It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why there were no planes at the WTC

page: 13
2
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Originally posted by stealth knife




John, I have to ask, why do you say "no 757 in pennsylvania" on ATS. But on LIVE RADIO you say the "757 was shot down by an F-16"??


If you've followed "questions For John Lear" there was a question about why I don't write a book and the answer was "because this week I may think that the Shanksville 757 was shot down by an F-16 but several years from now I might think that there was no 757 shot down at all." I'm only locked into a theory until I get locked into the next one.


You also say on LIVE RADIO


Is there another kind? ((Jack Nicholson, 'A Few Good Men')


that most of Flight 93's pieces were found 5 miles away from the crash site. Then now on ATS you say "no identifiable pieces in the crater". Well... huh? Which is it? Plane? Or no plane?


Right now its no plane.


Also you say you haven't seen any identifiable objects come from pennsylvania. Doesn't that mean you have no clue what you are talking about because of your lack of knowledge? Here are some picture you haven't seen from Pennsylvania...

www.amny.com...

John, are these all holograms?[/b


No these aren't holograms. These are about 200+ pounds of scrap. Where is the rest of it?




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Lets see here: 1 wheeldrum. 1 side window section which doesn't appear to have been crushed by vertical impact of 500 mph. 1 3ft. section of skin. Total Approx. Weight: 210 pounds. 219,790 pounds to go.


Now I know now for a fact this is BS, that first picture is not a wheel drum, it is the compressor from the engine that has been compacted down do to hitting the ground. Look at his diameter in comparison to the shovel next to it. Besides this it is facing the wrong direction to be a wheel, not only is it turned sideways, but since the plane hit the ground with the gear up, it should be perpendicular to the ground, not parallel to it.

Also any parson that has been around commercial aircraft KNOWS that a 757 wheel drum weighs more then 210 lbs, any wheel parts are EXTREAMLY heavy and often used to ballast weight aircraft. They weigh closer to 1K lbs per wheel, with the entire assembly. Even just the rubber wheel weighs over 210 lbs. Being a ramp supervisor for years I know this for a fact as I have had to help lift more wheel parts then I ever care to remember.

If the “Truth Movement” is so legitimate, why do they keep resorting to OUT_RIGHT lying?

[edit on 10/3/2006 by defcon5]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Yeah, John, how 'bout that?

But let's be candid. John admits that he has no inside knowlege. Yet he professes to have some kinda knowledge.

I taught an M-60 machine-gun course at Nellis some years ago and I still have no idea of what went on in Area 51. 'T'wasn't my place t'be, I suppose.

Make of that what you will...



[edit on 3-10-2006 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

If you've followed "questions For John Lear" there was a question about why I don't write a book and the answer was "because this week I may think that the Shanksville 757 was shot down by an F-16 but several years from now I might think that there was no 757 shot down at all." I'm only locked into a theory until I get locked into the next one.


So, you finally admit that you don't know Jack Squat more than the rest of us Jack Squats , Johnny?! Color me impressed!

Good on ya! Finally. Welcome to ATS, John Lear.


EDIT to replace a rude word with an even better word.


[edit on 3-10-2006 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

If you've followed "questions For John Lear" there was a question about why I don't write a book and the answer was "because this week I may think that the Shanksville 757 was shot down by an F-16 but several years from now I might think that there was no 757 shot down at all." I'm only locked into a theory until I get locked into the next one.


So basically you LIED on LIVE RADIO, and pretended to have "secret knowledge" of 9-11 when you really didn't. So, anything you say will now be considered a basically senseless (b.s.) opinion.



Originally posted by johnlear
Is there another kind?


It's called prerecorded radio. They do it a lot when they are afraid of making mistakes and want to start over.



Originally posted by johnlear
Right now its no plane.


Sometimes, when you speak, you make it seem like you have outside sources giving you the information. Since you pretend to be a "famous" person, with friends in the right places, you should be careful about expressing your basically senseless (b.s.) opinion.


Originally posted by johnlear
No these aren't holograms. These are about 200+ pounds of scrap. Where is the rest of it?


HERE:


HERE:


HERE:


MANY PLACES... It actually burnt down a few trees...




posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Holograms sure can't do that.


Seriously John, what persuaded you to go from the previous theory you believed that the passenger plane was shot down?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear


If you've followed "questions For John Lear" there was a question about why I don't write a book and the answer was "because this week I may think that the Shanksville 757 was shot down by an F-16 but several years from now I might think that there was no 757 shot down at all." I'm only locked into a theory until I get locked into the next one.

Well Jesus H Christ John thanks for clouding the waters a wee bit more in regards to 9-11. The reason why there will never be justice in regards to 9-11 is cause of people like you, theories not based on fact, and the unwillingness to accept what evidence really is.

Let me get this straight, you believe wholeheartedly in one theory, untill a new one comes along, so why should I believe any of the B.S. you spew? I've watched you hurt the Conspiracy movement in damn near every single one of your threads. It's no secret all CTers get lumped into the same boat. And it royally pisses me off when I try to talk about a conspiracy based in reality, and someone lumps me in with the "uber space ships orbiting saturn" crowd. Thanks to you for that.

John, why don't you tell me something. What's the point in debating these half baked theories in regards to 9-11, if the theory can't be proven or backed up in a courtroom? It's a distraction is what it is, and while you and the other koolaide drinkers are eating this pile of bull excrement up, you're not paying attention to the things that can be proven, the evidence that would stand up in a courtroom.

From what I've seen on this site a majority of the 9-11 CTers don't really want justice at all. All they want to do is slander people for political reasons, the whole time letting the ones behing the attack walk away unscathed. This is why the "Truth Movement" will never ever prevail, and why the perpetrators are probably laughing at all of you right now. Hence my signature.

You tell me John, what do these UNPROVEABLE theories do for the movement?

To the rest of you that were telling me to be civil, why don't you go tell that to the assbag calling me a DoD operative in every damn post? I play by YOUR rules, you take a shot at me, expect one to come back, so preach to your own side would ya?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:27 PM
link   
This john lear is a supposed expert??? where do i sign up for my expert status?



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Originally posted by defcon5



Now I know now for a fact this is BS, that first picture is not a wheel drum, it is the compressor from the engine that has been compacted down do to hitting the ground. Look at his diameter in comparison to the shovel next to it. Besides this it is facing the wrong direction to be a wheel, not only is it turned sideways, but since the plane hit the ground with the gear up, it should be perpendicular to the ground, not parallel to it.


You're right. My error. One Engine.


Also any parson that has been around commercial aircraft KNOWS that a 757 wheel drum weighs more then 210 lbs, any wheel parts are EXTREAMLY heavy and often used to ballast weight aircraft. They weight closer to 1K lbs per wheel, with the entire assembly. Even just the rubber wheel weighs over 210 lbs. Being a ramp supervisor for years I know this for a fact as I have had to help lift more wheel parts then I ever care to remember.



If the “Truth Movement” is so legitimate, why do they keep resorting to OUT_RIGHT lying?


Misidentification of a part is not exactly OUT_RIGHT lying but you are correct, that does look like an engine.

Correction: One engine. One 3 or 4 foot section of a window section that does not look compressed by a 500 mph dive straight into the ground. One piece of painted aluminum.

OK. Lets assume they found both engines. Where is the wing structure they are attached to, in particular I am interested in the center section of the wing (the wing box) which carries the load of the the wing and the fuselage? It is extremely thick and assuming the engine went only that deep or maybe a little deeper where is the wing box? Now if thats the engine, lets assume that the wing box dug itself a little deeper. Where is the aft fuselage, vertical and horizontal stabilizer? Assuming the airplane didn't go straight in tail first we should be seeing large parts of the aft fuselage and tail. Both the tail , the horizontal and vertical are fairly big items made out of very thick aluminum with some composite. They can't just vaporize into thin air.

Small collection of parts. Certainly not enough to be a Boeing 757.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I really don't understand how "John Lear" could believe such a solid, well thought out, provable, explanation such as Flight 93 being shot down by an F-16. Then just switch his beliefs to a incredibly stupid, debunked, evidence-less theory such as "holograms".

John Lear, did someone threaten your life? Are you purposely trying to spew out nonsense to discredit all the other 911 CT's?

Please explain HOW and WHAT made you change your mind. What evidence, or lack of, was it that made you switch?

John you have to understand, there are VERY FEW pictures of the Flight 93 crash site. No one was allowed to photograph it realy.... so may I ask what photographs you base your theory on?


Also.. why cant we get back on subject, and debunk the "hologram theory" of WTC 1 and 2, like I already have....?



[edit on 3-10-2006 by stealth knife]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Now now, WithoutEqual, John's doing the best he can --- just like the rest of us.

John-O,
Generically speaking,

What do you think of those who deny the obvious in order to cling to their own ideas of what might have been?

Do you think that a stubburn person is a stupid person? Is the term "idiot" neccessarily a pejorative term, or could it ever be a "wake-up-call" type o' term of endearment? Could you -- would you -- ever tell someone that you love that they're bein' "stupid"? Would you, honestly now, think less of yerself for telling them what you believe to be the Truth?

I'm guessing that you'd say, "Noooo, of course not!". Y'gotta be true!

Well, that brings us here, doen't it?

John, my friend, I really wonder about you. I can see myself in 30 years and entertaining all get out of gubmint conspiracies but, sheesh. I hope I'm never as cynical as you seem to be. But, at the same time, I hope that cynics are everywhere around me; forever challenging my inate trust and hope the mankind is, at heart, good.


[Mod Edit: Insult removed - Jak]

[edit on 4/10/06 by JAK]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Is it possible to have a discussion in a 9/11 thread without things always turning sour? Not to mention the actual topic has been lost a few pages back. So you dont do or don't believe the hologram theory,just leave it at that. No need to drag out why some one is crazy,a sheep,blind,etc. for believing/not believing something.All it does is detract from the op's topic.

Seems like respect for one another's beliefs/opinions these days is almost non-existent.Respect goes a long way if you let it.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:53 PM
link   
spanish caravan,
The actual topic was debunked and dealth with many pages back. We're entertaining ourselves with other things now.


John,
Y'still haven't answered my question. Have y'ever read Eric Hoffer? And, if so, what'd ya think of his thesis?

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Well when there is overwhelming evidence that the hologram theory is impossible, yet people still believe it, and they deny the evidence. There is only one place for the single sided "debate" to go, that is sour.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Originally posted by stealth knife



I really don't understand how "John Lear" could believe such a solid, well thought out, provable, explanation such as Flight 93 being shot down by an F-16. Then just switch his beliefs to a incredibly stupid, debunked, evidence-less theory such as "holograms".


Now, now, stealth knife lets not mix apples with oranges. There were no holograms involved in Flight 93 at Shanksville nor did I say there were. Holograms was a theory put forth by brainsucker on the WTC that I thought deserved some input which I gave.


John Lear, did someone threaten your life? Are you purposely trying to spew out nonsense to discredit all the other 911 CT's?


No one has ever threatened my life.


Please explain HOW and WHAT made you change your mind. What evidence, or lack of, was it that made you switch?


If you are talking about Shanksville Flight 93, the picture of the hole into which Flight 93 supposedly crashed completely changed my mind from Flight 93 being shot down by an F-16. I can look at the picture of that smoking hole and say with all honesty and integrity, "No Boeing 757 crashed into that hole." And like everyone else on this thread I don't have the slightest idea what the real truth may be. I am giving an opinion which is good for this post only. Tomorrow, who knows, I may be back to the F-16 theory but tonight, its "No Boeing 757 in the smoking hole at Shanksville."


John you have to understand, there are VERY FEW pictures of the Flight 93 crash site. No one was allowed to photograph it realy.... so may I ask what photographs you base your theory on?


My theory is an opinion base on looking at large aircraft crashes for better than 40 years. It is an opinion only. I have built airplanes, I have worked on them, I have flown them, I have crawled around inside them and lived with them for 64 years. At one time airplanes were the only things I thought about other than sex. I am retired now and I don't even look up in the sky anymore (but I still think about sex). But I do have an opinion, and an opinion is all that it is. And that opinion which is good for this post only is that no Boeing 757 crashed into that hole in Shanksville.


Also.. why cant we get back on subject, and debunk the "hologram theory" of WTC 1 and 2, like I already have....?


Debunk? Debunk the 'hologram theory'? Now wait just a minute here.....



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Although I have my own questions regarding Mr. Lear's intentions, what say we quit Lear-bashing and finish this holographic business as best we can.

-WTC-

1. Holograms do not cast shadows. We clearly see shadows before impact.
2. Holograms do not have the ability to reflect light. Various footage of the planes show glare from the plane's cockpit window.
3. Holograms do not come equipped with sound. My own earlier sarcasm aside, no theory has been presented to account for the presence and "travelling" of engine sounds.
4. Despite earlier misunderstandings, whether they were intentional or not, we clearly see impact damage in frame-by-frame review.
5. We can see the remains of the plane exiting the other side of the building, obviously post-impact.
6. Plane wreckage is clearly pictured in and around Ground Zero. This will never be conclusive, since the claim can always be made that it was planted; but the fact remains that wreckage is there so its existence cannot be denied.
7. Numerous eyewitness accounts, along with numerous videos and images, show the planes, and for the most part they are not transparent. The "transparency" is only striking while viewing through less-than-amazing footage, and again the plane is moving at several hundred miles per hour; motion blur is hardly a new phenomenon.

-Pentagon-

1. Some above points apply here: witnesses, wreckage, etc.
2. Light poles are knocked down; there's debate about why the poles don't seem to match the plane's direction, but the poles didn't knock themselves down, and holograms weren't the culprit either.
3. Official statements confirm that the passengers on Flight 77 were identified by their remains. Either this is a lie or it isn't, but in the interest of responsibility it's all we've got to mention regarding the victims thus must be remembered.

-Flight 93-

1. Holograms do not create holes in the ground. The official site of 93's crash is a large hole replete with debris.
2. I believe some (maybe all, if you're in the know correct me) victims were identified by DNA testing on their remains.
3. A large scatter pattern of debris is not fantastic considering the nature of the crash: speed, trajectory, etc.

Just in weighing the realistic information we've put together, the hologram theory seems quite less likely than probably any other theory I've seen, since it relies on speculative technology and substandard video.

I wasn't buying into this to begin with, but a few sharp-thinkers brought some good stuff in here which clearly removes this as a responsible theory.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
You're right. My error. One Engine.


I can see were that might be mistaken for the break assembly of an aircraft other then the angle and size.


Originally posted by johnlear
Misidentification of a part is not exactly OUT_RIGHT lying but you are correct, that does look like an engine.


What about your weights that are far off of what a commercial pilot should know? I cannot just accept that as a typo, sounds more like your experience has been with small aircraft and not with anything along the lines of a 757 or 767. With that in mind I hope you don’t mind my asking:

What do you do on a commercial aircraft before adding or removing ground power? Not what switches do you hit or anything that specific, but rather there is one specific thing that a pilot should always do…

What does the Torsion Link on a B727 do?

What are the BIN numbers on an MD-80?

What US manufactured commercial Narrowbody Jet Aircraft has the smallest balance area on a spin chart?

What are the major assemblies to a wheel assembly?

What does it mean if a ramp agent puts his hand to his neck and motions across it in a slicing motion?

What two US manufactured Widebody aircraft have to loaded and unloaded in a specific order, what is the order, and why?

I hope you understand that many of us that have been on here awhile fought with a lot of scams that were simply people trying to make money off the misery of 9/11. I personally gave up on it after awhile, as it was an ongoing frustration, and made me dread the idea of even logging on.

I know what you say your qualifications are, but if there are any licenses you hold that an average person with a decent income cannot acquire I must have missed those. I worked with the training personnel for Bar Harbor Airlines, who used to fly training flights out of TPA, and I know the expense and training even a commuter pilot goes through before ever getting behind the yoke. Saying that you hold a Commercial Rating does not mean that you are a Commercial Airline Pilot, it simply means that you can fly for money. All flight instructors, crop dusters, and air tourist pilots have to hold this kind of rating, its really not a hard license to acquire, and certainly does not make someone a commercial airline pilot.

The questions above are not common knowledge, I think they would be hard to find online, don’t give away anything that is considered sensitive, and should be known by anyone that has worked around commercial aircraft, so if you could answer them it would go a long way in helping me believe you are who you say you are.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I need to express my disagreement here. I firmly believe a large passenger airline struck the Pentagon. I tend to think the manner in which it was flown/controlled is very different than "the official story", but a large airliner it was.


With all due respect SO you do not know what you are talking about. No Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon.


Why are we all still here? Coz if that ain't the definitive answer we've all been waiting five years for, then I don't know what will satisfy you people.


Man, you mean this guy is a respected (or at least famous) conspiracy theorist...Really?...Why?

What has he added to this debate?

Evidence, John, evidence.

The absence of evidence might not be the evidence of absence, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution and you're the one saying the government is guilty.

And you've got a long way to go before you place a reasonable doubt in my mind.

edit: quotes

[edit on 4-10-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Originally posted by defcon5



I cannot just accept that as a typo, sounds more like your experience has been with small aircraft and not with anything along the lines of a 757 or 767.


I hold Airline Transport Rating #1455891 with Multiengine Land and Sea, Rotorcraft Helicopter, Rotorcraft Gyroplane and 23 type ratings: Boeing 707-720, Boeing 727, DC-8, Lockheed L-1011, Lockheed Constellation, Douglas B-26, Douglas DC-3, Grumman Gulfstream 159, Convair 240-340-440, Hawker-Siddley 125, Learjet, Boeing B-17, Martin 202-404, Grumman TBM, Lockheed P-38, North American B-25 and Ford Trimotor. In additon I hold a Flight Engineer Rating for Turbojet aircraft, Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic, Flight Instructor with the following ratings: Airplane, Instrument, Rotorcraft Helicopter, Rotorcraft Gyroplane and Glider. I also hold Control Tower Operator, Flight Navigator and Ground Instructor with the following ratings: Advanced and Instrument. I also hold Parachute Rigger (Backpack) and Aircraft Dispatcher. No FAA certificated airman holds as many FAA Certificates as I do. I was one of 2 honored guests at the 25th Anniversary of the Federal Aviation Administration at OKC in 1983. The other was Bill Conrad who had the most Type Ratings (52). I have flown 122 different types of aircraft including the Lockheed Mach 2 F-104 Starfighter. I have flown in 58 different countries and as Check Airman in the L-1011 for American Trans Air and was the first FAA certificated Check Airman for North Atlantic navigation for that airline. At one time I held 19 speed records including Around The World speed record in the Lear Jet set March 23-26 1966. I flew the largest airplane ever raced at Reno, the Douglas B-26 in 1968. My certificates can be checked at the FAA website. I retired in 1999 with 19,481 hours of which 17,021 hours were Pilot In Command, 3,698 of which were Pilot In Command in the Lockheed L-1011; 15,325 hours of which were in jet aircraft (1,2,3 and 4 engine). 7,712 hours were Pilot In Command on 4 engine jet transports. I know a little about airplanes and this is what I am basing my opinions on in this and other threads.



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
ok -- a quick question

many people here , most notably John Lear , claim that poorly trained , low skill pilots would be incapable of ramming a plane into the ground


two contradictory thoughts spring to mind

first the experiences of japanese ` kamekazi pilts ` during WWII - with < 10 hours yup, 10 hours instruction - they were still able to hit moving targets @ hi speed which were both taking evasive action AND putting up defensive fire .

that is far less " training " than the 9/11 pilots had , and a far more difficult manouver -- they 9/11 pilots hads no distractions -- and a much larger sitting duck target .

the second - sucessfull landings by civilians who have NEVER plown a plane before / or recieved any prior formal training

but still on a handfull of occasions - they have been given a crash course of verbal inatruction only , and guided through landing proceedure

i have only " flown " a small plane once --and that waas a 30 minuite level flight -- but within seconds i " had the hang of it " -- and was able to keep the aircraft at the correct altitude , in trill and on the required heasing -- scucessfully reaching the waypoint from where the reall pilot took over to make the landing

landing i am tild is the hardest part of flight proceedures

so tell me again why it is impossible for people to aim planes into massive structures - on a 1 way trip ?

[edit ] typoes -- must invest in speil chikur


[edit on 4-10-2006 by ignorant_ape]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join