John Lear A No Planer? Options

[grizz]

As I mentioned earlier, I'm using an old computer that does not enable me to watch video. So I have not watched this. I would like to. If it leaves painter speechless, it's gotta be good.

As far as blacklisting truthers, that's BS. Nobody has the right to do that. Not 911 Blogger. Not anybody.

We just have to trust the perception of the individual as he/she researches 9/11. That's really the main part of all this. Each person, each individual, not the 'group' or the 'movement' must learn how to seperate fact from fiction on their own.

John Lear has offered to resign from the core group if he is a problem. In my mind it is not a problem. His work elsewhere and his support of this organization are not the same thing. If somebody discounts 9/11 truth as a whole because of John Lear being a member of Pilots, that person has already rejected the truth and is just looking for an excuse.

We all gotta be grownups. We have to think outside the box. We have to push our reality outside the box. Because we know that the social construct is not true. There's a new reality on the horizon.

[Sanders]

I finally watched that whole thing ...

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)


Slightly earlier in the thread, painter posed the question, "how do we feel about JL's outspokenness with regard to controversial issues AND his being a Core member of P4T? ". A few thoughts -

If the New York Times was beating down our door for information about the FDR research, I might be a bit concerned - not because I think John Lear is crazy, but because average New York Times readers might like to think so. But the Times is ignoring us anyway, so what the heck.

John Lear seems like a really nice guy. What bothers me most about Nico Haupt (and people like him) and, my late grandmother will have to forgive me for not following her advice that if you don't have anything nice to say about someone don't say anything at all, is that, well, Haupt and that crowd aren't very nice. (I bring up Haupt because painter's question was couched in a tangent about Rodriquez and Haupt-supporters.) Not to put too fine a point on it, 'they're' often attacking, "outing" someone, some mole, some "traitor" within the truth movement. It's that, more than the out-of-the-mainstream hypothesis, that make me leary (no pun intended) of Haupt. I instinctively steer away from and distrust two types - those who attack other truthers, and those who are constantly trying to sell the "zionists did it" angle and accuse everyone of being a zionist agent. (Not that I think that zionists and/or Mossad didn't play a big role, but that's another subject.) Lear, on the other hand, seems like his grandmother and my grandmother must have been friends ... he seems like a really nice guy. And, did you catch where he mentions Mossad involvement, and their connections within the military industrial complex? The manner in which he touched on that didn't fail to impress me.

Anyway, a lot of what John Lear talks about is pretty far out there - normally I would just say, "what a nut!!!" But, he doesn't exactly come off as a nut, furthermore he's simply telling stories as he experienced them or heard them told by others who have (purportedly) had first hand knowlege of these things. You either take him at face value, or not. You certainly can't argue with him, none of us have the experience or 1st, 2nd, or even 3rd hand knowlege of what he's talking about to go toe to toe with him. For me, watching that interview, whether I believe half of it or not, was a practice in thinking outside the box - and a reminder that the rabbit hole is a lot deeper than any of us can probably imagine.

To answer the question, I have no problem with Lear being a core member, none-whatsoever. I can empathise with concerns about reputability, but hey, John Lear seems very smart, seems like a really nice guy (who I would love for a chance to talk to), and, as OF stated, his work outside of this organization is his own thing, has nothing to do with P4T or P4T's mission statement. (And besides, the New York Times isn't exactly breaking down our door.)

[lawson911]

lawson911, if you're not getting anything positive out of GH's posts, maybe don't read them.

My problem is bigger than that: I’m not getting very much out of the “discussion,” as a whole. To me, planes/no-planes is the most serious issue of the entire 9/11 truth movement; one which is divisive and keeps a lot of otherwise convinced people from becoming fully involved, because they can’t cope with the arguments, or conflicting views or the confusing technicalities.

So I had hoped that, with the input of some pilots and others involved in aviation, I would be able to build up the kind of knowledge required to make a definitive video which might help to clear up the many myths and other problems surrounding this pivotal issue.

But I seem to have picked the wrong forum, because we might as well be discussing the virtues of different-flavoured ice creams. I'm too old to be bothering with that kind of conflict, so I’ll try elsewhere.

Thanks for the short visit.

Anthony

[painter]

I hope Anthony will stick around but if he isn't willing to watch the FOUR HOUR interview with Lear, he shouldn't be posting in this thread. That is what this thread is about -- although it has veered off into meta-chatter.

Lear is about a lot more than the NPT. As I said earlier, I don't know the man but I wish I did. He's fascinating. Like Sanders, I'm not sure what to think about what he's saying but I respect that he is "mostly" telling us what he believes to be true. Either that or he has one hell of a sense of humor and is just trying to see how absurdly gullible people can actually be. I don't actually think that is all there is to it for Lear, though. I'm really not quite sure what to think.

The closest I've come to anything like this is readings having to do with so called "out of body experiences" where people have reported completely alternate realities. I haven't looked at it for probably 30 years but there is a whole body of literature having to do with OBEs. What they seem to be describing is very similar to what I've experienced as "lucid" dreaming. That is, being sufficiently conscious in the dream state to know that one is dreaming. There was a time in my life when I experimented with such things and had a lot of very interesting experiences. I, too, believe "reality" is constructed far more strangely than we know. In a way, part of the problem I have with Lear's perspective on things is it isn't very sophisticated, and certainly not nearly 'weird' enough.

For me the key to all this is consciousness and, more specifically, attention. We habitually approach the problems of life, our human condition, no matter how far down the "rabbit hole" we go, in the same old, predictable way. Our attention gets focused primarily outwardly. Even when we do pay attention to our 'inner workings' it is in a very superficial and mostly 'formed from the outside' kind of way.

We have been told by people who claim to know that as we are we are not manifesting one tenth of our actual human potential. We have the ability to know and do things that to us would seem like "magic". The problem is we are for the most part satisfied with ourselves as we are. Oh, we may gripe about this or that bad trait or what have you but, fact is, we seldom change unless external circumstances seem to demand it. We haven't a clue what it would mean to become what we are capable of -- if we were willing to become what we mistakenly believe we already are: Conscious men.

"Waking up," has to do with far more than finally acknowledging to oneself that 9/11 was something other than what we were hypnotized into believing. Humankind has been "asleep" to the truth of itself through countless ages. 9/11 and all that came before it and all that has come since and all that is yet to come are only symptoms of that sleep. The "reality" we inhabit is the externalized dream of men who are "asleep" to not only the truth of the world but the truth of themselves. But one can not find that truth "out there". One has to begin to understand that "attention" has qualities and that what we normally take as "attention" is something very weak, fragmentary and impermanent. The only way we can truly understand this, however, is by experiencing for oneself different qualities of attention. Hearing about it or reading about it won't really help. To be genuine, an understanding of this sort has to develop directly out of one's own willingness to observe attention itself. In other words, observing not so much "what" one is aware of as the simple fact that one is aware.

Awareness of awareness -- without "thought". What we call "thought" is too slow, to weighted down and strung out with preverbalizations and their connections to language and language's intractable connection to our individual and collective "past". The break-through comes when the mind becomes completely relaxed and silent while simultaneously becoming acutely aware with all the usual senses plus others one didn't even know one had. Learning to find and sustain this quality of awareness, even in the midst of every-day life, is just the beginning.

[rob balsamo]

Either that or he has one hell of a sense of humor and is just trying to see how absurdly gullible people can actually be.

I gotta say, i have thought the same thing on more than one occassion. I've read alot of his stuff over on ATS on those cold, lonely boring nights and caught myself saying more than once, "C'mon Lear.. really?" (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I think Lear is genuine though (in his beliefs) considering he is putting his "money where his mouth is", the people he associates with and the amount of research involved. I have tried to bend his ear more than once on the phone, but something always comes up either on my end or his and we have to cut it short, then its awhile before we touch base again. Im actually still waiting for him to get back to me since this interview hit. I left him a message and sent email. He must be swamped. I gotta shoot him off another as a reminder.. its been awhile.

[dMz]

I just wish all the Lear-bashing "debunkers" went a little better informed before they jump on their keyboards and on Mr. Lear. Didn't John's father do some work with Kelly Johnson at Lockheed's Skunkworks? It is informative to read Kelly Johnson's 14[or15?] Rules in this context:

http://www.jamesshuggins.com/h/u-2a/u-2_kellys_rules.htm

Here's a book written by an ex-US Patent Office examiner:
Electrogravitics Systems, by Thomas Valone, PhD
http://www.amazon.com/Electrogravitics-Sys...y/dp/0964107007

How many of us have actually been out in the NV and CA deserts up to "the fence" firsthand? What's up with the JANET terminal/aircraft at McCarran Int'l and those unmarked buses rolling across the desert? Do we really believe that our government is somehow "morally above" secrecy, deception, and lying? I mean hell, John flew missions for the CIA- how many people can say that?

I don't think any of us have a right to throw "stones" at this courageous man- we haven't walked in his moccasins now have we?

My $0.02.

P.S. "Never deal with the Navy."- that's a good one. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[lawson911]

John Lear — An Unequivocal Statement

I have just received the following e-mail, which was also copied to about 12 other people.

John Lear wrote:

I know of no evidence that any plane crashed on 911 either into the Pentagon, Shanksville or the World Trade Center. The claim that any plane crashed on 911 is patently ridiculous.

The claim that a Boeing 767 crashed into a WTC tower and caused it to collapse in 10 seconds is absurd. I base the above statements on my background of over 40 years in aviation including accident investigation, manufacturing, maintenance and over 19,000 hours as a pilot.

There is not the slightest possibility, not the slightest, that any Boeing 767 or any airplane resembling a Boeing 767 was either flown into or remotely controlled into the World Trade Center.

Any person believing that a Boeing 767 or similar airframe was flown into or remotely controlled into the World Trade Center does not know what they are talking about including but not limited to how much debris would remain from the alleged crash and how much of that airplane would have penetrated the building.

Signed
John Lear
Las Vegas, NV
June 1, 2008

This will be the best news that the no-planers have had for a long time.

I have to ask: Will Pilots for 9/11 Truth be making a formal statement, of any kind, about this?

[rob balsamo]

Anthony, try not to go in circles please. Its starting to get annoying.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10739523

There is nothing new in his above email he didnt already say on the interview in this thread.

Also, re-read our mission statement top our home page at http://pilotsfor911truth.org. Pay close attention to the underlined sentence. Also notice how John Lear signed his email.

Further, i spoke with Lear yesterday. He is well aware of my opinions on the matter and that we disagree at this point in time. Although, he will be consulting with me when we (Pilots For 9/11 Truth) start researching the NYC events more thoroughly after we complete our current projects/priorities. He does bring up alot of good points regarding speed including the lack of compressor stalls in such thick air. But this doesnt automatically mean there were "no planes" in my opnion.

Anthony, if you really want to make a difference, perhaps you should be contacting the court to which they filed suit instead of arguing against Lear on a message board which Lear rarely visits.

[Leslie Landry]

John Lear — An Unequivocal Statement

I have just received the following e-mail, which was also copied to about 12 other people.

John Lear wrote:


This will be the best news that the no-planers have had for a long time.

I have to ask: Will Pilots for 9/11 Truth be making a formal statement, of any kind, about this?

Are you kidding me? are you new? Its a statement without facts my friend, nothing more.

[lawson911]

Anthony, try not to go in circles please. Its starting to get annoying.

Anthony, if you really want to make a difference, perhaps you should be contacting the court to which they filed suit instead of arguing against Lear on a message board which Lear rarely visits.

Well the thread has reached ten pages, so I think it would still have a life without me, and I do not agree with your first statement about going in circles.

In much of the material, video and written, which John Lear has come up with previously, he has included mention of several factors, such as a non-belief that hijackers could have flown the planes, or a doubt that "passenger" planes could have performed the manoeuvres as depicted in the videos. Such statements obviously left the door open for the consideration of remotely controlled planes and military or reinforced versions of Boeing 767s or whatever.

So show me such an unequivocal denial, as the one I have just received, and I will bow my head in shame at not having seen it before and having wasted so much of everyone's time. (Maybe I'd be criticised less if I waffled on a bit more about issues totally unrelated to John Lear's beliefs, or 9/11.)

Regarding the discussion about holograms, on the page you referenced, here's are some e-mail exchanges I've recently had with John Lear and others.

John Lear <johnlear@cox.net> wrote:
Ace, [Baker]
With all due respect to your research I have talked to several experts in the black world of holographic projection. Here is the exact words of one of them who worked with a major military aircraft contractor:

“John, we can project moving images which contain light, sound and heat into thin air.”

He also said that that particular technology had been around for at least 20 years.

Ace, you are dead wrong. Holograms do not require a medium on which to project an image.

John Lear

Anthony Lawson to John Lear

Hello,

"John, we can project moving images which contain light, sound and heat into thin air."

So can I. But unless there is something to reflect the light back to our eyes, the heat back to our skin or the sound back to our ears, no one will see them, feel them or hear them.

Anthony

John Lear replied on May 11:

Thanks Anthony,

Your comments are truly appreciated.

John

If the technology existed and if light could be “bent” by air alone, so that an image could be seen with nothing but air re-directing it from its source to a viewer, it should be possible to bend light to any chosen degree, 90º for example, from any source, to see what is just around the next corner. That is science fiction, requiring nothing less than an R2D2, as the following indicates:

As someone who has *MADE* holograms I can tell you all that they need a solid "carrier" medium (thick-film photographic emulsion, which also requires its own rigid carrier base - usually glass or plastic). Holograms can be transferred from masters (as described above) to diffraction gratings - but there is still a solid medium involved. There is no "projection" involved nor is it possible to "project" a hologram. Their visibility is also entirely dependent upon the viewing angle - the image only ever appears *in between* the viewer and the carrier. Moreover, there are plainly visible characteristics which identify holograms as holograms - such as being monochromatic (the color being that of the creating laser).

The colors in diffraction grating holograms come from the grating not from the hologram. If such holograms as Ace Bonkers postulates existed then Hollywood would have made $trillions out of them already.

Peter

That leaves video fakery as the only no-planes-related culprit, and no one, to my knowledge has even attempted to emulate it, in order to prove that it would be possible, within the given time frame, using the actual buildings with the explosions, because they were certainly seen by anyone who was driving over a bridge, looking out of a window or walking on a street with a view of the Towers.

Then again: John Lear, with all of his experience could be dead wrong, and there were real planes.

[rob balsamo]

Anthony,

You're going in circles. Read the first few pages and watch the interview. You arent presenting anything new.

Also, since you arent posting anything that we havent seen in the interview, i'll let the emails stand. But in the future, please refrain from posting private emails without the authors consent. Thank you.

[painter]

Then again: John Lear, with all of his experience could be dead wrong, and there were real planes.

Anthony, once again I'm going to suggest that if you are going to post in this thread that you watch the four hour video linked in the OP. It isn't a rule or a requirement, perhaps it is more a matter of unwritten etiquette. At least you would understand the full context of what this thread is about -- because it isn't only about JL's opinions regarding 9/11, which you've indicated is your primary focus.

I agree with you regarding holograms. George Hayduke and I got into a bit of a tiff about it earlier in the thread and I finally just gave up on it because I felt he wasn't understanding what I was trying to say. I may not have been saying it well, I don't know. The point that was introduced was that there was some sort of "advanced" or "alien" technology involved. My problem with this is that if we are dealing with something that is capable of making people "see things that are not there" then there really is no hope. Toward the end of the interview, JL says some things that might be of interest in this regard. I've only watched it once so I think what I need to do is go watch that closing part again. I'll report back what caught my curiosity. Not sure when I'll have time to do this -- I'm very busy getting ready for an event.

Edit: Here you go

Ok, so people say, 'ok, john, there's flying saucers and reptilians, and secret bases and secret satellites and we did our own 9/11 and we bombed ourselves and there's wars and you say there are nuke wars coming -- you know, what are we supposed to with all this, I mean what is the point of all this?'

The point of all this is to try and advance in your life and the way to do that is try and live your life without envy, hate or greed. Also, to spend as much time with your family and tell them how much you love them. That's really all we can do. We can't be responsible for the bad guys. We can't be responsible for the children that are having so much trouble in the world. We can't be responsible for the nuclear wars that are going on. All we can do is be responsible for ourselves. And that is to live our lives without envy, hate or greed and to tell each member of our family how much we love them and to tell them that every day.

What are we to make of that?

[George Hayduke]

Learned helplessness?

[CocaineImportAge...]

..i have not watched the video!... but please can i ask!?... without anyone chopping my head off!?.... if a newbie had posted a link to some video of some Joe Bloggs Professor from Anytown Anywhere University... saying EXACTLY, TO THE WORD as in the JL video... would you all be giving it the same respect!?... if thats the right word?

...but!

...

The point of all this is to try and advance in your life and the way to do that is try and live your life without envy, hate or greed. Also, to spend as much time with your family and tell them how much you love them.

...going by this!... it seems the old Guy aint lost all his marbles just yet!


...maybe i should find the time to watch it!?! ( ..but NPT makes me angry!!!, rightly or wrongly!?! )


...reading through this thread i sense some double standards!... but that is probably due to the respect or reverence that some seem to have for this man!?!


... not wishing to offend anyone!

[rob balsamo]

Post a comparison side by side of John Lear accomplishments in the aviation world vs. "Joe Blogg" and we'll consider giving "Joe Blogg" the same respect.

When it comes to aviation, John Lear has more experience than me. I could only hope to one day have accomplished as much as he has, if not half. That deserves and commands my respect.

Does that mean i will automatically believe everything he says? No.

But considering the man puts his name, face and professional reputation on the line, i will certainly listen to what he has to say. Unlike "Joe Blogg".

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[lawson911]

Going in Circles?

The title of this thread is: “John Lear A No Planer?” the question mark indicating that the author, Quest, had been left in some doubt as to whether or not John Lear was a no planer, presumably after watching the videos he or she was recommending to others. I have watched some excerpts of the videos, but I do not have the inclination to watch the entire series, because I have previously received e-mails from John Lear and read quotes in which his comments were often equivocal, in that they referred specifically to the 9/11 Commission’s findings, and not to any of the more obvious possibilities, such as remote-controlled and specially-adapted military planes having been “swapped” in mid-air, as their radar tracks crossed with American Flight 11 and United Flight 175, in order to deceive the air traffic controllers and give the impression that the alleged hijacked planes were the ones which [apparently] hit the Towers.

I'll be honest, if we do have such technology (ability to project holograms on a grand scale), it certainly would explain alot. Unfortunately, we need numbers seeking answers and pressuring the govt. I dont think we'll get such numbers by promoting "No plane" theories and has only proven to be divisive. People tend to shut down quick when asked to explore what they feel is the "impossible", regardless if they have the desire to look into it. Its unfortunate that is the way of human nature in many, but thats just the way it is. [emphasis added]

The above was posted on the day this thread was opened, and clearly indicates a certain amount of concern that the no-planes-in-New-York theory is, at the very least, divisive and tends to make many people reluctant to explore the possibility that the official story is not accurate and join forces with those who are in favour of pressuring the government for a new enquiry. (I hope that I have not misrepresented your statement, Rob.)

So I thought that it was important to publish a defining statement about John Lear’s now, clear and unequivocal position—dated June 1, 2008—that all his previous possible hedging, about remote control and passenger planes had been sloughed off, and he now believes that no planes could possibly have hit the Towers. End of story. No “if’s” “buts” or “maybes”!

That is not “going in circles” because I have neither seen nor heard him make such a clear, concisely written statement, before receiving the e-mail which I copied on this forum, on a thread which is clearly posing the question, whether tongue in cheek or not: Is John Lear a no-planer?

Furthermore, this e-mail from John Lear was not private, and I made that clear, when posting it: “...which was also copied to about 12 other people”. I would also add that it had no restrictive annotation on it, such as: “Private and Confidential”. What was printed was as I received it; give or take some formatting and a change of typeface. But, even had there been such a restriction, I believe that publishing such a statement from such a man would come under the legal protection of being in the public interest. The other recipients were:

Dick Eastman, Vincent Campellone, Nate Flach, James Garofalo, Eric Salter, Cosmos of Truth Action, Lucas Trent, Rolf Lindgren, Urban-Badger, Richard Gage, Lionel Pelloux, James. T. Hoffman, Simon Shack, Ace Baker, Peter Harms, Fonebone, Bruce Rideout (plus two others whose e-mail addresses give no sense of name or identity. [the highlighted names are convinced no-planers.]

Simon Shack and Ace Baker are, of course, very active no-planers, and they and people like the Webfairy, Marcus Icke, Paula Gloria, Gerard Holmgren, Genghis and KillTown will be jumping right onto this shiny, new, no-planes bandwagon being driven by a man with “40 years in aviation including accident investigation, manufacturing, maintenance and over 19,000 hours as a pilot.” A man who basks in the reflected glory of that world-famous name in aviation: Lear.

The following is a comment regarding John Lear’s e-mail:

Are you kidding me? are you new? Its a statement without facts my friend, nothing more.

Are kidding me? Haven’t you ever heard the term: “It’s the Singer not the Song”? The facts don’t matter to the majority of people; look at the last presidential election results; look at the three potential candidates that the media have allowed to be put forward to take over from Bush, as though these three people are the best choices. Wake up! It isn’t what is said, it is who says it, and who allows it to get circulated. If Britney Spears had said there were no planes in New York, a whole lot of Americans would probably believe her, so the fact that John Lear has said it means a whole lot more than do the facts, my friend.

You’ll probably all hate this metaphor, but it’s time for Pilots for 9/11 Truth to come out of the cockpit and get in amongst the folks in coach class, because they will soon be watching the wrong movie.

Unless John Lear’s statement is refuted, or, at the very least, critically examined by those who are looked upon as having the kind of knowledge necessary to do so, there will be even more confusion, and people who may have already accepted the illogicality of the collapses-due-to-fire-alone stories, will just walk away from the whole “9/11 conspiracy thing”.

[CocaineImportAge...]

Post a comparison side by side of John Lear accomplishments in the aviation world vs. "Joe Blogg" and we'll consider giving "Joe Blogg" the same respect.

..well... thanks for the smiley on the end there Rob`!

...but!?... in a similar type scenario!?.... lets say we were to compare the thoughts and accomplishments of Rupert Murdoch to the, lets say, the editor of the Wisconsin Gazette!?!

...who would you trust?

...what i am trying to get across is are you and others letting your emotional respect for this man affect your judgment!?!

[rob balsamo]

There are certainly things to learn from both CIA. Its not a matter of "trust". (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Anthony, i have already made my statements and our mission statement/website is clear on such topics. Take it or leave it.

[painter]

. . .
Unless John Lear’s statement is refuted, or, at the very least, critically examined by those who are looked upon as having the kind of knowledge necessary to do so, there will be even more confusion, and people who may have already accepted the illogicality of the collapses-due-to-fire-alone stories, will just walk away from the whole “9/11 conspiracy thing”.

What I notice is that everything JL says he believes makes him a perfect example of a "conspiracy theorist" in the diminutive sense of that phrase. Like I keep saying, "no planes" ain't the half of it. UFOs, aliens, secret bases . . . "Kooks and nuts" kind of stuff. The difference, as you point out, is that JL isn't someone who can be simply dismissed out of hand. Precisely because of who JL is, his reputation and position, he seems to be someone who might "know" things that the rest of us are not privy to.

As if that weren't of concern enough, as I indicated with the quote I transcribed, Lear's bottom line seems to be that there is absolutely nothing we can do about any of it. We'd best just pay attention to our own lives and those of our loved-ones and let the rest of it take care of itself. Whatever is going on is beyond our control and possibly even our influence. Indeed, we might as well "just walk away from the whole '9/11 conspiracy thing,'" and fugitabotit.

Problem is, I can't and even if I could, I won't. For me it isn't a matter of whether planes did or did not hit the buildings. The matter is that a great crime has been committed and those truly responsible have not even been fully identified, much less held accountable. As Tarpley used to say, "The 9/11 criminals are still at large." That isn't something I can just "walk away from".

[lawson911]

What I notice is that everything JL says he believes makes him a perfect example of a "conspiracy theorist" in the diminutive sense of that phrase. Like I keep saying, "no planes" ain't the half of it. UFOs, aliens, secret bases . . . "Kooks and nuts" kind of stuff. The difference, as you point out, is that JL isn't someone who can be simply dismissed out of hand. Precisely because of who JL is, his reputation and position, he seems to be someone who might "know" things that the rest of us are not privy to.

As if that weren't of concern enough, as I indicated with the quote I transcribed, Lear's bottom line seems to be that there is absolutely nothing we can do about any of it. We'd best just pay attention to our own lives and those of our loved-ones and let the rest of it take care of itself. Whatever is going on is beyond our control and possibly even our influence. Indeed, we might as well "just walk away from the whole '9/11 conspiracy thing,'" and fugitabotit.

Problem is, I can't and even if I could, I won't. For me it isn't a matter of whether planes did or did not hit the buildings. The matter is that a great crime has been committed and those truly responsible have not even been fully identified, much less held accountable. As Tarpley used to say, "The 9/11 criminals are still at large." That isn't something I can just "walk away from".

Neither can I walk away, because I have children and grandchildren, and what I do, or don't do, now, could impact their lives as hard as I believe the planes impacted the Towers. Whatever is being done and covered up, was done by mortal men and women, and other mortals should be able to uncover the truth, if they really want to, and they set their minds to it.

The interesting thing is that John Lear is going up against the official government findings, and it is common knowledge that he has worked for the CIA. Even if only one/hundredth of what fiction writers include in their novels about the world of espionage and dirty ops. is true, it is quite possible that he is being coerced into publicising the position he appears to have taken about no planes, and that he may have added in the moving holograms and Moon bases in order to warn people not to take what he says seriously.

After all, when I pointed out that I, too, could project images, sounds, and heat into thin air, but that something was required to reflect it all back at the intended audience, he responded with:

Thanks Anthony,

Your comments are truly appreciated.

John

Was this a cynical response, or meant as a compliment that I was still able to think for myself, and that others should do the same?