John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911

No, what was being said is that NO ONE saw, on live TV, a second plane fly into the WTC. The claim was that those shots were only shown "later in the day". That claim is false.

"Attached"? Bullshit. I, for one, have looked at LOTS of supposed evidence of the kind you are apparently talking about. It's comprised of little more than wishful thinking and preconceived conclusions.

Perfect example of a false, strawman, position being repeated, over and over again. The story is NOT that the steel was MELTED to bring the building down.

NOTE: No response.

NO LIVE footage of the plane impacting the towers!

Only four shots were aired LIVE when the plane hits the building.

NONE of those shots show the plane impacting and entering the building.

Those four shots show a blurry or shadowless image that resembles a plane.
-These images would be easy to add into the live footage as they were so basic and did not show the impact which would've made it a lot harder to do live.


Something made the holes in the building but we do not have any live footage of what it was.

Major news networks broadcasting the SAME live footage, so obviousy come through one network hub.



Then we have the footage released later in the day showing planes impacting and entering the towers.
These videos are very poor animations that show numerous anomalies and defying physics.




BUT WE SEEN IT ON THE TEEVEE! SO IT MUST BE TRUE!




.

How can a 767 NOT decelerate when impacting a scyscraper?


...when it is a animation, thats how.

What caused the molten 'metal' under the debris of building 7?

Why is it when we stabilise the video footage of a plane flying into the tower something strange happens to this 'plane'......it starts jumping up and down and not a level flight path we see in the regular footage.

Why is there no plane debris falling from the impact location?

How do 3 out of 4 huge titanium engines disappear?

How does a landing gear wheel travel through the steel outer box columns, through concrete floors, through core columns and then become wedged in the outer box columns the other side but still have enough energy to propel a huge outer box column section which ways several tons overa huge distance.

How come the only engine found is from a different plane?

I'll stop for now.


- Those buildings were ready rigged and coming down that day regardless.

- Real planes pose too many complications that could fail (remember those buildings had to comedown regardless)


Easy answer - fake planes
...and a hell of a lot of 'programming' from the mass deception device aka teevee.

Simply put, none of the 3 buildings in NY could have fallen vertical the way they did, according to any official story.

That is an indisputable fact of engineering.

That's odd. The original post, to which I responded on this matter, claimed that NO live shots were aired.



So what then... they "faked" the footage, but didn't bother to do it convincingly? Why?



"Blurry"? Compared to what? You expect a distant shot from a news camera to have some extraordinary level of resolution, otherwise it is suspect? Why?



Right... once again, the massive conspiracy which is also technically inept. Right... Yawn.



Um.. so if "live" footage is 'fakeable', why worry about whether it was "live" or not? There is vid of the first plane hitting. I suppose that is "fake" too?



Sorry? You said there were FOUR shots. Now you are claiming that they were all the SAME SHOT? I think they were not all the same shot.



You mean you have taken admittedly average quality images and extrapolated various "anomalies" to mean what you want them to mean. Yawn.



You fall back on the false notion that everybody who doesn't believe YOU is a stupid sheep. Hardly the case. As I already said- analysis driven primarily by wishful thinking, reaching convenient conclusions. Yawn.

Not decelerate? You mean between the moment of impact of the nose till when the tail arrives at the building?? You expect to analyse, with THAT degree of sophistication, from a poor resolution, distant video? Hilarious!

First of all, an aircraft of that type is made of the lightest structure which can hold the various components in place. It is NOT stiff or strong enough to cause the aft end of the plane to slow down simply due to the nose section being crushed at flight speeds. Is it THIS sort of nonsense upon which you base your conclusions and your "truth"? Truly fucking hilarious!

Oh, so now it's not that what brought down the buildings was "melted steel", it's melted metal under the "pile"? Do you have ANY idea of the kinetic energy involved in that many floors of a building, falling that far? Not to mention the amount of combustible material crammed into that hole.

I'm sure you will tell us what it really was, though.

It's marginal-quality video. You expect it to display some sort of high-resolution properties? Seriously? Once again... the mighty conspiracy has inserted this "fake" footage, but has done so in such a way that any amateur internet sleuth can see right through it. Right...

You mean the "truthers" SAY no debris, at all, fell.

What is the percentage of mass and volume of those engines compared to the debris from the collapse of the WTC? Please show your work.

Nope. Lots of people saw, with their OWN eyes, those planes hit the towers. Nothing to do with "TEEVEE".

Numerous unfounded pre-suppositions, above, leading to what YOU claim is the only possible conclusion. Yawn.

You mean- "truthers" SAY that the only engine found was from a different plane. Sorry, but you don't get to ASSUME that anything said on the internet on this subject is automatically proven fact.

You mean, you SAY this is an indisputable fact of engineering.
By the way, one of the arguments by 911 "truthers" is that too much debris spewed out SIDEWAYS, so which is it- too vertical or too much sideways?

i would have said the 2nd plane was a missle with holographic tech. you can see a flash of light as it hits the building from below the plane (middle?)
as the plane hits the physics isn't right. they would have expected the engine to fly out the other side.

may seem far fetched but TPTB are fucked in the head. also their tech is like 20 years ahead of what we are seeing now.

i could find a video if you wanted?

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".

So the argument from the "truthers" is BOTH that the engines couldn't have penetrated the structure of the building AND that they should have flown clear through and out the other side? How droll.

"saw the second plane hit"

You are familiar with what a hologram is, right?

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?

Once again, taking marginal-quality video and extrapolating details beyond its capability. Someone SAID it was the wrong engine, and you pass it along as proven fact, from that point forward.

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

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."


I saw you typed "and please show your work"

I honestly laughed! from jref by chance? funny how sheep follow sheep!

I bet you can't even got to the shops without a peer reviewed shopping list lol.


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.



ps education does NOT equal intelligence.

oscillating (?) rays and holograms programs sound sophisticated. anyone you know mr. lear who has or had the operational capabilities, the ability to contain broad media, and the prior experience to achieve their or the perps' objectives of the day using those means?