It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by videoworldwide
Here are a series of brand new videos.
Jim Fetzer Interviews John Lear on 'No Planes on 911' Affidavit - July 27, 2009
If detractors are going to say anything about these videos, then they cannot just say "Jim Fetzer and John Lear have already proven to be wrong etc etc etc."
What I predict the debunkers will do, as they usually do, as trained disinfo agents, they will post retorts to things, quotes and issues that are not even on the videos, thus convincing people they have done their job, by doing nothing more than stating they have 'debunked' it.
Originally posted by scubagravy
btw, ive seen a few of these vids before and in now way do they show ABSOLUTE PROOF, mere speculation. As much as we'd all like an answer to the tragedy that unfolded on 9/11, creating nonsense and veering away from sustainable proof is not a viable solution.
If you are one for the hologram theory, explain the audio on that day, not only from the videos from MSM, or the the two french brothers that were there filming on location or even the thousands of commuters and bystanders in Ny at the time.
Your theory is as solid as a patent for an airconditioner on a motorcycle.
[edit on 11/8/2009 by scubagravy]
Originally posted by GeechQuestInfo
I can promise you there were real planes involved in 9/11.
Are you serious with your no plane theory or are you just trying to take away from the seriousness of the treasonous acts that occurred that day? The farther out you go and stretch a theory to the brink by bringing in the "crazy", the further away from the truth you actually go my friend.
Originally posted by LazyGuy
One mans testimony, no matter how compelling IS NOT absolute proof.
John's got a rep around here for making outlandish claims without providing even the tiniest scrap of tangible evidence.
Good way to get ATS points though. By making a claim like you did in your title and then pointing to John Lear you're guaranteed to get a bunch of replies.
What's the word I'm looking for? Starts with a T. Ends with an L. Rhymes with hole.
Oh yea, you must be a TROLL.
[edit on 11-8-2009 by LazyGuy]
Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Originally posted by Pockets
Think you need to take a step back and re-evaluate your position, can't you see how dumb you look saying there were no planes?
This whole line of..... I hesitate to say thought, cuz there's no thought put into no planer claims....... whatever, should be the perfect evidence for the insane TM claims about CIA paid disinfo artists on the WWW.
Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by videoworldwide
So your first thread about how the planes were CGI didn't play out like you wanted, so you made this one.
You cannot deny the eye testimony of hundreds or thousands of eye witnesees. They all can't be government officials.
Unless of course NYC is a bubble world, like in the movie Truman and they are all actors.
NYC being a Truman like movie set is more plausible then your no plane theory.
Originally posted by mblahnikluver
I usually stay out of the 9/11 debate here on ATS but this no plane thing is a little much IMO. I saw this the other day on here but I dont have sound so I cant watch the interviews. Could you please sum up for those who cant watch the videos what they are saying. IF there were no planes, which many people saw, then what was everyone looking at??? I am sorry but I just find this silly that people are saying there were no planes. I have seen many videos and well those are planes. Do they think they were holograms or something because the impact of the planes looked VERY real to me and millions of other people. I dont mean to sound rude or poke fun but I am serious, what do people think the planes were in every video out there. I have a friend who lived in NY at the time and saw with his own eyes the second plane hit and if I brought this up to him he would more than likely flip out on me.
Of course, it's too much trouble to watch the videos
instead hurl insults, and slander.
Originally posted by belowcommonknowledge
The evidence presented is compelling all though I'd be more inclined to go with a theory that the building's superstructure was weakened via the use of precisely timed cutting charges or directed energy weapons that may have been mounted to the planes, or fired from near by building tops rather than no planes. I guess my gut tells me that directed energy weapons and / or explosives are more likely than mass hallucination or some sort of advanced holography that made it look like planes hit the buildings. What bout some sort of bunker buster missle modified to look like a plane? Who knows? All I know is that whatever theory you subscribe to, it's better than the official story as the evidence for the official story does not pass scientific scrutiny. I've seen to many presentations of compelling evidence, and those who would try to refute it or denounce it do not address it scientifically and instead just say, that's crazy.
....what is proven is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a plane to have hit the towers on that day.
Originally posted by videoworldwide
More evidence people would rather lay claims without information or real data, but that's o.k., the children have to play somewhere.
Hey, if you don't look at the evidence,. then you cannot be looking for the truth.