Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Mmm.... Its not going to be easy to actually tell people that what they just witnessed was fake.

Seeing is believing that is the only evidence that will stick. And that's not all a lot of people saw it. But the question is what did they all really see?

Was it two drones or was it two real passenger jet ?

I dont think the public would know the difference between a drone or a passenger jet.
But to them it was two real passenger jets. And if that was their intentions. You know case closed. And that's not hard to see.

Fooling the public is just as easy as making a drone. All you have to do is make it look like the real thing. Its probably cheaper then the real thing to.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Why don't you (please) look at the evidence of TV fakery and CGI animations. Once you realize you were fooled when watching television on 9-11, then you can see that there were no planes.

First you must look into the evidence.



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


[edit on 12/8/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 




I have.

When i look at it and think. There are many things that dont make sense. But the thing is the public can only use what they see in front of them. Or the information supplied to them. Then you have to ask is this facts?

How would you really know?

But when i think scientifically about the incident you can feel that there is something smelly about the facts presented.

There is no way the public is going to know the facts as long as it is being capt from the public.

If you ask the authority if you can take a look for your self you know what the answer will be. You wont be seeing anything but the report given to the public.

And if you dont like what you read in the report about 911 because it dosent make sense. You will get no where with the authority. Because if you argue with them about the report you will be shown the door by two big guys.

If you are going to get somewhere with this. You have to get them to argue the report.

They support the report and nothing else. What ever you present is useless.

Maybe its wrong to say that they support the actual report. They support the authority behind it.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]





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


[edit on 12/8/2009 by Sauron]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Im no man to judge i havent seen the vids yet too sleepy gonna watch em later,but just from the get go I can tell you may be on to something but you are no way near absolute proof, nothing in this world is absolute especially this kinda far fetched idea. It has been proven that there were indeed fact, you'd be a fool to think planes were not involved in some way. its okay to try to find the truth , but not when you ignore other truths to make yours fit snug, thats why people can barely trust science/religion too much personal pride in being right.

Im gonna watch it later but you to have to see it as a your version being black there version being white and the truth in the gray. But keep challenging what you're told. Good job for thinking for yourself and trying to help others along the way, just watch out what you research because there is more disinfo that real facts out there. Many conspiracies are far fetched just to discredit other factual ones, just watch what you spread is all im saying.

---peace& love



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 



Lear does not say that about the moon, as far as I know.


See?? There's your problem. YOU know nothing. YOU have been fooled, along with dozens of others, by this concept of "video fakery", because the people who try to promote this baloney are counting on your being fooled.

THEY count on the fact that most people of a certain generational range are so accumstomed to CGI that they have reached a point where they will rather jump to THAT as a "possibility", than to understand the more simple, basic, and oldfashioned principles behind real photography, and the results visually of those.

videoWW, unless you can bring some sort of unassailable evidence, you still have nothing. AND, I would suggest, that any ACTUAL CG experts that bothered to show up, and look at what you HAVE brought, would likely be laughing their butts off, very quickly.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
VideoWW --

As I've said before, my hearing is very poor, so I'm unable to make much sense of the John Lear interviews you posted here, as there is no transcript, and no video for me to attempt to lipread from.

So, I went looking for transcripts of the interviews. I was unable to find transcrips of the interviews by Jim Fetzer -- just references to them -- but was able to find transcripts of John's interviews on Project Camelot. About halfway down the page of part one (of four), John starts talking about 9/11. He is firmly in the holographic projection camp. A curious thing is that he states that it's his belief that the [alleged] hologram around the WTC was projected from another plane:


J: And that’s why the basement of the World Trade Center was molten for six weeks, is because, when it finally does hit the ground, it heats it up so much. You can pour as much water as you want, it’s not going to cool off for a time. So I believe all of this was controlled by the E-4B, the Doomsday airplane, the 747 that was seen flying over the White House.

I think there is the one that did the holographic projection, and they also transmitted the CGI, computer graphics, to the different TV channels, to show the airplanes allegedly crashing. That’s why we had the accidental nose out on one of the, on one of the buildings. They were the ones that sent the alleged cell phone messages, which never occurred. They did all kinds of stuff. They made probably transponder things for the different ATCs to phone.

K: So you’re saying the hologram had to come out of, had to be done by a plane in the air?

J: Yeah.

K: Really.

J: It was done by a projector. A holographic projector.



However, prior to that, John is talking about his friend Norm Bergrun and says

He said, “Just before I retired I was driving down on the Bay Shore Freeway to Sunnyvale”. and he said, “I had a friend in the right seat of the car”. And he says, “Like, it was about 8 o’clock in the morning, maybe 8:15”. He said, “we’re driving south and we saw this shadow and we looked up, and here...” he says, “It wasn’t a 747, but it was a HUGE four-engined airplane, it wasn’t 200 feet above us”. And he said, “We looked out at, looked at this thing” he said “of course we’re, you know, 20 miles from San Jose, you know, and 30 miles from San Francisco. There’s no possible way an airplane could, you know, legitimately be flying right there”.


....... however, in your earlier NPT thread, VideoWW, isn't it true that John reports this little anecdote as being his own? And, also confusing, John said that Norm reported the alleged hologram as having a shadow???

John goes on to say in the PC interview:


The World Trade Center was collapsed by a direct energy weapon, being operated from one of the outer space weapons platforms, and the reason we know is because of the size of the dust that was left of the concrete. It was approximately 80 microns, and that’s what a direct energy weapon collapses when it’s pointed down. That’s what it uses, it’s called “molecular disassociation”. I mean, it just disassociates the molecular structure of concrete and that’s why all that dust was there. There was just nothing left


80 microns????? Do you realize that's approximately the WIDTH of a human hair? There was nothing left of the WTC concrete larger than 80 microns? The "direct energy weapon" even crushed the aggregate in the concrete to 80 microns?

As I've said, John is an engaging speaker. If what I found on PC is the same stuff he talks about in this recent series of interviews you've posted in this thread, then Mr. Lear doesn't produce much in the way of evidence of NPT, let alone "proof". It's anecdotal, and unsupported opinion.

You might want to read all four parts from PC (you can get to them by my above link, and all four parts are linked to each other on the bottoms of the interview pages). I mean Mr. Lear no disrespect, however you might want to reexamine him as a source for your NPT.

To me, this does nothing to refute -- at least in a credible, supportable way -- the assertation that two airplanes struck the WTC.


[edit on 12/8/09 by argentus]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Unless people can come up with evidence that trumps aircraft parts in the wreckage, thousands of witnesses, and hundreds of videotapes showing planes, I think the "no planers" should drop it. There is overwhelming evidence proving them totally wrong. I think all the 9/11 conspiracy theories can be proven wrong, but this one is so easy that I'd hope even the conspiracy believers would discredit it.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   
To be honest the planes are just a distraction anyway. Almost everyone realizes that the WTC Towers could not have fallen down after 2 airliners had hit them.

So what did?

Example:
While everyone is wondering if the sexy magicians assistant is part of the trick they miss how the magician pulled it off.

You know most people don't even realize that the WTC towers were only about 2 /3rds above ground. There's never much talk about the train station on the bottom levels or even what was under that. It could have been some kind of directed 'hutchinson' device shot from space.

Im confident there is NOTHING that can be worked out about the collapse's from any video so far seen. Just like we will never work out who shot Kennedy from the video captured.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 



There's never much talk about the train station on the bottom levels or even what was under that.


Well, then, talk about it!!! Tell everyone, "especially" what was "under" the train station.

Because, it's going to be fun to hear how they were destroyed from the bottom up. And match it with the video evidence.

Oh, wait, you mentioned the 'hutchinson' device, from above?? Gonna make everyone look that up for themselves too, or just drop it there and hope it proves something?

The airplanes hit, yet the entire thing was prepped well ahead of time, just to be ready for that event?

BTW, 'orbiting space weapons' is about as silly as 'no-planes'. You DO know how many International Treaties would be broken, putting 'weapons', in space?

It's not as if only the USA is capable of monitoring objects in Earth orbit.....

[edit on 12 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by videoworldwide
 



I have to agree that the "No planes" idea is a ridiculous one.

And I'll offer one very solid reason...
Common sense!

Whoever perpetrated this horrible crime (and I admit that I fully believe that the American Government, or sections thereof, carried this out as a pretext to removing the rights and freedoms of Americans while allowing for an invasion of oil-rich nations) to do so without any planes would not be practical.

It would cost billions more, it would carry far more risk of discovery, it would be less effective and basically wouldn't do the job required.

In order to carry out something like this you have to keep it as simple as possible and as real as possible.
Millions of people around the world watched this happen live, to imply that it was special effects carries again more risk. If something had gone even slightly wrong in the broadcast, millions of people would have been asking even more questions about the official story. It's simply not worth the risks involved.

Thousands of people on the ground saw this happen. After the first plane hit, they were all looking up and SAW the second plane hit. What, they all imagined it? They are government plants? The thousands of people who have written about it, filmed it, lost relatives, suffered the fallout... they're all fake people paid by the government to lie?

Why not just fly two planes into those buildings and then blow them up to finish the job?
No need to convince thousands of people to work for the government and lie. No need to spend billions of $ on special effects and risk leaking of info. No need to hire thousands of people to act horrified and repeat their stories.

WHY WOULDN'T THEY USE PLANES?

People are using their intelligence. People are investigating for themselves. But this version of events is truly idiotic in that it makes no common sense to fake it all.

This idea of "no planes" has been around for at least two years, and I did look at it once. But it was so stupid it made me consider the sanity of those who believe it.
However you look t it and whatever "evidence" you can propose to support it, the simple fact that it defies all logic and reason is enough to disregard it completely as nonsense.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


It might explain where the central core vanished to..

Also with directed energy weapons you dont need to put them in space. You can just bounce the signal from there,



[edit on 12-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
This is no proof, and it's far from "absolute".
There were planes, they did hit the buildings.

Now, if you want to talk about the "real" people behind it, or who financed it, the "exact" reasons for the collapses or the "true" motivation behind it all, I suppose that can be debated from now until forever, but....

there were planes, and they did strike the buildings.

IMO, any statements that there "were NO planes" at all, is asking far too much.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Proof indeed.

Starred and flagged because I flag every truther thread.

/sarcasm



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 



Also with directed energy weapons you dont need to put them in space. You can just bounce the signal from there...


Well, let's brainstorm this science fiction, for a bit. This applies to the "hologram" junk, too.

Bounce the DEW from Earth, to an orbiting platform? OK...for a satellite to appear in a fixed position in the sky, relative to a position on Earth's surface, it has to be in a 'geo-synchronous' orbit, at a distance of about 22,500 miles, in an equatorial orbit. Things in lower orbits, I.E., the ISS or Space Shuttle, are typically moving at about 17,500 MPH as they orbit along. Imagine the logistics, of accurately aiming to, and from, such a satellite.

Now, DEW? Really? Such incredible technology, almost Star Trek type weaponry? IF the USA had that, they could take over the World, EASILY!!!! Just for example, you know that a very thin laser beam, even though it is coherent as possible, when shown at the Moon, it spreads out to over a kilometer wide. the Moon is approximately just over ten times the distance to the 'geo-synch' satellites. NOW, you want pin-point precission accuracy??? To take down two buildings, like Marvin Martian's discombobulator???

Hoo, boy!!!

AND, all of those big chunks of building, still intact???

Now...."No Planes"??? Holograms? Hey, I'll swallow the DEW before I can swallow perfect, sound-making, shadow-producing "holograms" so perfect that they fooled everybody!



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


lol.. you should cut down on the caffeine a bit maybe.

I dont think any of those things happened im just giving examples of other methods of taking the buildings down. The point im making is that while everyone is looking at how the planes went in etc they are probably missing any real clues at to what happened as the initial impacts was most likley to distract everyone's attention.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide
to highlight the fact that NO PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS.

Yeah, you still haven't show anything factual. You still keep posting opinions of other people, but nothing tangible or factual. Keep trying.



Originally posted by videoworldwide
I would like to see the debunkers try this one out.

The disinformation on that website is the same disinformation that the no-planers peddle in every no-plane thread. And it has all been debunked in every no-plane thread. Keep trying.



Originally posted by videoworldwide
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

You have to be one of the most dishonest, disingenuous people on this forum. You won't believe people that saw planes because you haven't interviewed them, but you believe the disinfo that John Lear spews and you haven't interviewed him either! What a frakin hypocrite. You disgust me.



Originally posted by videoworldwide
I know for certain, that the videos we saw were CGI.

You keep saying, even though you continue to not show any proof. I've already debunked your CGI disinfo in this thread and others. It's disinfo to keep saying the videos were CGI for certain when it's been debunked and you show no proof.



Originally posted by videoworldwide
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.

And this is one of the main reasons why the no-plane disinfo will never be accepted in the 9/11 truth movement. Disinfo artists deny the evidence and actually purposely cover the evidence up to peddle their false theories. It's easier for disinfo artists to ignore all evidence and all witnesses, that way they don't have to show any actual, real proof of their claims. You continue to disgust me, videoworldwide.




Originally posted by videoworldwide
I'll carry on with my truthseeking and you carry on with your fake-TV viewing and CGI

It's only truth-seeking in the disinfo world. The real truth movement wants nothing to do with the no-plane disinfo.

You might as well cut your losses while you still can. You aren't convincing anyone on this forum of NPT.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

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

Show us a missile that has a 160-foot wingspan and can travel as slow as a jetliner. Also, show us who has the hologram technology to make happen the claim that you put forth.

I'll be standing by waiting....







Not really because I know you won't be able to back your fantasies up, so no need to waste any time.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
BoneZ, what do you think hit the towers?



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


well if you had listened to the videos you would have heard an independent world expert saying the planes cant fly that low at that speed and the speed reported was the same as a missile.

I don't know what happened that's why im speculating like everyone else. Maybe you should take a deep breath and count to ten before replying. It may allow you to join the debate with the rest of us.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
BoneZ, what do you think hit the towers?

Planes, period.

That was a really hard question.






top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution