Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,368 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 653,342
Pageviews Today: 818,347Threads Today: 176Posts Today: 3,505
07:26 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33680044
United Kingdom
03/04/2013 03:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
bottom line ....

2 fucking planes and 3 fucking buildings fell

wake up cunts!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35575196
United States
03/04/2013 04:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
...


Your other claim (beside the one where you falsely claim that shots of a plane hitting the 2nd tower were only shown "later in the day")is that I only saw something which was "blurry" and that my mind deciphered as an aircraft. That simply isn't true- what was shown needed no stretch in imagination to be identified as an aircraft.

So... what are you actually claiming, that NO live shot took place? That is incorrect- I saw the live shot, along with many others- IN REAL TIME. Is your claim that what was shown was too "blurry" to positively identify? Again, incorrect- what was certainly shaped like an aircraft. So now... apparently you are left with claiming that the shot(s) were "fake", is that it?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 636186


NOTE: No response.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 34519955


NOTE: STILL no response from AC12731155 about his claim that NO LIVE FOOTAGE of the aircraft footage was aired that day that nothing like that was shown until "later in the day".
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1502752


Dude you are not worth responding too, I'm sure the readers will be able to see through your pseudo science bullshit.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


Sooo trite. Soooo old and tired a dodge. I also challenged you on your claim that the image was too "blurry" to make out as an aircraft, so the brain 'filled in' that detail. Another stupidly false assertion on your part.

You keep bringing up the above but if you read for what it is and not what you want to see the maybe you will see what I said the first time I mentioned it.
"another misconception,

You DID NOT see any planes crashing into the towers LIVE on tv! the movies of planes entering the towers came later in the day."

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


Yes, you did say that and it is false. What people remember seeing was, in fact, live and in real time. We/they are not talking about something which was only shown "later in the day". Why do you pretend what you said isn't false?

I saw you typed "and please show your work"

I honestly laughed! from jref by chance? funny how sheep follow sheep!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


Yes, and it was meant as a bit of humor, since I knew you would not even respond to the point I was making. You have just proven my prediction on that to be accurate. You completely ignored the question. You claim it is some sort of a sign of conspiracy that all the engines weren't recovered in that mass of debris. I asked you to compare the size/mass of those missing engines to the size/mass of the material which came crashing down that day, in which those engines would have been buried. Funny how you only dodge the question.

I bet you can't even got to the shops without a peer reviewed shopping list lol.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


Is that supposed to mean something or is it just another obfuscatory dodge?

So like I said, I shan't be responding to your BS as I've been there many times before going round in circles. I say it was black you will say it was dark grey.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


You mean you wish to make unfounded declarations of fact which don't hold water and have them accepted without being challenged. I get that, and so do most other readers.

ps education does NOT equal intelligence.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


When are you going to say something qualifying as either one?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35575196
United States
03/04/2013 04:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
"saw the second plane hit"

You are familiar with what a hologram is, right?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35350153


Why don't you just say they used "magic"? You can prove that equally as well, you know.

But if they used holograms, why didn't they use the right airplane? You know, one with windows like a regular passenger 757?
When they launched the 727 engine out to the street, why didn't they use a 757 engine?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35350153

Yes- why DIDN'T they? Your point shoots your own theory in the foot. They "faked" the planes with holograms, but they were so stupid that they inserted the wrong type of aircraft? And the same thing with the engines? Seriously???????????? When I challenge you on your "wrong engine" claim, you just fall to making excuses about why you won't answer me. How droll.. how very transparent of you.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12731155
United Kingdom
03/04/2013 04:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
John, can you link us to information on the mismatched engine found next to the crumpled Murray street sign?



Somebody identified the engine on Murray Street as a CFM-56 which is a small engine used in early jet airliners like the DC-8.

At the time it looked like the perps were using scrap yard parts to scatter around to look like parts from UAL 175 which crashed into the South Tower.

American Airlines used General Electric CF-6’s on their 767’s and the CF-6 was an outgrowth of the CFM-56. But the CF-6 is much, much bigger.

It was thought that somebody told the perps to put that engine in the street because core parts might look like a CF-6 and they figured nobody was going to check that close anyway.

Unfortunately for the perps, UAL used a Pratt & Whitney engine PW4000 which is the only engine that could have landed on Murray Street.

So in their haste in addition to many other technical mistakes the perps made, they put the wrong kind of engine for the UAL type 767’s on Murray Street.

I think that engine ended up in a landfill or dump and could not be checked.

But like their ignorance about ACARS which is an automatic digital transmission of engines parameters during flight the Perps neglected to realize that Flight 93 after allegedly crashing in Shanksville was still transmitting the ACARS engine data 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed.

Neat trick for a Boeing 767 40 feet underground in a million pieces.
 Quoting: johnlear


For those who seem to skip read.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12731155
United Kingdom
03/04/2013 05:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
2 questions for ac35575196, please give a yes or no answer.


1. Do you believe a plane flew into the pentagon?
2. Do you believe office fires caused the collapse of building 7?


It seems you will fight to the death about ANYTHING that goes against the official story. Yet you expect people to believe anything you say.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35576667
United States
03/04/2013 05:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
There was only one plane that crashed that day. Tower 1 was hit by a missile. No one paying attention except the suspicious Naudet brothers' footage. Once the north tower was ablaze and all eyes were skyward, they sent in an actual plane to hit the south tower. I think this was probably a remote plane loaded with explosives that struck a weakened wall of the tower. I also believe the videos of the plane hitting were doctored by MSM. Once towers were on fire the pre-planted explosives took over to bring the buildings down. Pentagon was hit by a missile. Shankstown was done by firing a missile into the ground. And here we are 11 years later still at war.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35578048
United States
03/04/2013 05:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
bottom line ....

2 fucking planes and 3 fucking buildings fell

wake up cunts!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33680044


So that is the hopelessly simplistic way you look at this subject?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35578048
United States
03/04/2013 05:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
John, can you link us to information on the mismatched engine found next to the crumpled Murray street sign?



Somebody identified the engine on Murray Street as a CFM-56 which is a small engine used in early jet airliners like the DC-8.

At the time it looked like the perps were using scrap yard parts to scatter around to look like parts from UAL 175 which crashed into the South Tower.

American Airlines used General Electric CF-6’s on their 767’s and the CF-6 was an outgrowth of the CFM-56. But the CF-6 is much, much bigger.

It was thought that somebody told the perps to put that engine in the street because core parts might look like a CF-6 and they figured nobody was going to check that close anyway.

Unfortunately for the perps, UAL used a Pratt & Whitney engine PW4000 which is the only engine that could have landed on Murray Street.

So in their haste in addition to many other technical mistakes the perps made, they put the wrong kind of engine for the UAL type 767’s on Murray Street.

I think that engine ended up in a landfill or dump and could not be checked.

But like their ignorance about ACARS which is an automatic digital transmission of engines parameters during flight the Perps neglected to realize that Flight 93 after allegedly crashing in Shanksville was still transmitting the ACARS engine data 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed.

Neat trick for a Boeing 767 40 feet underground in a million pieces.
 Quoting: johnlear


For those who seem to skip read.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


"Somebody identified the engine..."

DAMN- that's certainly definitive! Heh...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35578048
United States
03/04/2013 05:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
2 questions for ac35575196, please give a yes or no answer.


1. Do you believe a plane flew into the pentagon?
2. Do you believe office fires caused the collapse of building 7?


It seems you will fight to the death about ANYTHING that goes against the official story. Yet you expect people to believe anything you say.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


I am not here making definitive claims of fact, so I don't have any reason to take your silly litmus test. What did I say that you don't believe and why? Please be specific.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35578048
United States
03/04/2013 05:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
There was only one plane that crashed that day. Tower 1 was hit by a missile. No one paying attention except the suspicious Naudet brothers' footage. Once the north tower was ablaze and all eyes were skyward, they sent in an actual plane to hit the south tower. I think this was probably a remote plane loaded with explosives that struck a weakened wall of the tower. I also believe the videos of the plane hitting were doctored by MSM. Once towers were on fire the pre-planted explosives took over to bring the buildings down. Pentagon was hit by a missile. Shankstown was done by firing a missile into the ground. And here we are 11 years later still at war.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35576667


Right... clear footage of a plane hitting the tower is simply declared "suspicious" and ignored.

Just curious. How is it that the "pre-planted" explosives caused the collapse to begin right at the point of impact of the planes, on both towers? I supposed they had explosives on every floor?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12731155
United Kingdom
03/04/2013 05:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
2 questions for ac35575196, please give a yes or no answer.


1. Do you believe a plane flew into the pentagon?
2. Do you believe office fires caused the collapse of building 7?


It seems you will fight to the death about ANYTHING that goes against the official story. Yet you expect people to believe anything you say.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


I am not here making definitive claims of fact, so I don't have any reason to take your silly litmus test. What did I say that you don't believe and why? Please be specific.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35578048


I was speaking to ac35575196
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12731155
United Kingdom
03/04/2013 05:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
There was only one plane that crashed that day. Tower 1 was hit by a missile. No one paying attention except the suspicious Naudet brothers' footage. Once the north tower was ablaze and all eyes were skyward, they sent in an actual plane to hit the south tower. I think this was probably a remote plane loaded with explosives that struck a weakened wall of the tower. I also believe the videos of the plane hitting were doctored by MSM. Once towers were on fire the pre-planted explosives took over to bring the buildings down. Pentagon was hit by a missile. Shankstown was done by firing a missile into the ground. And here we are 11 years later still at war.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35576667


Right... clear footage of a plane hitting the tower is simply declared "suspicious" and ignored.

Just curious. How is it that the "pre-planted" explosives caused the collapse to begin right at the point of impact of the planes, on both towers? I supposed they had explosives on every floor?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35578048


Danny Jowenko (demolition expert) did say that for them to collapse the way they did that there would need to be explosives on every floor.
Daniel of the Rose

User ID: 15114131
United States
03/04/2013 05:36 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
John Lear will be going live at 9:00 pm EST on Nsearch Radio with Stew Webb to go over his evidence that no planes hit the towers on 9/11

Instead holograms and conventional explosives were used to fool the masses. He also states that the "Death Ray" was used to bring down the towers which ties in perfectly with Stew Webb's Intel sources and the research of Judy Wood!

[link to www.project.nsearch.com]

[link to www.stewwebb.com]

Here's John's affidavit that no planes hit the towers.

[link to www.stewwebb.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19004725






Last Edited by Daniel of the Rose on 03/04/2013 05:38 PM
rainrose
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35579721
United States
03/04/2013 05:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
2 questions for ac35575196, please give a yes or no answer.


1. Do you believe a plane flew into the pentagon?
2. Do you believe office fires caused the collapse of building 7?


It seems you will fight to the death about ANYTHING that goes against the official story. Yet you expect people to believe anything you say.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


I am not here making definitive claims of fact, so I don't have any reason to take your silly litmus test. What did I say that you don't believe and why? Please be specific.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35578048


I was speaking to ac35575196
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


That's me. I'm using a device which apparently has a floating IP and changes each time I restart it. I'm the one challenging the many declarations of "fact" here, supposedly proving that planes didn't hit the towers. Kindly state what I have said that you don't believe, and why. Please be specific.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35579721
United States
03/04/2013 05:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
There was only one plane that crashed that day. Tower 1 was hit by a missile. No one paying attention except the suspicious Naudet brothers' footage. Once the north tower was ablaze and all eyes were skyward, they sent in an actual plane to hit the south tower. I think this was probably a remote plane loaded with explosives that struck a weakened wall of the tower. I also believe the videos of the plane hitting were doctored by MSM. Once towers were on fire the pre-planted explosives took over to bring the buildings down. Pentagon was hit by a missile. Shankstown was done by firing a missile into the ground. And here we are 11 years later still at war.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35576667


Right... clear footage of a plane hitting the tower is simply declared "suspicious" and ignored.

Just curious. How is it that the "pre-planted" explosives caused the collapse to begin right at the point of impact of the planes, on both towers? I supposed they had explosives on every floor?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35578048


Danny Jowenko (demolition expert) did say that for them to collapse the way they did that there would need to be explosives on every floor.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


How likely is it that such a system was secretly installed and not affected by the plane crash or fires?
Scribbler

User ID: 28302029
United States
03/04/2013 06:17 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
bump
Something is better than nothing, pay attention, it's still free. Lead by example.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 24206466
United States
03/04/2013 06:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
John, can you link us to information on the mismatched engine found next to the crumpled Murray street sign?



Somebody identified the engine on Murray Street as a CFM-56 which is a small engine used in early jet airliners like the DC-8.

At the time it looked like the perps were using scrap yard parts to scatter around to look like parts from UAL 175 which crashed into the South Tower.

American Airlines used General Electric CF-6’s on their 767’s and the CF-6 was an outgrowth of the CFM-56. But the CF-6 is much, much bigger.

It was thought that somebody told the perps to put that engine in the street because core parts might look like a CF-6 and they figured nobody was going to check that close anyway.

Unfortunately for the perps, UAL used a Pratt & Whitney engine PW4000 which is the only engine that could have landed on Murray Street.

So in their haste in addition to many other technical mistakes the perps made, they put the wrong kind of engine for the UAL type 767’s on Murray Street.

I think that engine ended up in a landfill or dump and could not be checked.

But like their ignorance about ACARS which is an automatic digital transmission of engines parameters during flight the Perps neglected to realize that Flight 93 after allegedly crashing in Shanksville was still transmitting the ACARS engine data 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed.

Neat trick for a Boeing 767 40 feet underground in a million pieces.
 Quoting: johnlear


For those who seem to skip read.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12731155


"Somebody identified the engine..."

DAMN- that's certainly definitive! Heh...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35578048


Yep... toss out something really vague and questionable and declare it to be unquestioned fact- then ignore all challenges to its validity when they arise. That's how you get all this belief in nonsense like that no planes hit the WTC.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33148959
United States
03/04/2013 08:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
There was only one plane that crashed that day. Tower 1 was hit by a missile. No one paying attention except the suspicious Naudet brothers' footage. Once the north tower was ablaze and all eyes were skyward, they sent in an actual plane to hit the south tower. I think this was probably a remote plane loaded with explosives that struck a weakened wall of the tower. I also believe the videos of the plane hitting were doctored by MSM. Once towers were on fire the pre-planted explosives took over to bring the buildings down. Pentagon was hit by a missile. Shankstown was done by firing a missile into the ground. And here we are 11 years later still at war.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35576667


Right... clear footage of a plane hitting the tower is simply declared "suspicious" and ignored.

Just curious. How is it that the "pre-planted" explosives caused the collapse to begin right at the point of impact of the planes, on both towers? I supposed they had explosives on every floor?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35578048



Watch the Naudet bros footage and tell me that looks like a plane. Not to mention the flash the nose makes right before contact with the building. And yes, you're right, explosives on every floor usually help with a controlled demolition. Not sure where the info came about the collapse starting at the point of impact of the planes. Oh, that must have been what the media told us.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2330917
United States
03/05/2013 08:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
There was only one plane that crashed that day. Tower 1 was hit by a missile. No one paying attention except the suspicious Naudet brothers' footage. Once the north tower was ablaze and all eyes were skyward, they sent in an actual plane to hit the south tower. I think this was probably a remote plane loaded with explosives that struck a weakened wall of the tower. I also believe the videos of the plane hitting were doctored by MSM. Once towers were on fire the pre-planted explosives took over to bring the buildings down. Pentagon was hit by a missile. Shankstown was done by firing a missile into the ground. And here we are 11 years later still at war.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35576667


Right... clear footage of a plane hitting the tower is simply declared "suspicious" and ignored.

Just curious. How is it that the "pre-planted" explosives caused the collapse to begin right at the point of impact of the planes, on both towers? I supposed they had explosives on every floor?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35578048



Watch the Naudet bros footage and tell me that looks like a plane.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33148959


Cripes! How many times does it have to be said, that you are taking marginal-quality footage and expecting it not to look funky and have odd artifacts? Get a fucking grip!

Not to mention the flash the nose makes right before contact with the building.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33148959


See above.

And yes, you're right, explosives on every floor usually help with a controlled demolition. Not sure where the info came about the collapse starting at the point of impact of the planes. Oh, that must have been what the media told us.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33148959


What the media "TOLD" us? WTF is wrong with you? You can watch any number of the vids of the tower collapses and both towers do collapse beginning at the floors where the planes hit.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 16705777
United States
03/05/2013 04:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
There was only one plane that crashed that day. Tower 1 was hit by a missile. No one paying attention except the suspicious Naudet brothers' footage. Once the north tower was ablaze and all eyes were skyward, they sent in an actual plane to hit the south tower. I think this was probably a remote plane loaded with explosives that struck a weakened wall of the tower. I also believe the videos of the plane hitting were doctored by MSM. Once towers were on fire the pre-planted explosives took over to bring the buildings down. Pentagon was hit by a missile. Shankstown was done by firing a missile into the ground. And here we are 11 years later still at war.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35576667


Right... clear footage of a plane hitting the tower is simply declared "suspicious" and ignored.

Just curious. How is it that the "pre-planted" explosives caused the collapse to begin right at the point of impact of the planes, on both towers? I supposed they had explosives on every floor?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35578048



Watch the Naudet bros footage and tell me that looks like a plane.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33148959


Cripes! How many times does it have to be said, that you are taking marginal-quality footage and expecting it not to look funky and have odd artifacts? Get a fucking grip!

Not to mention the flash the nose makes right before contact with the building.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33148959


See above.

And yes, you're right, explosives on every floor usually help with a controlled demolition. Not sure where the info came about the collapse starting at the point of impact of the planes. Oh, that must have been what the media told us.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33148959


What the media "TOLD" us? WTF is wrong with you? You can watch any number of the vids of the tower collapses and both towers do collapse beginning at the floors where the planes hit.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2330917


No, actually they dont. Watch the antenna on top. It goes first meaning the core was the first to go. Then take into account that steel towers turned to dust. Didnt realize when you melt steel, like they wanted us to believe, that it turns into dust.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 636186
United States
03/06/2013 04:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
...


Right... clear footage of a plane hitting the tower is simply declared "suspicious" and ignored.

Just curious. How is it that the "pre-planted" explosives caused the collapse to begin right at the point of impact of the planes, on both towers? I supposed they had explosives on every floor?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35578048



Watch the Naudet bros footage and tell me that looks like a plane.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33148959


Cripes! How many times does it have to be said, that you are taking marginal-quality footage and expecting it not to look funky and have odd artifacts? Get a fucking grip!

Not to mention the flash the nose makes right before contact with the building.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33148959


See above.

And yes, you're right, explosives on every floor usually help with a controlled demolition. Not sure where the info came about the collapse starting at the point of impact of the planes. Oh, that must have been what the media told us.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33148959


What the media "TOLD" us? WTF is wrong with you? You can watch any number of the vids of the tower collapses and both towers do collapse beginning at the floors where the planes hit.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 2330917


No, actually they dont. Watch the antenna on top. It goes first meaning the core was the first to go. Then take into account that steel towers turned to dust. Didnt realize when you melt steel, like they wanted us to believe, that it turns into dust.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16705777


"Melt steel"? Who said steel "melted" to bring down the towers? The towers "turned to dust? Really? Do yo have any idea how much concrete and drywall was in those buildings? I supposed you can't imagine pulverized concrete and drywall being the source of a heck of a lot of dust?

Core went first? By how much? Do you not realize that the floor structure in question comprised part of that core? Core really went first? Depends on which view you look at. On some of them the tower doesn't seem to go any sooner than the rest of the top of the building.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35101661
United States
03/06/2013 04:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
Melt steel"? Who said steel "melted" to bring down the towers?


Umm....actually that was the official story we were spoon fed by the media. Those darn fires were just so hot they made 3 buildings collapse that day. And one of those wasnt even hit by a "plane". You're welcome s226
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 636186
United States
03/06/2013 05:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
Melt steel"? Who said steel "melted" to bring down the towers?


Umm....actually that was the official story we were spoon fed by the media. Those darn fires were just so hot they made 3 buildings collapse that day. And one of those wasnt even hit by a "plane". You're welcome s226
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35101661


You're invited to cite/quote/link the "official story" where it states any steel was "melted" to bring down the towers.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 636186
United States
03/06/2013 06:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
Melt steel"? Who said steel "melted" to bring down the towers?


Umm....actually that was the official story we were spoon fed by the media. Those darn fires were just so hot they made 3 buildings collapse that day. And one of those wasnt even hit by a "plane". You're welcome s226
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35101661


You're invited to cite/quote/link the "official story" where it states any steel was "melted" to bring down the towers.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 636186


Since you aren't likely to answer my challenge, I just say it- the "official story" does NOT claim that any steel was "melted" to bring the collapse of the towers about. That's just a false story the "truthers" have been repeating over and over and over and over and over again for a decade now.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 33148959
United States
03/06/2013 09:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
Melt steel"? Who said steel "melted" to bring down the towers?


Umm....actually that was the official story we were spoon fed by the media. Those darn fires were just so hot they made 3 buildings collapse that day. And one of those wasnt even hit by a "plane". You're welcome s226
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35101661


You're invited to cite/quote/link the "official story" where it states any steel was "melted" to bring down the towers.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 636186


Since you aren't likely to answer my challenge, I just say it- the "official story" does NOT claim that any steel was "melted" to bring the collapse of the towers about. That's just a false story the "truthers" have been repeating over and over and over and over and over again for a decade now.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 636186


Perhaps not "melted" but weakened by the fire I believe was the consensus. Either way its complete bullshit. We watched 3 controlled demos that day.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35717357
United States
03/07/2013 11:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
Melt steel"? Who said steel "melted" to bring down the towers?


Umm....actually that was the official story we were spoon fed by the media. Those darn fires were just so hot they made 3 buildings collapse that day. And one of those wasnt even hit by a "plane". You're welcome s226
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35101661


You're invited to cite/quote/link the "official story" where it states any steel was "melted" to bring down the towers.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 636186


Since you aren't likely to answer my challenge, I just say it- the "official story" does NOT claim that any steel was "melted" to bring the collapse of the towers about. That's just a false story the "truthers" have been repeating over and over and over and over and over again for a decade now.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 636186


Perhaps not "melted" but weakened by the fire I believe was the consensus. Either way its complete bullshit. We watched 3 controlled demos that day.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33148959


"PERHAPS not melted"?? How about the fact that "melted steel" was ABSOLUTELY never part of the official report, but 911 truthers keep claiming it was?! It's not as if there is little difference between "melted" and "weakened". There is a HUGE difference! One didn't happen- one DID happen! There is plenty of photographic evidence showing the exterior walls buckling just before the collapse. Of course you just ignore that in favor of making your blanket, conspiritorial conclusion about "controlled demolition".
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 35101661
United States
03/07/2013 04:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
...


You're invited to cite/quote/link the "official story" where it states any steel was "melted" to bring down the towers.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 636186


Since you aren't likely to answer my challenge, I just say it- the "official story" does NOT claim that any steel was "melted" to bring the collapse of the towers about. That's just a false story the "truthers" have been repeating over and over and over and over and over again for a decade now.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 636186


Perhaps not "melted" but weakened by the fire I believe was the consensus. Either way its complete bullshit. We watched 3 controlled demos that day.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33148959


"PERHAPS not melted"?? How about the fact that "melted steel" was ABSOLUTELY never part of the official report, but 911 truthers keep claiming it was?! It's not as if there is little difference between "melted" and "weakened". There is a HUGE difference! One didn't happen- one DID happen! There is plenty of photographic evidence showing the exterior walls buckling just before the collapse. Of course you just ignore that in favor of making your blanket, conspiritorial conclusion about "controlled demolition".
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35717357


SHILL ALERT
Cheops

User ID: 1341645
United States
03/07/2013 04:42 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
He's wrong. One of my friends watched as the 2nd plane flew into the WTC. He told me this in 2004 as we discussed 9/11 - he worked in Wall Street at the time and had heard about the first plane hitting and went to look at the building. As he was watching the first tower burning he said he saw the second plane fly in and hit the 2nd building.

Now I believe the planes could have been remote controlled planes. The towers certainly were brought down by explosives, perhaps even by the technology Judy Woods said was used. But planes did hit the towers since my friend had no reason to lie as I detailed above.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18713240


I watched an excellent documentary yesterday and many scientists don't believe any steel building has ever been brought down by fire alone. Tower 7 is the big red flag, because it wasn't even hit by a plane. Fire only burns at 180 degrees ferenheit and that's not enough to melt steel. It would have taken at least 250 degrees.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 12042051


That's not even hot enough to boil water.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 8434843
United States
03/07/2013 04:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
bottom line ....

2 fucking planes and 3 fucking buildings fell

wake up cunts!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33680044


Straight Up....and fuck J.L. for clouding the real issue.....FAKE WAR!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 636186
United States
03/07/2013 04:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911
...


Since you aren't likely to answer my challenge, I just say it- the "official story" does NOT claim that any steel was "melted" to bring the collapse of the towers about. That's just a false story the "truthers" have been repeating over and over and over and over and over again for a decade now.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 636186


Perhaps not "melted" but weakened by the fire I believe was the consensus. Either way its complete bullshit. We watched 3 controlled demos that day.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33148959


"PERHAPS not melted"?? How about the fact that "melted steel" was ABSOLUTELY never part of the official report, but 911 truthers keep claiming it was?! It's not as if there is little difference between "melted" and "weakened". There is a HUGE difference! One didn't happen- one DID happen! There is plenty of photographic evidence showing the exterior walls buckling just before the collapse. Of course you just ignore that in favor of making your blanket, conspiritorial conclusion about "controlled demolition".
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35717357


SHILL ALERT
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 35101661


That's right... that's right out of the "truther" playbook. Don't address the facts, just scream "SHILL".

News