Ex-CIA Pilot - No Planes Hit The Twin Towers

Status
Not open for further replies.
not spavin said:
Not sure why this old thread has resurfaced, but here's what I posted earlier about the man in the OP.

___

Some other things John Lear believes.

There's a city on the moon called Endymion.
That Albert Einstein was a hoax.
That the Pope knows where the aliens are.
That an alien attended the Pope's funeral.
That some gravity went missing in Canada.
That there's a secret submarine base under the Nevada desert.
That there is a structure on the moon that predates but is identical the Burj Khalifa. This structure captures people's souls.
Click to expand...
This guy sounds like he'd fit right in on here.
 


daveydavey said:
The craic with building 7 is something i'd like @Ponteland Mackem 's take on
Click to expand...

He (assuming you mean PrefessionalMackem) thinks it's a conspiracy. He won't say exactly what happened. Just make vague references to things he thinks are problems with the official version. He absolutely will not say what he thinks happened.

The reality is that part of the debris from the twin towers smashed a gaping hole in its side at the corner (as the twin towers did not collapse into their footprints as is often stated). There are images of this damage. Fires broke out. The fire service went in and decided, in their expert opinion, it couldn't be saved and was unsafe so the chief fire officer ordered its evacuation (not the building owner as is often stated). Video footage from within WTC 7 during the incident shows it wasn't rigged for demolition. It then collapsed, as predicted by the fire service. That's what happens when a building gets all smashed up.
 
Big Sharp Teeth said:
He (assuming you mean PrefessionalMackem) thinks it's a conspiracy. He won't say exactly what happened. Just make vague references to things he thinks are problems with the official version. He absolutely will not say what he thinks happened.

The reality is that part of the debris from the twin towers smashed a gaping hole in its side at the corner (as the twin towers did not collapse into their footprints as is often stated). There are images of this damage. Fires broke out. The fire service went in and decided, in their expert opinion, it couldn't be saved and was unsafe so the chief fire officer ordered its evacuation (not the building owner as is often stated). Video footage from within WTC 7 during the incident shows it wasn't rigged for demolition. It then collapsed, as predicted by the fire service. That's what happens when a building gets all smashed up.
Click to expand...

And Osama was bragging about it on camera to one of his bezzies.
 
Where do you start to try and respond to madness?

How about....

If no planes flew into the buildings, then where did they go? They took off from Boston, Washington and Newark. We know that one crashed into the ground in Pennsyvania. One was flown into the Pentagon (or was that faked as well) ? Most (OK, all) sane people believe that the other two flew into the Twin Towers in New York. If they didn't, where did they go?

Once you've answered that one, how about...

Why go to a great deal of trouble with some sort of illusion to make us all think we've seen a plane crash into a building when it hasn't, and then blow up that building with hidden explosives? Why not simply fly the plane into the building (saves you hiding or disposing of it) make a big mess of the building and kill loads of people? The building might not fall down, but hey, what's the difference? You've achieved your objective of faking a terrorist attack and given yourself the excuse to wage war on the much maligned terrorists.

Oh no, I've fallen into the trap of trying to answer these idiots. It's like entering into a conversation with Jehova's witnesses. You can never win.
 
Tomlaw said:
Why not simply fly the plane into the building (saves you hiding or disposing of it) make a big mess of the building and kill loads of people?
Click to expand...
Because it couldn't be done?
I'm quoting a pilot who flew the biggest of aircraft for over twenty years and over 19000 flight hours. He said he couldn't have flown a 767 into the towers. And he used to pilot them.
 
Dappa said:
Because it couldn't be done?
I'm quoting a pilot who flew the biggest of aircraft for over twenty years and over 19000 flight hours. He said he couldn't have flown a 767 into the towers. And he used to pilot them.
Click to expand...

It would have been easy. If you can land on a runway without crashing you could crash into two massive buildings with your eyes closed. He must have been the shittest pilot going.
 
air asia said:
Has there been a plausible explanation for the other office block collapsing (WTC7)? It wasn't hit by a plane although there was a fire. Seems odd that it should suddenly collapse in on itself the way it did. Normally this does not happen.
Click to expand...
Do you mean "normally after a terrorist attack where 2 fully fuelled jet airliners were crashed deliberately at high speed into skyscrapers"? Because I don't think there's that much data.
 
James said:
It would have been easy. If you can land on a runway without crashing you could crash into two massive buildings with your eyes closed. He must have been the shittest pilot going.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the job of the communications tower at the airport? I don't think the twin towers had comms marra
 
Dappa said:
Or an honest one
Click to expand...

Suppose so, admitting he'd struggle to hit a massively tall building he's been locked onto for 15 minutes? Did he admit to putting himself in the position of a hijacker who was committed to flying a plane at high speed into a building and kill himself and everyone else doing it? Or is he speaking just as a pilot of 19,000 flying hours, who was trained to fly safely and not towards buildings with malice?
 
MirdifMakem said:
As a result of secondary fire??? well if you believe that as potentially 'genuine cause' then I am glad you are not structurally engineering anything for me ;)... Maybe it was the fire caused by the burning CIA records on one of the floors nearing the 30 year disclosure line that caused so much heat...

By Margaret Cronin Fisk
National Law Journal
September 17, 2001

Additional details emerged Friday about the effect of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center on investigations being conducted by the New York offices of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both of which were housed in the building.

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom.

The EEOC said documents from about 45 active cases were missing and could not be easily retrieved from any backup system. One of these cases was a sexual harassment charge filed on Sept. 10 against Morgan Stanley, one of the prime corporate victims of the World Trade Center disaster.​

Haven't read all this thread but anyone interested in where and how all both the TV picture and amateur video coverage of the day came from should watch Septemberclues on youtube. Seems to back Lear in proving through current video analysis that almost everything we saw was image doctored. Definitely worth watching especially those on here who without investigating for themselves would likely claim the earth is flat based on the fact they see it with their own eyes so everyone else is a looney....
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing. It must have been some fire to melt steel? The aviation fuel of the planes was attributed to the heat that softened and caused the collapse of the metal structure of the Twin Towers but what would have been highly flammable to have generated the temperatures required to melt or soften the metal structure of the office block next to the towers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top