Absolute Proof! No Planes on 911 !!! (Jim Fetzer Interviews John Lear - 7-27-09)

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
The problems I have with the "no plane" theory have to do with complexity. You've got a bunch of people who claim they saw airplanes slam into the buildings. You've got films of at least one plan slamming into a building. You've got four missing planes with a few hundred passengers.

The "no plane" theory says that somehow the planes that people saw hitting the building weren't really there - holograms, or whatever. However, *something* brought those buildings down. So OK, it was a plan hologram and high explosives inside the buildings that brought them down. Fine. And something else happened with the Pentagon - again, no plane, but something that made a big hole in the building. Some say it was a missile. OK, fine, why not?

But then you've got plane #4, which didn't do much of anything except crash. Why? Why even bother with it, if it didn't hit something interesting?

Where did these four planes and hundreds of passengers go? And who go to all that trouble, when you could just load up some planes with fuel and fly them into the buildings and get a pretty horrible result doing that?

I'm thinking Occam's Razor here, the simplest explanation is to be preferred. I don't see any good evidence that planes weren't used, but they still disappeared. Too much complication, too many chances for there to be a glaring error that they wouldn't be able to hide. It looks to me like someone decided it would be a good idea to fly some planes into buildings - maybe terrorists, maybe our own government, who knows? But I just can't see a convoluted conspiracy to pretend that planes flew into buildings, and to demolish those buildings with explosives, and then have to get rid of the real planes and people on them.




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pockets
dumb
and

Originally posted by videoworldwide
DUMBER




Don't you realise that all this sniping and name calling is obfuscating the issue and is exactly what TPTB want us to do; to be distracted by name-calling and petty insults rather than investigating the issue at hand.

Not acceptable, really. If I can turn over a new leaf and leave my insults at the door (so to speak) then I think it is possible for everyone else to.

My mind is still not made up. I err towards the planes, but that may be just because of the 'programming'. Certainly because there are still questions and there are still uncertainties I think it appropriate to investigate further what may, at first glance, seem to be 'ridiculous' theories.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by aorAki]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
I am open to the possibility that the airlines were "empty" and were "remote controlled." And I think the evidence sort of supports this theory to a degree.

However, the "no planes" or "hologram planes" theory seems really far fetched, simply because of logistics.

1) Remote controlling planes into buildings = Easy to plan - undertake.

2) Making hologram planes that fool everyone, is a extremely difficult task however and would require intense testing and practice. This seems like too large of a logistical operation for such a simple act as just blowing up some buildings.

So my conclusion.

There is a 95% + chance that there were really planes on 911. Real planes are actually cheaper than super ultra advanced hologram devices.

So occam's razor says there were planes on 911, and very possibly remote controlled *autopilot*.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
www.freedomdomain.com...

Excellent website with in-depth analysis of the No Plane theory. Very easy to understand. The pics posted here are from the news videos on 911. They are stopped at important frames to highlight the fact that NO PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS.

This is an excellent place to start, actually, because it lays everything out plain and simple so that you can see the impossibilities, and the problems with the various videos and the angles of the flight paths and wing spans differences of the planes, the missing pieces, all laid out easy to understand.

I would like to see the debunkers try this one out.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   
i Think it is just a way to ridicule the 911 truth.

"911 was an inside job, and the planes was just holographic bla bla"

How does that look in your/msm eyes?

The thing is, there is no reason no logical explanation to why they would not use real planes. The masterplan includes real planes crashing into the towers. Real hijacked planes or other ones, still real planes.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


My apologies for not having read a single post on your thread other than your OP ...

But I have a question for you if I may?

What would compel you to believe someone such as JL who wasn't there and presumably discard someone like myself who was there and saw it with their own two eyes?

For the record, I almost never post in this forum and I have no conspiratorial horse in this race. I am simply telling you what I, my wife, and a plethora of other people saw. I can't even imagine the mental somersaults one would have to do to contrive such a ludicrous fantasy as the one you are putting forth.

Oh and before you answer, and I really hope that you do, please don't throw at me the old "eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable" poopery, we're talking about a plane, not a guy with a hoodie in a dark alley at 2am.

Don't say hologram, don't say hologram ...

[edit on 12 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
The problems I have with the "no plane" theory have to do with complexity. You've got a bunch of people who claim they saw airplanes slam into the buildings. You've got films of at least one plan slamming into a building. You've got four missing planes with a few hundred passengers.

Where did these four planes and hundreds of passengers go?

I'm thinking Occam's Razor here, the simplest explanation is to be preferred.


It was all a hologram to cover up the alien ship that scooped up all those people and took them to the mother ship for anal probing, artificial insemination creating hybrids and disection. That's all it was.

Now ignore the man behind the curtain and return to your 'reality' tv show.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by chiron613
 



I'm thinking Occam's Razor here, the simplest explanation is to be preferred.


You have some good points there but would Occam's Razor really apply to something as complex as the 911 situation? Whatever happened on that day im pretty sure a lot of people went to a lot of trouble to make sure we cant find out the real truth.

The video has some very intresting info in it
good post.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


First off, I have to apologize to the few who this applies to. I do not believe ANYONE, including YOU.

I do not believe the people who claim they saw planes on 911. The reason for this is because I have not interviewed them personally, and anyone can say anything on the internet. (Not because I choose to dismiss them outright)

I know for certain, that the videos we saw were CGI. Now, logically, I have to think next, if the videos are absolutely CGI, then were there planes or not? Why make fake videos if you are going to fly real planes into the buildings, and how come none of the videos are real? Where are the REAL planes? Because the ones in all the videos are NOT REAL.

Now, I can believe people THINK they saw an airplane. They could have thought this if they in fact, saw a missile and heard it zoom by, or if they saw a hologram, either way, they could have seen SOMETHING, but it was not a real plane.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide

First off, I have to apologize to the few who this applies to. I do not believe ANYONE, including YOU.

I do not believe the people who claim they saw planes on 911. The reason for this is because I have not interviewed them personally ...


Have you personally interviewed John Lear?

[edit on 12 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:15 AM
link   
For all we know it could have just been a missile wrapped in a hologram.

DARPA works on some pretty crazy stuff you know..



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
reply to post by chiron613
 



I'm thinking Occam's Razor here, the simplest explanation is to be preferred.


You have some good points there but would Occam's Razor really apply to something as complex as the 911 situation? Whatever happened on that day im pretty sure a lot of people went to a lot of trouble to make sure we cant find out the real truth.

The video has some very intresting info in it
good post.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]


Yes, A LOT of trouble. In fact so much trouble that they planted so much BS in the truth movement, that now people will not look at the obvious anymore, only the 'status quo".



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
For all we know it could have just been a missile wrapped in a hologram.

DARPA works on some pretty crazy stuff you know..


In one cannot contemplate this possibility, since it is not out of the realm of possibility, one cannot really say they have searched for the truth completely.

This is a possibility, I have not ruled out yet.

It's a very good point!



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   




No, I have not. Why?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Alexander the Great
 


Yes, it was all over tv showing the planes crashing into the towers.

While I believe it may have been an inside job, to say there were no planes is crazy. Unless it was an optical illusion - not.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


Oh dear ... read your own post.

Your premise is dishonest and your reasoning is flawed beyond further comment.

Carry on ...

[edit on 12 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Also, it is a huge insult to the people who died on those planes, and in those towers, and to their loved ones, and to anyone who has compassion for these people.

It is also a huge insult to our intelligence so I don't know what these deniers are trying to prove.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by spellbound
 



Yes, I have insulted non-existent people on a non-existence plane. Allow me to insult them further. You people who never lived to begin with and have never died, are hereby remembered in the minds of the mindless.





[Mod Edit - replace unnecessary quote with Reply To: Tab]

[edit on 12/8/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


Oh dear ... read your own post.

Your premise is dishonest and your reasoning is flawed beyond further comment.

Carry on ...

[edit on 12 Aug 2009 by schrodingers dog]


I'll carry on with my truthseeking and you carry on with your fake-TV viewing and CGI, thinking your watching reality.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alexander the Great
I'm sorry but, it's a wild goose chase in my opinion.
You cannot say every single person who took video of it is a conspirator!
My uncle wouldn't lie to me about something like that, since a family member died in the attacks.

Inside job or not, there were planes.


I thought John Lear's theory was that the planes were holograms...
Not saying I buy that at all, but the only retort I've seen is that the planes are on film and were witnessed...
A hologram can be on film and be witnessed.
Just sayin'.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join