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.

 

help me find fault with John Lear's 911 scenario..?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Your links don't seem to be working.

I think you maybe a little misinformed.

There was no wreckage.

When you watch the planes "hit" the towers what happens to the wings, engines, body of plane????

Did they disintegrate or appear to go INTO the building... well FYI they would have done neither.

I'll say it again, in case you have a trouble understanding...

NO WRECKAGE = NO PLANES

What was it you were saying???





posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExperiencedGhost



The planes that hit the twin towers were remotely controlled (over-riding the pilots, and with software modifications that would permit tight turns that would normally be impossible due to autopilot default limit settings). The remote control was enacted from thousands of miles away.


Ridiculous! The autopilot does NOT "over-ride" pilot inputs, it's the other way around.


One thing is sure, one of the planes was not a liner ! No normal little windows at each side could been seen...


More rubbish. The only pictures of AAL 11 are from the Naudet video. Too far away for detail.

The UAL 175 videos and photos are more common, and the windows are there, it is a normal B767, painted in the United Dark blue/Gray scheme of the time. SOME photos and videos are showing an angle from mostly below, so you won't see any windows. Others are dark, the paint scheme makes it difficult to see the windows sometimes.

"remote control" from thousands of miles away? That is done today, with UAVs specifically designed for the role. BUT, the precision needed to hit a target, in a Kamikaze style? Far too difficult by remote, at those speeds.

The airplanes were flown by Humans, ONBOARD. in suicide attacks. Everything else is pure fantasy.


I won't even comment on ETs on the Moon...not sure how that's relevant to 9/11.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by USER
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Your links don't seem to be working.

I think you maybe a little misinformed.

There was no wreckage.

When you watch the planes "hit" the towers what happens to the wings, engines, body of plane????


He typed his links wrongly.
Try this link

There WAS wreckage.

When they hit the Towers? What do you think kinetic energy is? And momentum? Over 200,000 pounds of mass, moving at least 450 MPH (and I'm being conservative, there). You can perform the physics calculations, if you know how, to determine the amount of force involved.

Tornado-strength winds (say about 200 MPH) have been known to cause wooden 2X4s to penetrate concrete walls. Pieces of straw to penetrate tree trunks.

Look it up......



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The photo's don't look very conclusive do they? One's even got a question mark next to it.

Have you seen Pilots for 911 Truth?

The general consensus there agrees with John Lear on the basis that you can't fly one of those planes at over 500MPH at a thousand ft, as claimed. You can't fly one over about 350MPH at that altitude.

Are we to doubt that all these pilots know what they're on about??

Have you seen "september clues"? The nose out shots?

Furthermore, they never found any "black box" flight recorders that are supposed to be near indestructable - but hey found a paper passport of a so-called hijacker that turned out to be alive an well in the middle east.

Do you think a passport would survive when a black box wouldn't?

No, of course not.

Have you ever seen the photo's of the Lockerbie Bombings wreckage?

Google it.

When an airplane crashes there is wreckage. Lots of wreckage. As seen in the Lockerbie bombing - and that was plastic explosives!

Why do you think building 7 came down? It was nowhere near any of the "action". Did it just decide to fall down - also on a perfect footprint of itself....

No, of course not.

As far as John Lear's comments on aliens and the moon go - We don't know if anyone's really been there. It's certainly debatable but let's not forget - that's not what this thread is about.

And maybe, if they couldn't find any black boxes that was because there weren't any.



[edit on 20-8-2009 by USER]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by USER


The photo's don't look very conclusive do they? One's even got a question mark next to it.


That was just ONE collection of photos. If you did some more investigating you'd see others. Question mark? The only one with the question mark is the seat belt. I KNOW that it is not a passenger lap belt, it is wrong design. Same way I KNOW it isn't a pilot seat belt. SOME F/A jumpseat postions have belt buckles that resemble that one, but so do some cars. However, a close inspection would clear up where it came from, perhaps the "?" was put there until confirmation.


Have you seen Pilots for 911 Truth?


Yes...they make me laugh!


The general consensus there agrees with John Lear on the basis that you can't fly one of those planes at over 500MPH at a thousand ft, as claimed. You can't fly one over about 350MPH at that altitude.



No, what they are attempting to muddy the story with is a LEVEL flight sustained "500MPH". A jet in a descent will pick up a LOT of airspeed, very quickly. Do some research into an incident with a guy named "Hoot" Gibson, back in the TWA days. Their Boeing 727 was in an uncontrolled descent, and exceeded mach 1, something NEVER designed to do.



Are we to doubt that all these pilots know what they're on about??


Not "all" those pilots have experience in large jets --- just look at their bona fides. AND, quite a few back cautiously away from Capt. Lear, and his "hologram" theories!!! The NPT crowd are anathema to most 911 "Deniers".


Have you seen "september clues"? The nose out shots?



September Clues has been roundly debunked.

Here is Part 1a:


Link to see the rest.




Furthermore, they never found any "black box" flight recorders that are supposed to be near indestructable


OH?? Never found "any"? Incorrect. Is this what they've been feeding you?

Here is the Autopilot and Navigation Equipment study from the AA77 and UA93 SSFDRs. AA11's and UA175's were never found. Gee, they were originally installed in the rear of the fuselage --- do you think maybe they came to rest INSIDE the buildings??? They weren't designed to survive 1000s of tons of rubble on top, crushing them.

I'm sorry reading that .pdf may seem challenging to someone not familiar with the B757/767 cockpits. But, I've read through it and it shows quite clearly that someone was sitting in those cockpits and operating controls. On the MCP, on the CDU, and on the Center Pedestal. You can also research those terms, and learn them, if you care to. It wasn't 'remote control', or some other fantastic claim.



- but hey found a paper passport of a so-called hijacker that turned out to be alive an well in the middle east.


It's already been shown that very light-weight items will be ejected from the carnage and chaos of an airplane crash. Look into the crash in Iran last month. Or, the little four-year old girl who was the ONLY survivor out of nearly 200 in a Northwest Airlines crash in Detroit, Michigan in 1987.

Oh, and you don't suppose a lot of Middle eastern men have the same name??


Do you think a passport would survive when a black box wouldn't?

No, of course not.



Already shown to be an incorrect assumption.


Have you ever seen the photo's of the Lockerbie Bombings wreckage?


Yes, of course. What's your point?


When an airplane crashes there is wreckage. Lots of wreckage. As seen in the Lockerbie bombing - and that was plastic explosives!


***sigh*** Very different circumstances. A bomb in a suitcase, structural integrity gone, airplane breaks up in flight and FALLS to Earth, never any faster than terminal velocity (Google it).

Whilst 'googling', look up SwissAir flight 111. Hit the water, high velocity. VERY small pieces, all that were left. No bomb, just an onboard fire and loss of control functions.



Why do you think building 7 came down? It was nowhere near any of the "action". Did it just decide to fall down - also on a perfect footprint of itself....


I don't think Lear mentioned WTC7 much. However, it WAS hit by a substantial amount of debris from the Tower, and was on fire for the entire day. MANY reports of the building sagging, shifting, and fears of its collapse. All they could do was evacuate, and clear a perimeter.

As to "perfect footprint" nonsense...take a look at overhead depictions, and see the extent of the debris trajectories. BUT, in any case, if a building collapses, what do you think has the greatest affect on it? Maybe gravity? Seems like the way things fall, straight down.



As far as John Lear's comments on aliens and the moon go ...... It's certainly debatable but let's not forget - that's not what this thread is about.


Agreed!!! Least said about that, the better.
_____________________________________________
(tags)

[edit on 20 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No, I'm sorry but your half attempts at explaining the situation are exactly that.

The seatbelt has nothing to do with any of those planes.

There was NO wreckage in NY.

They found NO black boxes.

Do you see the wings fall from the planes when you watch the footage of the planes hitting????

No....

...Well you should have. They're only a few millimetres thick and wouldn't have penetrated the buildings. But according to the footage they did.

Debunking of September Clues could be just as much BS as the rest of the footage on the day.

There was no wreckage from the plane (pennsylvania) that was apparently "shot down"... if...... IF, it was shot down, or downed by the passengers there would have been footage. It's as simple as that.

It's complete b*llsh*t.

Come up with a strong argument.

Next you'll be telling me you believe in God...

...and you think the US is liberating the world...

any more fairy stories???

Remember the latin saying "Res ipsa loquitur".....

..."let the facts speak for themselves!"





[edit on 20-8-2009 by USER]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
This thread is supposed to address the credibility of Lear. For those who are new to the subject all you need to know is that John is in the business of proliferating some of the most absurd theories in the known conspiracy theory universe. He seriously suggests as fact the idea that all the planets of the solar system are inhabited by people. People jut like us only smaller or larger in size due to the differing gravity of the various planets.

I feel sorry for John Lear. He is either a willing participant in the dis-information game or he is doing it under great duress...IE blackmail. Ether way it is sad.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by USER

No, I'm sorry but your half attempts at explaining the situation are exactly that.


I'm sorry that your comprehension skills are apparently lacking.



The seatbelt has nothing to do with any of those planes.


Next time you fly, LOOK at the Flight Attendant jumpseat belts.


There was NO wreckage in NY.


Didn't you see the pictures?


They found NO black boxes.


Did you read my post?


Do you see the wings fall from the planes when you watch the footage of the planes hitting????


Not even John Lear thinks THAT would happen
!

Did you even see the debris from SwissAir 111? The wings on that airplane didn't just "fail" and fall off, as you seem to think they should...you're thinking cartoons!! The wings had kinetic energy...MOMENTUM! They shattered as the entered the building. Shredded. Destroyed! Fuel gushed out, spread, ignited.



...Well you should have. They're only a few millimetres thick and wouldn't have penetrated the buildings. But according to the footage they did.


You don't seem to understand much about how the wings are constructed. They AREN'T just empty tubes of aluminum.


Debunking of September Clues could be just as much BS as the rest of the footage on the day.


The "rest" of the footage? The dozens of cameras, many of them from private citizens, on their own video cameras? The hundreds of eyewitnesses?

Oh dear....no, you've gone beyond even what John Lear proposed, at least he only claims some sort of magic "holographic display" that is more Star Trek science fiction than science fact.

I'll go out on a limb here and betcha you didn't check any of the links I gave you. "No Planers" are just about done, finally. But, they can be amusing.....

The rest of your post goes away from NYC...John Lear and his WTC "holograms" is the focus right now.

PS --- NO! I do NOT believe in 'god'....as if it is in any way relevant! Talk about driving into an off-topic back road!!!

However, it seems that you LOVE your fantasy, so enjoy it. None of my business, any more.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


You said :
John is in the business of proliferating some of the most absurd theories in the known conspiracy theory universe.

Actually, John seems to be in the mining business now -



A tip 'o the hat to one of the Greats !




posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by USER
 





...Well you should have. They're only a few millimetres thick and wouldn't have penetrated the buildings. But according to the footage they did.


So im guessing that the conspiracy must have been alive and well back during World War II. Because there is just no way that the even flimsier wings and fuselage of a Japanese fighter would have punched a hole through the hull of this ship.

www.history.navy.mil...



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
He claimed 9/11 was organized to justify a war in Iraq and ultimately...Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan was so the CIA or shadow Govt could seize control of the heroin market. Once they controlled the heroin trade, the money could be siphoned into a black budget to finance the war against hostile aliens from our bases on the Moon.

If you think that's anywhere close to being plausible, realistic or believable I can only hope you're not allowed to play with sharp objects.


I am joining now. I have to agree with you. I would like to add that it is very obvious we have here the "standard psychological method of disinformation/divertion" - to give a good amount of plausible data and to convince a while - and then the big disappointment comes - irrational and incredible accounts being related to much more incredible information just and only just to enhance and maintain the information network...



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Interesting debate.
I have to be in a position to contradict mr. lear. which I am not.
the man has every certificate the govt offeres for avation. I would have to put mr. lear in the expert witness for the defense. his credentials are so over the top. he could be the foremost knowledgable person to input data on this regard wouldnt you have to agree.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by USER
 


Could you perhaps show your math? A bullet is only a few millimeters also and it can penetrate aluminum quite easily. A plane wing has a mass many thousands of times greater than a bullet. Of course the deciding factor in that analogy is the speed, but without the math you are literally saying nothing.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Obviously USER is speaking nonsense but so is jprophet. It's not mass that is the issue it's density....in more ways than one.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 

The "devine wind" did not penetrate that hull. The plane's flimsy fuselage did not breech that hull. The plane's flimsy wingtips did not breech that hull.

As you know very well, Swampy, what breeched that hull was the plane's big honkin' engine!

Continue to proliferate this canard if you wish, but adults aren't buying it.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
...this is the same John Lear that stated the following:

From sources I consider reliable submarines can travel under the U.S. as far as St. Louis. Maybe even farther east. Maybe all the way to the Atlantic.

lucianarchy.proboards.com...

umm...ok.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I just listened to the Lear interview.....excellent....


He is right on the money with all of his analysis of what went down that day.....I totally agree with with him..


Amazing information!

Thanks for posting this BornPatriot!


PEACE and LOVE...



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by BornPatriot
I firmly believe and have said so, I believe someone threw a monkey wrench into the events of 911... its clear something broke... it was slicker than spit on a griddle. thats so so scary... that we can be controlled like that... whats your views on Mr. Lears take on the events...


Seriously...if you need help finding fault with John Lear's 911 scenario, you are beyond help yourself.


Right, and it I told you pre 911 that terrorists from a criminal organization named 'the toilet' knocked down the twin towers with airplanes, the towers fell strait down, and a 3rd 47 story skyscraper fell strait down right after them you and most people would have had the same reaction.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The Navy has had the technology to remotely control it's own fighter planes since the 1980's. My own brother controlled fighter planes in this fashion from the operations room of an aircraft carrier back then. It is no far stretch to believe it could have been installed on civilian planes.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join