John Lear - No Planes Hit Towers on 911

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.

"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?

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.

bottom line ....

2 fucking planes and 3 fucking buildings fell

wake up cunts!

For those who seem to skip read.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

I was speaking to ac35575196

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.

"Somebody identified the engine..."

DAMN- that's certainly definitive! Heh...

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?

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.

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!



See above.



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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

"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".

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.

bottom line ....

2 fucking planes and 3 fucking buildings fell

wake up cunts!

SHILL ALERT