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.

 

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

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


Thank you, argentus, I've read through PART 1 from the PC transcript.

Capt Lear still advocates the "no planes", even apparently as recently as a year ago last April! Amazing! Gues he HAS to stick to the story, now. No turning back, serious consequences, legality and all that.....

Here's what I remember from it, the high points of contradiction:

The "holograms" in NYC were "controlled" ( I think he means projected/manipulated???) from the E-6B that was flying over WASHINGTON, DC!!!

Did I read that correctly? That's his claim? Well, let's see...it is just about 206 miles from DC to NYC, straight line. Lear, being a pilot, certainly knows all about something called "line of sight" when it comes to electromagnetic spectrum frequencies. An airplane at Cruise altitudes will find that to be just about the maximum. This E-6B over DC was much, much lower, according to reports.

Certainly, lower frequency signals will propagate BEYOND line of sight that is interrupted by the Earth's curvature. Short Wave Radio, AM radio ( and HF -High Frequency- aviation radios ) are near each other in the spectrum, and they will travel much farther than 'line-of-sight' distances by "bouncing" off of the ionosphere...BUT, I would think something as sophisticated as a holographic projection would need A LOT of bandwidth, and great precision, hardly able to do that with the lower frequencies.

Satellites? Well, sure. We know that UAVs are being operated in Iraq, for instance, and controlled from Nevada. But, there's that pesky time lag, you know, speed of light and all. The UAVs are taken off and landed by people closer to them, at the Bases in the ME, and control is handed off to the others, in US Bases, for the routine surveillance duties in flight, when the time lag isn't as critical. Like it would be near to the ground.

Imagine trying to steer your "holographic projection" with precision into two buildings, with a satellite-feed time lag?? Sounds like a recipe for a screw up...

Capt Lear ALSO says that NO ONE ( including him ) could fly the real deal into the buildings. Ahem. I've done it ( in simulator ). His stated "test" parameters are bogus, saying he would "freeze 'em out at 20 miles and 7000 feet, 560 knots..."

He's a pilot, he knows better...he exaggerated the speed, and disengenuously, arbitrarily chose the 560 knots 20 miles out. Tracking data showed that the airplanes DOVE on their targets, so the high velocities only were acheived in the final seconds before impact. using gravity, you can easily accelerate well beyond what is acheivable in level flight. Besides, you CAN'T set up the Sim as he proposes. AND, the bad guys had lots of time to feel the airplanes, while flying...not just a couple of minutes "acclimation". AND, at 7000, 20 miles out? The WTC Towers rather hard to spot. Better to start higher, line up, and dive.

We should also note the difference between statuteMPH and nauticalMPH, or 'knots'. This will confuse the issue ( intentionally? ).

Example: 460K equals 530 MPH. A nautical mile is approx 1.15% longer than a statute mile. (6,060 feet vs. 5,280 feet)

Anyway, he claims that "real" airplanes can't be flown that precisely, but of course, the "holograms" can???


Another assertion was UAL 93. Alleging some sort of "malfunction" with the holograms, so they had to "fake" the crash in Shanksville ???


Inconsistent, why not just 'disappear' the hologram??

He claims he "saw" an example, near San Jose, CA...just for him??? Major city, lots of OTHER citizens, and NO ONE else saw it?

I could go on, but my memory bank is full....




posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 

Star to you sir!Anyone who has been a member here long enough to have read some of Mr. Lears OPINIONS he's posted here in the past, knows what he is all about.





posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


I will read the transcript, but having seen John pass his stuff here a few years ago I am not impressed. I don't mean to be "mean" or "difficult" but there are serious issues with what he is saying.

Again, with this level of deception then you might as well say that we are all controlled and can never know anything because the military has such mind control and advanced technology that nothing can be trusted.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
doubkle post sry

[edit on 13-8-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by talisman
 


Thanks much Talisman
That's all I ask. I don't want anyone investing themselves too deeply with really realizing the ramifications of embracing Mr. Lear's opinion regarding NPT.

It doesn't impress me a whit either, as far as evidence toward NPT goes. It's a good read. I like a smoothe-moving story too. It's decent fiction, IMO.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

There was no pod, that is disinfo.

You are saying Dave VonKliest and Phil Jayhan are paid shills working for the government?


As for the rest, I don't really care at this point whether there were passengers or whether the planes were empty. There were planes and that's all we need to know until there's a new investigation.

What about them being stock 767's, or not?

Do you think they were flown via remote control, or human pilots?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   
Here is 43 separate angles, and you mean this is all a hologram or mass hallucination. Come on



I'm starting to think Lear must be on some awesome drugs...



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
I personally don't buy into the NPT. I think Mr. Lear has some thought provoking ideas, but it would certainly be difficult for him to prove anything. Then again, he always says you don't have to believe him.

While I don't think holograms are what we all witnessed that day, I have little doubt that the technology exists. I think it would be a little naive (sp?) for any of us to think it's not POSSIBLE for such a thing to exist. Remember when the Earth was flat? I fully believe that there is tech. out there we can't even imagine yet.

Anyways, two things I wanted to comment on for S&G's


Originally posted by weedwhacker

Anyway, he claims that "real" airplanes can't be flown that precisely, but of course, the "holograms" can???


Sure. I mean, the reason he claims the planes couldnt do it is due to the difficulties in carrying out the task itself. I'm assuming a hologram wouldnt have to worry about friction/wind/atmosphere/etc?



Originally posted by weekwhacker

Another assertion was UAL 93. Alleging some sort of "malfunction" with the holograms, so they had to "fake" the crash in Shanksville ???


Inconsistent, why not just 'disappear' the hologram??


I realize CIT is a debated group here, but they produced a very good video which I thought relates to that (CIT never made this claim to my knowledge). I don't recall the name of the witness...Susan something or other, but in the video, she claimed that a small white plane, seemlessly designed (she said all white, completely smooth) flew so low that she thought it was gonna hit her vehicle. The key thing, though, was her comment that after if flew under the power lines, it "swooped" over the trees, which, in september, were FULL of leaves, but in her story she said that was confusing, because she thought that the "plane" should have disturbed the leaves on the trees...but it didnt.

This is the one thing that always made me wonder, because that certainly sounds like it COULD be a hologram, but who knows? I just remember that as I listened to her story, and she made those comments, I immediately thought about John Lear's idea about holograms.

In any case, I don't really support the hologram deal, but there are things that, at least to me, make it seem plausible.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pockets
No one wants to watch your "video" as they know already that there were planes slammed into buildings on that day


To say that no one wants to watch the OP's videos, which no doubt includes your narrow minded self, how can you have any opinion on the subject?

And sorry but planes didn't slam in to the buildings, they went straight through them without an ounce of resistance. Or didn't you even want to watch the original WTC footage?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by videoworldwide
 


So, now it is up to you to explain how the images of the jets ended up on the literally hundreds of cameras that captured them...the Naudet brothers, the cameras on top of the news buildings pointed at the Towers, the cameras on the helicopters orbiting the towers after the first strike, the still and video cameras of the people around the area....holograms just dont cut it.


Hundreds of pictures? Highly doubt that. And why don't we see the full unedited naudet footage without the frames taken out? Why do we see different angles of the plane hitting the 2nd tower? Some videos show it literally divebombing whilst others show it cruising in a straight line.

Why are there loads of different reports of planes in various sizes hitting the tower? Not to mention reports of missiles, orbs, and some even saying they didn't even see a plane? Why when there were thousands watching, do we have what, less than fifty videos of the event? There should be hundreds.

I personally believe not one plane was used on that day. And just because some people have that belief, you get ridiculed on here for it. Not only ridiculed but verbally abused. It's a ridiculous attitude to have on a conspiracy website.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 



And why don't we see the full unedited naudet footage without the frames taken out?


I think that's because certain people who are arguing FOR the NPT have edited the Naudet video to suit their purposes. THAT is the version that keeps being spread araound. An ATS member (forgot name) spent his own money for a good, HD copy of original Naudet video, and posted here in the ATS Media Portal. Perhaps you can suearch?



Why do we see different angles of the plane hitting the 2nd tower?


Well, that's really simple, isn't it? Many had their attention already on the burning Tower after the first hit. MANY different cameras = many different angles. Make sense?


Some videos show it literally divebombing whilst others show it cruising in a straight line.


THAT all depends on the different cameras, angles and vantages, and I know what you're talking about. There is one video, longer shot, higher vantage point, you see more of the airplane's path, including the initial dive, and level-off in last few seconds. Other shots, from the side (from a news helicopter, example) has the airplane enter the frame just immediately after leveling.

(tags)

[edit on 13 August 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Absolute proof???? Do the OP even HAVE any idea of what constitutes "proof"? Well, I got a phone call that morning from a friend of mine in New york telling me to hurry up and turn on the television, a plan had crashed into on of the towers at the WTC. I turned on the news, and watched live as the second plane hit, while my friend was watching from his apartment. Even before the second plane hit the tower he was saying "Oh my god, I think another one is going to hit them". So, I watched live TV footage of the second plane, and had an independant eyewitness on the phone at the same time. My friend is a well educated (bachelor of science degrees in applied mathematics, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, and a masters in business management) and intelligent person. My background is in civil/environmental engineering, so neither one of us is an idiot.
There you have it, "absolute proof" that there WERE planes.
John Lear is not a credible person, my friend is.
Please people, get a grip, get away from the internet for a while, take a walk in the fields and woods, and get back to reality. In other words, GET A LIFE.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It doesn't really matter because John's opinions don't come close to refuting the thousands of witnesses, dozens of videos, and the physical damage to the towers.

I keep saying it, someone's opinions aren't proof of anything but a wild imagination.

You say "someone's opinions aren't proof." OK, what is your proof of your "thousands of witnesses" claim?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt

Star to you sir!Anyone who has been a member here long enough to have read some of Mr. Lears OPINIONS he's posted here in the past, knows what he is all about.



He sure does.

He's full of bull flops, and he knows it.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by crowpruitt

Star to you sir!Anyone who has been a member here long enough to have read some of Mr. Lears OPINIONS he's posted here in the past, knows what he is all about.



He sure does.

He's full of bull flops, and he knows it.


I find it really funny.....

Everyone here that has something to say about John Lear, never actually say anything to contradict anything he has said.

All people say is "he is not credible...blah blah blah", but nobody ever brings up any evidence to prove it, or even try to show how he is a bad source.

It's just "blah blah blah ...John Lear is not credible...blah blah blah"
"It's already been shown that John Lear is not to be trusted....blah blah blah"

I suppose we should just start taking everyone's word for stuff instead of finding out for ourselves.

Is the sun hot? ....No, you say. It's cold...oh.....I never knew that. Thanks for telling me. Now I know the Sun is actually cold. Don't bother with evidence, it's not necessary anymore, everyone trusts what everyone else says now.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

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."

Without a proper retort to what is actually spoken about on the videos, any other comments, statements, or opinions about Jim Fetzer, John Lear, or 'No Planes' is irrelevant. If you are a so called "Debunker" than take what is said, and debunk it, don't just claim these people have been debunked already, because that is the typical disinfo tactic.


Oh joy... another post with the term 'Absolute Proof'.

First of all, I don't buy the official 9.11 story and never really have. But neither am I a friend of 'absolute' anything. I have seen similar titles that claimed 'absolute' this and 'irrefutable' that and each time, almost without fail, the author immediately sets up shop to slay anyone who dares counter the absolute or irrefutable, lol.

It's just my personal opinion but... I find that in really bad form.

For me, 9.11 is so blatantly and obviously contrived that no one has to make sensational claims or low cut those who disagree. Even those who don't admit it, probably know in their hearts this was a hatchet job on the American people.

I think your vids were pretty good but if you don't mind a second opinion, you really need to work on your opener.

Best


...

[edit on 13-8-2009 by redoubt]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide

but nobody ever brings up any evidence to prove it



Kinda like John-Boy.

Ever wonder why the TM and debunker side BOTH laugh at the NPT crowd?



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide

Everyone here that has something to say about John Lear, never actually say anything to contradict anything he has said.



Well, if you'd just read up, top of this page, you'll see how your statement here is incorrect.

Enjoy!



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
The "holograms" in NYC were "controlled" ( I think he means projected/manipulated???) from the E-6B that was flying over WASHINGTON, DC!!!

E-4B.
I know, I discovered it.




Originally posted by weedwhacker
He's a pilot, he knows better

Correct, he should know better. That's why this is either a hoax, or he has some sort of dementia, plain and simple.




[edit on 13-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


E-4B. D'oh!!!

Did I copy it wrongly from the transcript, or just have a brain fahrt??




top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join