In the comment thread following my post “Star Wars beam” / DEW theories, I see that the discussion has turned toward no-planes theories. That’s another topic I like to confine to threads dealing with just that topic. I suppose we now need a thread in which both DEW and no-planes theories can be discussed. So, I’ll copy those comments below and delete them from their original thread.
- Complete copy of a comment by realitydesign
- Complete copy of a comment by Patrick S. McNally
- Complete copy of another comment by realitydesign
- My response to realitydesign
realitydesign wrote, on May 7, 2008 @ 8:50 pm:
Wow, I just watched partof a new interview by Camelot of John Lear (lear jet) telling basically all he knows about ‘what’s really going on’ in our world. Mind-blowing to say the least considering who he is and his reputation. He mentioned 911 though and that was fascinating. He said for example:
1. There were no planes on 911 that crashed into buildings it was all holograph tech done from the E4B that was in the skies that day. He said the holograph tech is so advanced that people simply have no idea what level the playing field is actually on. He said you can literally have perfect hologram people walking around and no one can see the difference, hologram ufos in the sky and tech that cloaks and can make vehicles appear at like 10X their size- he says it’s all for future psyops like 911.
2. He also said the towers were brought down by DEW from space sites although there were explosions in the towers- some of which made the ‘plane’ impacts etc. He said the concrete was disassociated and that’s how it got down to 80 microns or whatever in size.
3. He also said that the shanksville flight was supposed to hit wtc7 but they messed something up but decided to drop wtc7 anyway and he said that’s the part that is so obvious- the fact that they dropped it and hoped no one would notice.
4. He also said Above Top Secret.com is CIA run, to gauge public opinion on such matters.
I need to watch the whole interview it’s 4 hours!
patricksmcnally wrote, on May 7, 2008 @ 10:21 pm:
> He also said Above Top Secret.com is CIA run, to gauge public opinion on such matters
I got a similar impression of John Lear himself, running around with UFO theories he has all the potential markings of either a disinformationist or else simply a prankster. On what basis does Lear claim to know the intent towards WTC 7? Personal intuition, or something else?
realitydesign wrote, on May 8, 2008 @ 3:39 am:
‘On what basis does Lear claim to know the intent towards WTC 7? Personal intuition, or something else?’
It seemed like personal speculation on his part-maybe discussions he’s had with friends or whatever- didn’t seem like he had inside info.
I think his biggest gripe about 911 is that he claims flying into manhattan at 500 mph at that altitude and hitting the towers would be an amazing feat- impossible to do- he claims he couldn’t do it- same with the pentagon. Plus he and I’ve heard others also say, 767s CANNOT fly at those speeds at those low 0-700 ft) altitudes- they’d become super (VISIBLY) unstable. There is a guy from pilots for truth who called boeing (youtube) and asked if a 767 could do 500 mph at 700 feet- they lady from boeing started laughing out loud.
Plus he and I’ve heard others also say, 767s CANNOT fly at those speeds at those low 0-700 ft) altitudes- they’d become super (VISIBLY) unstable.
This is a claim that can and should be checked. Not sure how best to check it, though, since I don’t personally know anyone in the aviation biz.
There is a guy from pilots for truth who called boeing (youtube) and asked if a 767 could do 500 mph at 700 feet- they lady from boeing started laughing out loud.
This by itself doesn’t tell us much. What, exactly, was she laughing about? For all we know, based on the above sentence, could have been “hee hee hee, another nutty conspiracy theorist.”
Anyhow, you keep referring us to videos. Brief (and necessarily very incomplete) references to stuff you’ve heard on videos aren’t very helpful here. If you have the time and patience to sit down and write a complete transcript of at least key portions of a video (maybe not the whole thing), that would be more helpful.
More generally, though, I’m leery of videos as a source of information. A big disadvantage of videos (and TV) over text sources is that, with text sources, it’s much easier to go at your own pace, think critically about the information, and double-check stuff as you go along (at least by Googling to see what the other side has to say, if nothing else).