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: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

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.

I also contradicted Lear's disinfo. Notice how the no-planers just ignore it and then say we didn't try to debunk it?




posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

That's coming from someone who has NO faith in the 'Official [lie] Story'. It's this kind of crap that provides fodder to the detractors and skeptics to derail other more pertinent threads. PLEASE, let's stick with reality. We have witnesses that saw planes hit. Now, if you want to discuss the Pentagon, well, that's another matter.

But please, let's stop destroying the credibility of the valid truth movement. Because I'm sick and tired of trying to defend them (and myself) from skeptics that always resort to pointing out the far fetched theories like these ones to attack a point.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

That's coming from someone who has NO faith in the 'Official [lie] Story'. It's this kind of crap that provides fodder to the detractors and skeptics to derail other more pertinent threads. PLEASE, let's stick with reality. We have witnesses that saw planes hit. Now, if you want to discuss the Pentagon, well, that's another matter.

But please, let's stop destroying the credibility of the valid truth movement. Because I'm sick and tired of trying to defend them (and myself) from skeptics that always resort to pointing out the far fetched theories like these ones to attack a point.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
You are saying Dave VonKliest and Phil Jayhan are paid shills working for the government?

Dave VonKleist and I exchanged several emails about the subject way back after he released "In Plane Site". We agreed to disagree and moved on. As far as Jayhan, he's a disrespectful azzhat. But nowhere in the mainstream truth movement are either of them mentioned and/or their views accepted, just like NPT. If it's disinfo, the truth movement distances itself from the disinfo and the people peddling it.



Originally posted by ATH911
What about them being stock 767's, or not?
Do you think they were flown via remote control, or human pilots?

Irrelevant. Planes hit the buildings. Doesn't matter if they were remote-controlled or flown by humans.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

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




IMHO, he grew up a privileged kid, being in the LEAR family. He claims to not have any money now. Who knows how that happened.

I believe this is all just a way for him to get his jollies. Perhaps he's bitter about not inheriting the family 'fortune', or being edged out of the business.

He's also open about his involvement flying for the CIA. Maybe that had something to with his financial situation, and so all this is a way for him to get back at TPTB.....



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
And sorry but planes didn't slam in to the buildings

Happened in 1945 with a much slower and smaller plane:





Got research?



Originally posted by thesneakiod
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.

No planes at the WTC has been thoroughly researched, debunked and deemed disinfo years ago. Nobody is falling for it anymore, so naturally you will encounter extreme resistance.

Plus the fact that no-planers never show us any actual evidence, even though we constantly ask for it. No evidence of no-planes and claiming "absolute proof" is disinfo. Especially when this "absolute proof" is only someone's opinion who has already been shown to be wrong by many people.

Nuff said...



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911
You say "someone's opinions aren't proof." OK, what is your proof of your "thousands of witnesses" claim?

Watch the Naudet video or go to archive.org and watch all the news from that day and you'll see the countless thousands on the streets looking up and watching the towers.

I already said this last time I was asked. Must've been ignored.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


The "Absolute Proof" was just for sensationalism and hype, nothing more. It got your attention and it works. That is what I intended.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide
The "Absolute Proof" was just for sensationalism and hype, nothing more. It got your attention and it works. That is what I intended.

Saying something is proof when it's not is disinformation. You've just admitted to purposely making disinformation. That's what disinfo artists do. They make disinformation and peddle it.

I do find it odd that this was "Absolute Proof" until we debunked it. Now it's just "sensationalism". Go figure.

Videoworldwide, you're busted. Game over!



I don't think there's really anything more to say.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide
reply to post by redoubt
 


The "Absolute Proof" was just for sensationalism and hype, nothing more. It got your attention and it works. That is what I intended.


I suspect then that... any means to an end can always be justified?

You may have a future in the MSM...

Addendum:

I was about to add you as my very first ATS 'foe'... but the title comes with a disclaimer that makes you my 'respected' foe and so... I'm just gonna ignore you, via the little button, from here on out.

You're right. It got my attention.

...

[edit on 13-8-2009 by redoubt]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt

Originally posted by videoworldwide
reply to post by redoubt
 


The "Absolute Proof" was just for sensationalism and hype, nothing more. It got your attention and it works. That is what I intended.


I suspect then that... any means to an end can always be justified?

You may have a future in the MSM...



No, it means i'm an activist and I know how to use sensationalism to get attention.

If you want to read more into it, then it's in your imagination.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
funny how when you show proof the noplaners ignore the proof posts as if they didn't exist..

ignorance must be bliss



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by videoworldwide

No, it means i'm an activist and I know how to use sensationalism to get attention.

If you want to read more into it, then it's in your imagination.



Hilarious.

You basically admit that it's not proof at all, and you're just attention seeking.

LMAO!!

Skeptic Overlord used to post occasionally over at JREF, and he basically said just that - that "truthers aren't really in it for the truth, they're activists."

Looks like he's the smartest guy in this thread, without even making a post.......



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Skeptic Overlord used to post occasionally over at JREF, and he basically said just that - that "truthers aren't really in it for the truth, they're activists."
Looks like he's the smartest guy in this thread, without even making a post.......

But no-planers aren't truthers. No where in the 9/11 truth movement is NPT accepted. But you could say that "disinfo artists aren't really in it for the truth, they're activists". That has a better ring to it.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


No, he got it right.

The TM isn't interested in any truth. They're activists. Their motivation varies, but they're all the same.

And activists will make up any outrageous lie that they can think of in order to further their cause.

Just like bigfoot believers.
Or moon landing hoaxers.

Noam Chomsky has it down regarding the TM....



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The TM isn't interested in any truth. They're activists.

Everyone's entitled to their opinions, no matter how right or wrong their opinions are. But please don't sit there and tell us what we do and do not do. I am not an activist. I'm a 9/11 researcher and investigator, just like it says under my name. So please don't presume to tell me what I am "interested in", thanks.




[edit on 13-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Everyone's entitled to their opinions, no matter how right or wrong their opinions are. But please don't sit there and tell us what we do and do not do. I am not an activist. I'm a 9/11 researcher and investigator, just like it says under my name. So please don't presume to tell me what I am "interested in", thanks.



Ok then, IMHO, the TM asks questions, and ignores answers from people that know better than they. Instead, anyone that disagrees is an "agent", etc.

And yeah, I don't know you at all. And I don't care to. Anyone that accuses professionals of cover ups, hiding evidence, etc, isn't someone that I'd ever care to know.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Anyone that accuses professionals of cover ups, hiding evidence, etc, isn't someone that I'd ever care to know.

Why don't you take that coin and flip it over to the other side for a moment. The same could be said for the debunkers that would accuse the professionals that have spoken out against the official story. There are professionals on both sides of the fence.

Be advised that you're also talking about victims' families, first responders and survivors when you talk about the truth movement. If you don't care about them either, that speaks volumes for your character.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

The same could be said for the debunkers that would accuse the professionals that have spoken out against the official story. There are professionals on both sides of the fence.




You're equating the TM side, where your pros say that they're part of a cover up, or part of murdering 1000's, etc.... with our pros NOT accusing anyone of felonies, or murdering anyone. They're just said to be incompetent, and then prove it with calculations.

But I guess it makes no difference, eh?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join