before it got anywhere near the inside of the tower.

9/11 plane

Newton’s First Law of Motion: “A body remains at rest or in motion with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.” The plane did not slow down as it made contact with the tower. How can the plane fly at the same speed through the steel/concrete face of the tower as it did through the air? This is impossible. The “plane” also violates Newton’s First Law.

9/11 CNN

9/11 hoax

WTC 9/11 plane

The hole that wasn't there 9/11

9/11 impossible


Apart from one or two props placed there like a bit of tire and a bit of engine…parts that didn’t even match a Boeing 767 and like the laughable bit of engine on the Pentagon lawn there were no real plane parts or debris to be seen and no black boxes were ever found at ground zero. In reality, if a plane had hit the tower it would have crushed up like a car hitting a wall and its wings would have broken off and the majority of the plane would have fallen to the street below. The street below would have been littered with plane debris and the charred remains of the passengers yet it wasn’t because there was no plane.


FAA Regulation 121 requires a comprehensive investigation of all crashes of scheduled commercial flights yet there are no official crash reports on the 4 incidents because there were no planes.


Experienced commercial and military pilots have stated that the speed and manoeuvres of the planes that hit the World Trade Center are impossible to have happened. They state they could not replicate the alleged flights themselves. Two experienced pilots using flight simulators on the morning of 9/11 could not hit towers at 500 mph in six attempts. In reality a 767 fly can not fly that fast at sea level. Pilots For 9/11 Truth state that the speed and sharp manoeuvres would have resulted in the plane breaking up from the stress on the aircraft frame due to the the speed and air pressure. It would be extremely difficult for the pilot to actually hit the tower even if the wings didn’t break off due to the stress.

9/11 debunked

Capt. Russ Wittenberg is a former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Capt. Russ Wittenberg is a unique individual in that he had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft Flight 93 and Flight 175.

This is what he has to say:

Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07:

“I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower.

I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s.

And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.”

Article 7/17/05:

“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”…

“I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower.

I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.”

“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.

“The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall.

The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous…

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building.

There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.”


In all of the footage the alleged planes hitting the twin towers clearly do not look real. The planes have a computer generated appearance. In the different footage we see the planes changing shape and color, missing wings, are featureless and blurred. Pilot John Lear made the observation that the plane has no strobe lights. The plane also casts no shadow.

9/11 vanishing wing

9/11 plane no shadow


According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.

Although flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS. The flight that was labelled flight 11 by air traffic control was 10 miles from Manhattan at 8:46am. If flights AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then there are only two planes, not four, to be accounted for. Investigators who have checked the tail numbers for the planes which departed as UA 93 and UA 175 on 9/11 (namely N591UA and N612UA respectively) believe that these planes are still in service. If so, and if AA 11 and AA 77 never existed, then the number of Boeing 757s and 767s destroyed on 9/11 was not four, as the US government maintains, but rather zero.

Both UA 175, plane number N612UA and UA 93, plane number N591UA, were “still registered and valid more than 4 years after [their] alleged destruction.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth, have confirmed that United 175 received a message at least twenty minutes after it allegedly crashed into the World Trade Center. This proves that the flight never smashed into the Center but instead flew for some time that day, a point advanced in the book ‘Planes Without Passengers: The Faked Hijackings of 9/11’.


Most people in the 9/11 Truth community accept that no planes were used at the Pentagon and Shanksville; the evidence shows no real planes were used for the towers either.

9/11 pentagon no plane

9/11 smoking gun

In conclusion we can be 100% certain the planes were not real. Apart from defying the laws of physics with impossible crash dynamics the planes do not even look real. The question is: are the planes digital composites (CGI) inserted into real video or is it a 3D projected image using advanced technology not known to the public? Richard D Hall’s 3D radar data analysis has confirmed that the trajectory of the “planes” in all the videos match up with the radar data. If video fakery was used i.e the planes were digital composites, the question can be asked why would they go to the trouble of making sure all the “plane” videos match up with the radar data but do such a poor job of rendering the planes which look like poor quality CGI, Why does the wing momentarily disappear in six different videos? This is a still from the Hezarkhani video showing a digital composite plane on the top and the original “plane” from the Hezarkhani video underneath:

[Editor’s note: Several links cited here have been broken or the videos to which they link deleted. Here is Richard D. Hall’s 9/11 Flight 175 Radar 3D Analysis, which I regard as completely brilliant and on target:

The digital composite plane looks more realistic. Here is a video showing how easy it is to create a digital composite plane and insert it into real video. Here is another example of a digital composite plane inserted into the Evan Fairbanks video.  Why would they create such poor quality CGI planes that look different in different videos? If the planes were a digital composite it should look the same in every video. Based on Richard D Hall’s radar data analysis (, the witness testimony and the fact the left wing disappears in 4 videos and the right wing in 2 videos the evidence points to the plane being a 3D projection. Richard D Hall believes there may have been a solid object, probably a small missile at the centre of the “illusion”, with an image of a Boeing 767 being projected around it.


The holographic projector displays a three-dimensional visual image in a desired location, removed from the display generator. The projector can be used for psychological operations and strategic perception management. It is also useful for optical deception and cloaking, providing a momentary distraction when engaging an unsophisticated adversary.”

This technology was reported in the media before 9/11 pertaining to military psychological operations (PSYOPS).

Washington Post

“When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing”

By William M. Arkin

February 1, 1999

A few notable quotes (emphasis added):

According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.

… has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The “Holographic Projector” is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to “project information power from space … for special operations deception missions.

[Editor’s note: Once again, John Lear and I are in complete agreement, where I have a page from an Australian military manual for an “Airborn Holographic Projector” of the kind that appears to have been used on 9/11. For more, see “9/11: Who was responsible and why” and visit Scholars for 9/11 Truth web site at]


Baxter Dmitry

Baxter Dmitry is a writer at News Punch. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.
Follow: @baxter_dmitry


Please follow and like us:

19 thoughts on “CIA Pilot Presents Evidence that No Planes Hit Twin Towers on 9/11”

  1. Pingback: Airplane Twin Towers - Aircraft impact Design for Twin Towers Metabunk
  2. Pingback: CIA Pilot Presents Evidence that No Planes Hit Twin Towers … – Bugaluu
  3. Pingback: CIA Pilot Presents Evidence that No Planes Hit Twin Towers … – Poster – 9
  4. My late father was a aviation fireman and was British train in the pre- independence Bahamas. Graduated top of his class in the mid fifties. I was visiting him and my Mum on holiday when 911 was orchestrated and as we sat watching the repeat footage of this worldwide hoax my father looked at me and said ‘Flying beer cans don’t cut steel ‘ and jet fuel don’t burn down concrete buildings. He was a man of little words ,but what he saw infuriated him to state to everyone he met that this event was not real.

    1. I fully agree except the comparison (which I used to use myself) of a flying beer can. I did a bit of research lately and found that a soda can or beer can is actually about 1/50th the thickness of an airplane skin. I think it’s still a valid comparison, as even 50 beer cans put together could not penetrate steel, but a caveat should be included.

  5. September 11th, 2001 could be written as 911 … Some interesting Connections can be made in the Language of Gematria … In the Jewish Cipher … we connect … “Al Qaeda Terrorist Attack” = 911 = “Symbolic Epicenter” = 911 = “Freemasonic Symbol” = 911 = “Holographic Reality” = 911 = “Hoax by M.S.M.” = 911 = “Mind Control Operations” = 911 = “Mainstream Media Blackouts” = 911 = “Date of Terror Storm” = 911 = “American Bullseye” = 911 = “C.I.A. Terror Protocols” = 911 = “Prison Punishment” = 911 = “Q has it All Symbol” = 911 = “W.E.F.” = 911 <<< World Economic Forum ? The Date Numerology of 911 [9 + 11 + 20 + 01 ] = 41 = "Al Qaeda" = 41 = "Bibi's Code" = 41 <<< 13th Prime Number … "C.I.A." = 13 … The Date Numerology could also be expressed as [9 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 0 + 0 + 1] = 14 = "U.S." = 14 = "Dead" = 14 <<< Write 14 Out … "Fourteen" = 104 = "Israeli Op" = 104 <<< Ten-Four Good Buddy ! …

  6. Why do 98+% of Americans believe that 911 and Sandy Hook were real events as reported? Because they hate to think and they love juicy stories. It gets them all excited with something to talk about and have some emotion…..endlessly.

    Plus the politicians are just as stupid or fearful to reveal the TRUTH.

    The US is a failed nation and this is what happens when the people are entertained by bread and circuses. Add to that the fact that few people have any critical thinking skills….therefore its easy to fool them with silly goofy stories.

  7. OK, NO PLANES – but WHO did 911, and WHY?
    See Attachment for the WHO.
    WHY? Super Zionist Slimeball “Lucky” Larry Silverstein asked NUTSOyahoo to do him a FAVOR – REALLY – and the Mossad obliged! [as simple as that].


    1. Did you miss the link to “9/11: Who was responsible and why” (at the start and at the end)? Check it out. There’s no doubt.

      1. I’m legally blind and reading long articles is just about impossible. I know that the CIA and many others were also involved – especially in the still-on-going COVER-UP [EVERY CONgress CRITTER, president and member of the MEDIA, just for starters]. Others also benefited from 911. My comments focus on the Primary agent and Primary reason – that’s a judgment call. Can you comment here briefly on the WHO and WHY? Thanks!

      2. Of course! 9/11 appears to have originated in the fertile mind of Bibi Netanyahu to devise a plan to draw American forces into the Middle East to take out the modern Arab states that served as a counter-balance to Israel’s domination of the entire region and eventually to confront the Persian nation of Iran. It was stopped in Syria by the intervention of Russian and Iranian forces at the request of its (democratically elected, not dictator) President, Bashar al-Assad, who has the support of 80%+ of the Syrian people. It was aided and abetted by Zionists and Neocons in the US, most of whom are dual US-Israeli citizens, including elements of the CIA. Check out my video, “9/11: Who was responsible and why”, which I think (vision permitting) you will like a lot. And let me know if I was right:

      3. Thanks for your comments and video link, Jim. I listened to about 1 1/2 hours and I’m convinced that your 911 analysis and conclusions are correct. We know that Bibi [Israel and Zionists/NeoCONS] and Larry S. benefited greatly from 911. Bibi and Larry are very close and of the same ilk. It is likely that the sinister 911 plot resulted from close collaboration of 2 evil minds! ALL politicians [among many others] since Bush-it bear some responsibility for the 911 COVER-UP!

  8. Hey Jim…FYI… a bunch of blank squares with little question marks in the middle appear where I think there are supposed to be pictures or other content. Don’t know if it’s just me seeing these.

    Any-who… I have heard John Lear’s input before and quite familiar with Russ’s take on the impossibility of planes eve being flown the way they say, let alone taking buildings down. In my view the planes colliding were Fx. As I have said here before, I was on the deck building crew constructing a high rise and on the column and wall crew for two others and the stair crew for yet another during summers off from college. I know these structures down to the marrow. My buildings would laugh at planes running into them. I picture a plane collision with my buildings being comparable to crushing a beer can under my foot. The trouble is people being shown the scam plane collision videos a thousand times. Overcoming that programming is a tall order. Especially when you run into people that claim to be nearby on that fateful day. The chilling story I heard in person from a man Cantor Fitzgerald was attempting to lure away from a rival firm at WTC. They offered him a significant bump in pay to jump ship. He couldn’t put his finger on why he turned down the offer, it was a “Spidey Sense” moment if you will. He was in the second tower to be hit by whatever it was and left immediately after the first tower was “hit”. He said something about an intercom telling them to stay put, which he ignored. Every last person at Cantor Fitzgerald was killed that day!

    1. Do a refresh. Those are (probably) videos that take longer to upload. Should be OK. Let me know. Excellent commentary about Cantor Fitz.

      1. No luck on the refresh, still blank outline with the title on everything but these two… There are two videos that are there labeled “Can a Boeing 767…” and “911 Flight Data 175…” those play fine. on on a MAC Book Air with 10.12.6 OS version. Perhaps I don’t have the newest flash version. I’m an analogue man in a digital world.

      2. Try a different browser. If you are on Chrome, try Safari. If you are on Safari, try Firefox. One or another should work. I use Chrome on a Mac, which works fine.

    2. Exactly Dave. I moved to Harlem a month later and was attending classes at Columbia and met many New Yorkers who would admit in a second that this event and storyline stunk like the East River. Don’t get me started on the first responders and fireman that have died from cancers and unknown illnesses.

  9. Many of us have known this almost from the beginning. The overwhelming evidence in this article just put more icing on the cake. Yet, there are still those who actually believe planes hit the towers and the Pentagon. I would defy anyone to present evidence otherwise. Double dog dare ya!


Leave a Reply