Humint Events Online: John Lear Explains No Planes Crashed on 9/11

Monday, May 12, 2008

John Lear Explains No Planes Crashed on 9/11

posted by spooked at 7:03 AM

12 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today the page to John Lear was removed from Wiki. The inventor of the Lear Jet is no longer a person even worthy of a stub at the government directed Israeli owned Weakipedia. It is a shame but that is how they work. Wikipeadia is NOT an encyclopedia, it is a hand edited newspeak journal of new history re-written by those who "care" so that it does not scare anyone.

...Rick

11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But Rick, obviously John Lear is ignoring all those people who came forward and reported that they SAW planes crashing into the twin towers.

Isn't he just trying to dismiss them by saying "it couldn't happen"? He didn't say a word about why their accounts can't be true.

8:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

rick is not here, i was quoting him.
a real 767 could not possibly behave as the media portrayed it behaving upon hitting wtc2.
is it more likely that the laws of physics were suspended briefly on 9/11 or is it more likely that some people lied about what they saw?

8:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neither. It's much more likely that some people sincerely thought they saw planes crash into the buildings and still believe that is what really happened.

"To err is human. To forgive is Divine."

10:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

some witnesses could have easily been fooled by a well timed fly-by but other witnesses such as stanley prainmath and the CEO of CNN were obvious liars.

11:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have pointed out three possible exceptions to the general claim that most people who reported seeing planes crash were sincere.

Exceptions only reinforce the truism of the general claim. Otherwise, there would be no general claim and since the majority of people who reported seeing planes were sincere, then the only valid claim would be that EVERYONE who claimed to have seen planes was sincere.

8:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

john lear ignores the eyewitnesses because it doesn't matter what witnesses saw or whether they were sincere or lying because the fact remains that a real 767 is nothing more than a giant flying beer can and could not have behaved in the manner that was presented to us in a total of only 4 media videos.

11:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eyewitness accounts should be and are
trumped by physical evidence. Whether you're talking about 9/11, manned flights to the Moon, the hanging of Saddam Hussein, or the assassinations of MLK, RFK, and JFK.

12:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now this is about “No Planes”, so why is Early Wynn adding his disinfo about JFK, etc. here?
(At 12:42 and 1:18.)

This is because John Lear was one of the people who spoke out on SS Agent/driver William Greer being the one who fired the fatal shot, killing President Kennedy. Others include Col. Bo Gritz, and of course Bill Cooper, who worked with Lear for a time. I believe they had a falling out, as I recall. And Cooper no longer trusted him. (Lear has apaprently said there are trees on the back side of the Moon. [I just found a discussion on Abovetopsecret--a JREF like "forum"--where Lear recently said, "You can't disprove that there are trees on the back side of the Moon."] Now many, including the NASA workers who erased them [see the diclosure project videos on youtube], know there to be bases on the back side of the Moon. But trees? And I don't think Lear backed that up, in any way.

One method the PTB, and their intel agencies love, is the type of Hangout where someone trusted in a conspiracy field, actually attempts to demolish it from within.

Lear sounds mostly genuine in this video on NPT here. And the video is available still by a different poster at youtube, if you look. But some things about Lear’s 9 minutes here are strange. Somehow I don’t quite believe that an experienced pilot could not have hit a tower, with enough time and distance to aim for it from afar--unless he is referring to making some tight turn just before.

Then I don’t know why he just doesn’t say that the videos of the impact and all the nonsense after that, like the Purdue “simulation,” violate the Laws of Physics, and are therefore impossible. The videos are what one of the videographers himself called it after it was “processed” by the FBI--“bad, special effects.” [Fairbanks.]

So I am not sure why Lear doesn’t go into this, and instead says “no experienced pilot could have hit the tower”? (Or words to that effect.) When this type of statement can perhaps be shot down easily. But I am not a pilot.

What do you think Spooked?

Anonymous Physicist

4:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mindless CIA-droid,

go back to your fake Moon base. Nobody here believes your sad tales about Jackie Kennedy trying to escape being shot by John Connally while being pushed back into the line of fire by Clint Hill.

4:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1:18 was not not Early, it was i; h.

"Eyewitness accounts should be trumped by physical evidence."

yes.

"" I don’t know why he (lear) just doesn’t say that the videos of the impact and all the nonsense after that, like the Purdue “simulation,” violate the Laws of Physics""

it is likely that lear, having spent every moment of his life becoming the best pilot that he can be, knows nothing about the physical interaction of one material with another.
perhaps he, like almost everyone else, just cannot let go of the notion that planes hit the towers.

evidence be damned, right john lear?

11:23 PM  
Anonymous yatesspain.blogspot.com said...

Quite helpful piece of writing, much thanks for this article.

8:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger