Zingari Posted 6 March 2014 Author Posted 6 March 2014 RADAR proves John Lear is wrong. Lear thinks we have based on the dark side of moon, aliens live with us, and we go to Mars. John Lear will tell you he is a BS artist. it shouldn't take them long to prove him wrong on the 911 commission report then US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As Truth
purpleronnie Posted 6 March 2014 Posted 6 March 2014 it shouldn't take them long to prove him wrong on the 911 commission report then Do you really need a commission for that?
sphericalfox Posted 6 March 2014 Posted 6 March 2014 RADAR proves John Lear is wrong. Lear thinks we have based on the dark side of moon, aliens live with us, and we go to Mars. John Lear will tell you he is a BS artist. Would he though?
purpleronnie Posted 6 March 2014 Posted 6 March 2014 Would he though? Maybe he would, but if he did he could be lying, blinkin conspiracies, i'm all confused.
Zingari Posted 6 March 2014 Author Posted 6 March 2014 I appreciate that this has nothing to do with WTC7, but I didn't want to start a new thread. I'm interested to know what his angle is. I doubt it's money given his lineage, but could be wrong. His points on the pilots are not only fair and reasonable from a pretty weighty expert on the subject, and I suppose the points about the plane debris raises some questions, but the number of witnesses throughout the entire of Manhattan and beyond surely can't all have been drugged surely, or is he suggesting that it simply wasn't a Boeing 767? Something modified? I don't know. He's not a semi-professional crackpot like other conspiracy theorists plate up, so I'm interested to know his angle and hear more about where this goes (if he doesn't beforehand) I appreciate that this has nothing to do with WTC7, but I didn't want to start a new thread. I'm interested to know what his angle is. I doubt it's money given his lineage, but could be wrong. His points on the pilots are not only fair and reasonable from a pretty weighty expert on the subject, and I suppose the points about the plane debris raises some questions, but the number of witnesses throughout the entire of Manhattan and beyond surely can't all have been drugged surely, or is he suggesting that it simply wasn't a Boeing 767? Something modified? I don't know. He's not a semi-professional crackpot like other conspiracy theorists plate up, so I'm interested to know his angle and hear more about where this goes (if he doesn't beforehand) i don't think he's saying " nothing hit the towers" he's saying that it couldn't have been the aircraft alone that did all that damage . glass can't cut through diamonds just as aluminium wings can't cut through steel girders i really find it difficult to believe those aircraft collisions and fires alone did that much damage .to a huge steel framed structures he's also questioning the supposed speed of the aircraft at that low altitude and the aircraft's capability of achieving those speeds this is something they should be able to prove him wrong on .
sphericalfox Posted 6 March 2014 Posted 6 March 2014 Maybe he would, but if he did he could be lying, blinkin conspiracies, i'm all confused. Don't get me wrong his other notions are pretty kooky, but I don't doubt his flying credentials or expertise in that area. It's a pretty plausible claim to say that for a bunch of amateur pilots to manage to achieve what was achieved that day given the tools they controlling is just a tad bit fishy. I don't know about the impact/debris claims, but to say their was no impact is nuts, but I wonder if that's the aim, so that the report is totally thrown-out, and recommissioned.
danny. Posted 7 March 2014 Posted 7 March 2014 I think he is saying it wasn't a 767 - but something that looks like one. How do you know there aren't aliens living among us? I have no idea if there are or aren't. I would think there aren't, but who knows? 500 years ago if you told people about iPhones, the internet, smart TVs, aeroplanes etc. they would have locked you up as a loony. How arrogant to think you know everything that goes on in this world, none of us have a clue how this world is ran. Either way, how does an a hominem attack on other viewpoints have a bearing on all the points raised?
purpleronnie Posted 7 March 2014 Posted 7 March 2014 I think he is saying it wasn't a 767 - but something that looks like one. How do you know there aren't aliens living among us? I have no idea if there are or aren't. I would think there aren't, but who knows? 500 years ago if you told people about iPhones, the internet, smart TVs, aeroplanes etc. they would have locked you up as a loony. How arrogant to think you know everything that goes on in this world, none of us have a clue how this world is ran. Either way, how does an a hominem attack on other viewpoints have a bearing on all the points raised?
Zingari Posted 7 March 2014 Author Posted 7 March 2014 Quite right Danny . it's amazing how people say nothing when western presidents and prime ministers can say ludicrous things like "god has spoken to them" when justifying wars; Tony Blair 'talked to God over Iraq' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467175/Tony-Blair-talked-God-Iraq.html George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa whereas anyone disputing or even expressing doubt about the authenticity of the 911 story are the ones immediately branded as kooks. you couldn't make it up
purpleronnie Posted 7 March 2014 Posted 7 March 2014 Quite right Danny . it's amazing how people say nothing when western presidents and prime ministers can say ludicrous things like "god has spoken to them" when justifying wars; Tony Blair 'talked to God over Iraq' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-467175/Tony-Blair-talked-God-Iraq.html George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa whereas anyone disputing or even expressing doubt about the authenticity of the 911 story are the ones immediately branded as kooks. you couldn't make it up You do. Not sure what talking to god has to Lear talking his usual rubbish.
MooseBreath Posted 7 March 2014 Posted 7 March 2014 Bush and Blair were pandering to the religious masses in the US, very human, very explainable. Talking about aliens running the world is a bit different.
purpleronnie Posted 7 March 2014 Posted 7 March 2014 The conspiracy theorists still have yet to give any proof of their claims. We still wait....and wait...and wait....
ozleicester Posted 7 March 2014 Posted 7 March 2014 Id love the conspiracies to be true and just think if your capable of pulling off 911, then fixing the investigations should be a doddle
Babylon Posted 7 March 2014 Posted 7 March 2014 Id love the conspiracies to be true and just think if your capable of pulling off 911, then fixing the investigations should be a doddle Why would you love them to be true?
ozleicester Posted 7 March 2014 Posted 7 March 2014 Why would you love them to be true? If we were to discover they were true, just try to imagine the difference in our lives. for a start id be able to get on a plane without being anally raped... the whole world of fear that the governments have propagated since 911 would be changed (fair enough we'd have a whole lot of new things to fear, but hell, it would be interesting and perhaps reduce the amount of simplistic race hate). There are a billion reasons for me to enjoy that flipping of blame
Webbo Posted 7 March 2014 Posted 7 March 2014 If we were to discover they were true, just try to imagine the difference in our lives. for a start id be able to get on a plane without being anally raped... the whole world of fear that the governments have propagated since 911 would be changed (fair enough we'd have a whole lot of new things to fear, but hell, it would be interesting and perhaps reduce the amount of simplistic race hate). There are a billion reasons for me to enjoy that flipping of blame Even if 9/11 was a proven hoax by secret govt forces does that mean that there are no real terrorists? Would it be impossible for a group of individuals to hi jack a plane if all the present security procedures were scrapped?
Zingari Posted 7 March 2014 Author Posted 7 March 2014 The conspiracy theorists still have yet to give any proof of their claims. We still wait....and wait...and wait.... I'm not really sure what would count as proof . For instance , if the named plane is physically incapable of performing those actions at that speed and at that altitude, would that be proof that the official 911 narrative is false ? Surely if an unmodified 767 is capable of such manoeuvres such as flying at over 400 mph under 1000 ft in full control , it should be easy to prove , if they cannot, then surely that is proof that whatever hit the buildings were not the named aircraft and must be something else . Taken from pilots 9 11 truth; The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls. They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of higher g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g . This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck. No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature. The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn. The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC. There is only one way this can happen. As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 can be flown by remote control. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used. Terrorists in fact did not fly those planes, it is totally and completely impossible for those planes to have been flown in such a manner from the cockpit. Those are commuter aircraft, not F-16's and their software knows it.
Ashley Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 http://neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers
purpleronnie Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 I'm not really sure what would count as proof . For instance , if the named plane is physically incapable of performing those actions at that speed and at that altitude, would that be proof that the official 911 narrative is false ? Surely if an unmodified 767 is capable of such manoeuvres such as flying at over 400 mph under 1000 ft in full control , it should be easy to prove , if they cannot, then surely that is proof that whatever hit the buildings were not the named aircraft and must be something else . The proof is that the plane DID "perform those actions at that speed". It was witnessed by hundreds, maybe thousands. Any claims to the contrary are what needs to be supported. We wait for any evidence from the conspiracy theorists.
purpleronnie Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 http://neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia-pilot-gives-sworn-testimony-that-no-planes-hit-the-twin-towers Yep we've discussed it, he's a crank.
Ashley Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 Yep we've discussed it, he's a crank. Ah okay mate just seen it on facebook
danny. Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 The proof is that the plane DID "perform those actions at that speed". It was witnessed by hundreds, maybe thousands. Any claims to the contrary are what needs to be supported. We wait for any evidence from the conspiracy theorists. Hundreds/thousands of people saw two planes crash into the Twin Towers, this is not proof that they were unmodified passenger Boeing 767s
Zingari Posted 10 March 2014 Author Posted 10 March 2014 Hundreds/thousands of people saw two planes crash into the Twin Towers, this is not proof that they were unmodified passenger Boeing 767s Quite so , witnesses can be decieved in many ways ( intentionally or otherwise) If the named planes are physically incaple of performing such aeronautical feats , it doesn't matter how many witnesses saw them do it , they can't have been the unmodified 767's such as AA 11 and UA 175. What they must have witnessed would have to be some other craft . It's like saying that if a bus with a 70 mph speed limiter leaves the garage and is later said to have been stolen and travelling along the M1 causing mayhem at 140 mph by witnesses, then that is what happened . But that's nonsense , because if the bus isn't capable of those speeds and on top of that it's limited mechanically from doing so , we must consider the alternative that we looking at two very different vehicles. Ah okay mate just seen it on facebook don't just take ronnies word for it , think about it for yourself
purpleronnie Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 Hundreds/thousands of people saw two planes crash into the Twin Towers, this is not proof that they were unmodified passenger Boeing 767s yep, prove it.
Zingari Posted 10 March 2014 Author Posted 10 March 2014 yep, prove it. Unless I 've got this completely wrong , the onus is on the government now to prove him wrong , Unlike any other form of statement, an affidavit becomes truth in law, if it is not rebutted. It will now be up to critics of the theory to present their evidence and analysis to rebut the statement point by point. If they do not – or cannot – then the US government will be obliged to admit that the account given by the 9/11 Commission is wrong. I doubt we'll be hearing too much about it in the msm though .
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.