911 no planes?

I need help locating a video clip

I consider it of immense importance. I thought I had saved a copy but cannot find it in my library

I have a series of captures from it...

This is the remaining steel frame skeleton Look at it closely and explain to me how the steel vaporizes into dust?



This is more clear in the video... so we need to find it...

A beam weapon, as John suggest CAN indeed produce such results... and explain both the fine powder of the left over material and the 'missing matter'

It is unfortunate (for us) that they speedily dumped all the material in the ocean

And before you say "We don't have any 'beam weapons'... you should know that I have a LOT of data on that ... for another thread

[Bill Ryan]

Hi John, Henry, Ron, everyone:

I enjoyed Henry's question mark.

What seems to have happened is this: (great theater...)

John thought EYES WIDE OPEN was Henry Deacon... and insulted Henry (but addressing it to EYES WIDE OPEN).

Then Henry saw it later and posted his question mark.

John, you know that I respect you hugely. But what you said (AS IF to Henry was not warranted. Henry has been to some places few people ever have - but not (to the best of my knowledge) on any turnip truck.

As best I know, you don't know the guy. John, do take the trouble - after all the trouble you HAVE taken to collect all your data - to get his data also. Not logical, Captain, to ignore that.

For those who don't know the history:

Henry stated on Camelot (publicly) that the WTC planes were real, not holograms - because (explained to me privately) he personally worked on the technology used in the data transfer from the 9/11 control base to the "white aircraft" (the data relay plane) ... which was relaying control data to the actual WTC aircraft.

On that basis (and ALSO from what he was briefed about, as I understand it) Henry fairly reasonably concluded that the WTC planes were real.

If they WEREN'T - then there was even more of a charade going on than anyone realizes even now, and those with good data need to work together to figure this out.

Repeat: work together...

There's a real opportunity here to collaborate to figure things out. If we miss this, then we're all dumb.

I'll now monitor this thread with tremendous interest...

Very best to all - Bill

[empathy]

If you think the no plane thing is bizarre. THIS IS GOING TO BLOW YOUR MIND!

http://www.drjudywood.com/

Seriously, if you aren't familiar with this info, it's worth checking out.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Originally Posted by Bill Ryan

Hi John, Henry, Ron, everyone:

I enjoyed Henry's question mark.

What seems to have happened is this: (great theater...)

John thought EYES WIDE OPEN was Henry Deacon... and insulted Henry (but addressing it to EYES WIDE OPEN).

Then Henry saw it later and posted his question mark.

John, you know that I respect you hugely. But what you said (AS IF to Henry was not warranted. Henry has been to some places few people ever have - but not (to the best of my knowledge) on any turnip truck.

As best I know, you don't know the guy. John, do take the trouble - after all the trouble you HAVE taken to collect all your data - to get his data also. Not logical, Captain, to ignore that.

For those who don't know the history:

Henry stated on Camelot (publicly) that the WTC planes were real, not holograms - because (explained to me privately) he personally worked on the technology used in the data transfer from the 9/11 control base to the "white aircraft" (the data relay plane) ... which was relaying control data to the actual WTC aircraft.

On that basis (and ALSO from what he was briefed about, as I understand it) Henry fairly reasonably concluded that the WTC planes were real.

If they WEREN'T - then there was even more of a charade going on than anyone realizes even now, and those with good data need to work together to figure this out.

Repeat: work together...

There's a real opportunity here to collaborate to figure things out. If we miss this, then we're all dumb.

I'll now monitor this thread with tremendous interest...

Very best to all - Bill

Thank you Bill. I am glad to see somebody else standing up to John.

I cant beilive everyone else just chose to ignore his insult, no matter who it was aimed at.

I guess their thinking was "but its john lear, we must accept what he says".

All it has done for me on a personal level is make me realise how john very quickly reverted to the tactis of attacking the source rather than adressing the question.
Its the same tactic those who belive the offical story use & is childish & transparent.

Thousands, including me have listened to your very intersting interviews on camelot john. I may not belive all of it, maybe only some of it but the point is I sat and listend. I thought you would return the favour, put your ego aside and listen to what I asked (rather than start calling me names in the first instance) but I guess I was wrong.

I dont really care if you have "been through the same thing thousands of times". You havnet with me yet. You are making the claims & its up to you to provide the proof. It comes with the territory john. I really did want to talk about this in an adult fashion but it appears you dont.

I see you posted your affidavid. Unfortunatly, I wont be reading it as you have totally put me off because of your response.

John, come on man, grow up a bit and stop being grumpy by throwing your toys out of the pram when someone does not agree with you.

I leave this thread very dissapointed.

Love & light to all.

[addalight]

Originally Posted by empathy

If you think the no plane thing is bizarre. THIS IS GOING TO BLOW YOUR MIND!

http://www.drjudywood.com/

Seriously, if you aren't familiar with this info, it's worth checking out.

Thank you, I am in awe.

[luis9343]

i must say, the photos Zorgon posted of the plane going into the tower in the first post are the most compelling evidence for the no-plane theory i have seen.

I also wanted to share this awesome 3D Holographic technology, which only makes me think that if average citizens have this, what must the governments technology be like.

Holographic Projection - 3D Dancing Hologram

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpQloAn_3w

Though im not on the no-planer bandwagon just yet, some very interesting evidence in this thread though, definitely making me think things over.

[stefaan]

What's that now?
The first, and now the second, thread I read today... both are filled with people not getting along too well, to say the least.
What's going on?

Do I dare to read another thread?

[Mike_Jetson]

Eyes Wide Open you have stated your point to John but by not reading his affidavid you are also 'throwing toys out of the pram'

This debating stuff is not meant to be easy and it will always cause conflict. As long as it doesnt stop people learning and communicating then I can handle it. Sometimes people say things they may regret but most of us are only human and not Vulcan

[peacelovinman]

I did not give any credence to the "no planes" theory until I watched the "September Clues" series on YouTube. In, what I thought was, a very clever analysis of the TV footage from that fateful day, many anomalies are shown up.

Eyes Wide Open - have a look and see what you think? I don't think we should 100% trust what ANYBODY here says, whether it be Lear, Wilcock, Deacon, Ryan, Cassidy, Burisch etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqEpuTGc98s

And let's not be over-sensitive about things, hey? Let's concentrate on trying, as Bill says, to work together to get at the truth. I've always felt that 9/11 is the achilles heel of the illuminati. There's just so much evidence that the official version is a crock of s**t.

If we could get the right facts out to the masses, we might make a difference?

[abgott]

Originally Posted by Bill Ryan

Henry stated on Camelot (publicly) that the WTC planes were real, not holograms - because (explained to me privately) he personally worked on the technology used in the data transfer from the 9/11 control base to the "white aircraft" (the data relay plane) ... which was relaying control data to the actual WTC aircraft.

Hello bill, all,

what is the "white aircraft" ?

is there is some web links about that ?

thanks

Mystery 9/11 aircraft was military 'doomsday plane'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgF9Fd4UyMY

[johnlear]

Originally Posted by Bill Ryan

Hi John, Henry, Ron, everyone:

I enjoyed Henry's question mark.

What seems to have happened is this: (great theater...)

John thought EYES WIDE OPEN was Henry Deacon... and insulted Henry (but addressing it to EYES WIDE OPEN).

Then Henry saw it later and posted his question mark.

John, you know that I respect you hugely. But what you said (AS IF to Henry was not warranted. Henry has been to some places few people ever have - but not (to the best of my knowledge) on any turnip truck.

As best I know, you don't know the guy. John, do take the trouble - after all the trouble you HAVE taken to collect all your data - to get his data also. Not logical, Captain, to ignore that.

For those who don't know the history:

Henry stated on Camelot (publicly) that the WTC planes were real, not holograms - because (explained to me privately) he personally worked on the technology used in the data transfer from the 9/11 control base to the "white aircraft" (the data relay plane) ... which was relaying control data to the actual WTC aircraft.

On that basis (and ALSO from what he was briefed about, as I understand it) Henry fairly reasonably concluded that the WTC planes were real.

If they WEREN'T - then there was even more of a charade going on than anyone realizes even now, and those with good data need to work together to figure this out.

Repeat: work together...

There's a real opportunity here to collaborate to figure things out. If we miss this, then we're all dumb.

I'll now monitor this thread with tremendous interest...

Very best to all - Bill

I must be dumb then because will not 'collaberate' with anybody over anything. But especially not with a disinformation artist to 'figure things out'.

I already figured it out.

Let me make it simple for all of us:

This will be my last post on Project Avalon.

And don't ask me back as I have much better uses
for my time than 'working together' and spoon feeding the ignorant.

All the best,

John Lear

[Orion11]

for a brilliant guy, you are pretty ignorant yourself John. Grow up man.
One of the seniors on site, and you behave like a child when something you dont like is said.
Peace

[JoinTheFun]

Oh, my gods !

You'll be back...

[HallieBallie]

Originally Posted by zorgon

I need help locating a video clip

I consider it of immense importance. I thought I had saved a copy but cannot find it in my library

I have a series of captures from it...

This is the remaining steel frame skeleton Look at it closely and explain to me how the steel vaporizes into dust?

Zorgon

I saw this link on another topic , ULTRA ALTERNATIVE 9/11 theory. in » Project Avalon Forum » Project Camelot » Conspiracy Research
Maybe you mention figure 38(b). Another video of steel turning to steel dust, although CNN’s Aaron Brown calls it smoke. on page: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/D...WarsBeam3.html

You can't download (i can't with FF3 on Linux) the avi en mpg from the link, but you can download it from the picture.

I have downloaded it, if you can't.

BTW http://www.drjudywood.com/ is very nice to look at.

[GoingToFast]

This post has been updated further down on thread.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Not this again! :LOL:

[GoingToFast]

Originally Posted by EYES WIDE OPEN

Not this again! :LOL:

It's called freedom of speech my friend.

[Sideshow Shaman]

This debate has gone on for a long time around the interwebs. I have not had a strong conviction either way but there are some logical fallacies that keep occurring.

1. If there is doubt about the accuracy of television video coverage, then it should not be used as evidence of ANYTHING.

Some people argue that if the TV coverage was faked then holograms were used. Maybe not here, I'll admit I did not read all the comments, but that is a common position. If the TV coverage was faked, it is thrown out as evidence.

2. The use of hologram tech & aircraft are not mutually exclusive.
That is obvious enough right?

Another point, maybe #3, is that the existence of certain weapons does not prove that they were used. Remember the forensic evidence was extremely tampered with. Without much of that it almost takes an operators statement saying 'such-and-such weapon was discharged at such time'.

Very interesting to hear Deacon's verification of the so called "White Elephant" observed flying over the city. So the flight control was mobile, not in wtc7 as often speculated? Anyway that sort of info doesn't technically 'prove' anything until it is fully explored/corroborated.

The problem with this whole debate is that there is so little evidence to go on. it is mostly speculation. There were actually very few eye witnesses that saw the aircraft, except at a long distance like Brooklyn or Jersey. One witness I spoke with said the first craft was brown with a stripe & no windows, like a cargo airplane. He saw it from about 500 yards. But that's just one person, not a solid case.

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Originally Posted by GoingToFast

It's called freedom of speech my friend.

I just meant that I had forgotton about this thread (it caused problems when avavlon first started) and was surprised to see it again.

I am in no way stopping free speech.

PEACE.

[GoingToFast]

About the Holographs:
The first maiden flight of the KC-767 was on Mai-21 2005 I am fully aware of this. But: The final model of a military aircraft is always presided with mock-ups and flying testbeds, and big aircraft manufactures wery often makes flying testbeds in forward anticipation of a possible government contract, they have programs running privately of various makes and models in there "Product Pipeline".
The first model of the KC-767 could have flown as early as the late 90´s. Besides that, even if it wasn't the first model of THE KC-767 it is not difficult to rebuild
a civil 767 aircraft into a KC tanker-style of aircraft, retrofitting a 767 with big inner-tanks and the missile-pod takes no more than a few weeks in my opinion.
My point is that the airplanes where two gigantic flying buckets of fuel and attached to them was a set of matches to set the fuel on fire. (at least that were the perpetrators intent)

The perpetrators two major fumbles: Missiles and Fuel.
Missiles:
One specific target requires one specific missile, if you want to attach an armored vehicle you can not use a missile designed to destroy a building, and viceversa, if you want to destroy a building you can not use a missile that´s designed to attach an armored vehicle. The perpetrators did not understand the physics of their target and chose the wrong weapon for their target, that is why the missiles shot thru the buildings before they could ignite the fuel.
Fuel:
All modern jet-fuel to day have one thing in common, they are nonflammable, THEY DO NOT BURN.
The only place where jet-fuel can burn is inside of a combustion-chamber of a jet-engine. In order for a modern jet-kerosene to burn it will need high pressure right air/fuel mixture and right temperature, it also needs to be dispersed in to a fine aerosol-mist to ignite,
if you take the fuel outside of a jet-engine it will simply NOT BURN.

These where the two major fumbles at the WTC-attach's and that is why there was not two gigantic fires as it was supposed to be, the "gigantic fires" were the perpetrators excuse for the failure of the building's structural integrity.

About remote controlled airplanes:
Please take a look at this short clip.This was in 1984, 17 years before 9-11. This airplane made 14 flights and 69 approaches under remote control before it was crashed at December-1 1984. Don't you think that they could have developed this technique since then. (please read the info on the clip)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj3QZdVM-9Y

John Lear, You have yourself stated to me that the D-21 drone was remotely flown in over China during spy missions at speeds well-over Mach 3, that was in the late 60's and early 70's, don't you think that they could remotely fly the 767 in 2001 at Mach 0,6



In thees pictures you can clearly see that the 767 has no big fairing's and no big underbelly fuel-tank. Big fairing's and underbelly fuel-tank have been the main debunk of the "missile pod-theory"



Please take a look at thees documentaries they may be "old school" and "not fresh enough" for some but they clearly show how it was done.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...plane+site+911
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...+vonkleist+911


[IMG][/IMG]


In thees pictures you can clearly see the missile or incindiery that has shot through the building

[audioport]

Originally Posted by johnlear

I must be dumb then because will not 'collaberate' with anybody over anything. But especially not with a disinformation artist to 'figure things out'.

I already figured it out.

Let me make it simple for all of us:

This will be my last post on Project Avalon.

And don't ask me back as I have much better uses
for my time than 'working together' and spoon feeding the ignorant.

All the best,

John Lear

-------------------------------------

this is my first post on avalon and maybe the last one. I have watched ALL camelot interviews, listened to the audio interviews, spent quite some time on this forum and others reading stuff, also on the other forums john is posting on. I want to stress that I am not a conspiracy theorist/psychic/ufologist or-what-have-you-kinda guy. But I am highly interested in finding out or maybe getting a little bit closer to what may be happening really in the world in my time as I dont believe what I am told on TV.

So:

I really like the john lear interviews with camelot and highly recommend them.
I have great respect for john and though I dont quite buy all the stuff he says he is definetly right on a lot of things. I think he is one of the most entertaining camelot witnesses

And, to say the least, he has an incredible background that makes him quite trustworthy. More than some of the other camelot witnesses if u ask me.

Now i have read this post by john I really dont know what to think. Bill didnt insult him or whatever, eyeswideopen also not. I thought this forum was about discussing things. Well John wont read this I guess. But i you do john, then answer me this:

why are you leaving avalon for such a little misunderstanding?

i would have loved to see you post more here as your posts were very interesting.

all the best
a

[Slerbot]

I have two theories on what went wrong here:

1. These are speedy, info-overloaded and stressful days, things are changing very rapidly and it spaces us all out - and people just get annoyed with one another more easilly than ever.

2. What my pychologist sister, in reference to her husband and other antsy males refers to as IMAS: Irritable Male Ahrsehole Syndrome (ass for the US - hehe).

IMAS may be close enough - it happens during/post middle age - and it seems to me John Lear has fantastic knowledge, insight and experience and no-one should discount what he proposes or believes just because of a simple, overheated missunderstanding and some silly name calling. I hope he doesn't give up on Project Camlelot interviews!

I have a feeling some of all of the strongest, most detailed theories are going to be true (as molecular scientists for the truth movement are piling up)... the hard question is how long for the justice!

[feeler]

Originally Posted by zorgon

I need help locating a video clip

I consider it of immense importance. I thought I had saved a copy but cannot find it in my library

I have a series of captures from it...

This is the remaining steel frame skeleton Look at it closely and explain to me how the steel vaporizes into dust?



This is more clear in the video... so we need to find it...

A beam weapon, as John suggest CAN indeed produce such results... and explain both the fine powder of the left over material and the 'missing matter'

It is unfortunate (for us) that they speedily dumped all the material in the ocean

And before you say "We don't have any 'beam weapons'... you should know that I have a LOT of data on that ... for another thread

I've seen that steel core being softened, swaying back and forth like a whip in a video.

The technology applied is very alien.

PTB=Possessing The Beam

-feeler

[KathyT]

John Lear, I know you said you’re not coming back… but if you do read this… thank you so much for your explanation of the airline speeds and flight instrument navigation. I am just an average American, a woman, a private pilot, and I think I understand much of your detailed explanation. I really do appreciate it and it makes a whole lot of sense to me. I’m the type of person who needs and wants that detail. Perhaps there are many who don’t have any flight or pilot training at all and perhaps can’t comprehend the technical stuff… but for those of us who do have some limited training… it really helps us.

For the others here on the Camelot forum… I want to mention a couple of books that I’ve obtained.

1) 9/11 Revealed, the Unanswered Questions, by Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan. Lots of good pictures and discussion that should make any reader realize our government did NOT do a proper investigation… and

2) The 9/11 Commission Report (the Kean report). I was lucky enough that I ran across a copy of this report on a Friends of the Library book sale. Bottom line, I am disgusted with our National Commission’s report of 9/11… the cost to the American people to produce this report… for all it is about, is the terrorists, and pointing blame at them. Here are the main chapter titles:
1) We have some Planes
2) The foundation of the New Terrorism
3) Counterterrorism Evolves
4) Responses to Al Qaeda’s Initial Assaults
5) Al Qaeda Aims at the American Homeland
6) From Threat to Threat
7) The Attack Loams
8) The System was Blinking Red
9) Heroism and Horror
10) Wartime
11) Foresight, and Hindsight
12) What to Do? A Global Strategy
13) How to Do it? A Different Way of Organizing the Government.

The Kean Commission report is a huge joke and a huge failure of our government to find the Truth about 9/11.