9/11: John Lear - Disinformation? Cia Operative? Options

[rob balsamo]

Another chat between Rob Balsamo and John Lear, Son of the Learjet and Core Member of Pilots For 9/11 Truth, answering the questions of those who refuse to ask him directly. Topics include CIA work, Iran-Contra, "Truth Movement" division, "Impossible Speeds", NTSB Data, and "No Plane Theories"... among other topics.
Please visit pilotsfor911truth.org for more information.

[painter]

Thanks for doing this and putting it up, Rob. Lear is clearly one of the most remarkable and interesting people alive on this planet. I have the utmost respect for him -- but that doesn't mean I necessarily "believe" some of the things he says just because he says them. I don't think he would want anyone to do that, anyway.

Some of our detractors like to couch the "John Lear issue" as a matter of credibility. The idea being that since Lear has some very unconventional views, his support is a potential weakness that could be exploited, especially by unfriendly media, as further evidence that the 9/11 truth movement are a bunch of nutters not to be taken seriously. Aside from the fact that the corporate owned media is not likely to EVER take this movement "seriously," the problem here is that these same people aren't addressing the evidence that Pilots for Truth and Citizen Investigation Team has uncovered and made public. Instead they prefer to adopt a logical fallacy that insists if John Lear (or someone like him) supports this evidence, then this evidence must be false. Thus, in a twist of logic that goes beyond ironic, they do the very thing they say they're afraid the "John Lear issue" will do: Discredit by association.

MEANWHILE, analysis of the NTSB supplied FDR data allegedly from Flight 77 shows that it could not have hit the Pentagon. Aerodynamically impossible. This is clear, take it to the judge, evidence of a cover-up and falsification of evidence supplied to the public via FOIA by government agencies (NTSB and FBI). MEANWHILE we have numerous verified on the record and on the scene eye witnesses who corroborate one another in having seen a plane on a flight path, bank angle and air speed that is irreconcilable with the physical damage. MEANWHILE we have one on the scene taxi driver with a busted windshield and punctured back seat whose initial story stretches credulity to the breaking point followed by a complete denial of his having ever been in the precise location necessary for his initial story to even be remotely possible. MEANWHILE we have a Pentagon police officer reporting that immediately after the explosion at the Pentagon he saw a low flying "commercial airliner" flying over the South parking lot. MEANWHILE we have a bunch of people who claim to be advocates for 9/11 truth who can't wrap their heads around all this, preferring instead to continue to insist that, despite all this evidence, the official account of Flight 77 must be true and, instead, prefer to demonize the people and organizations that have worked diligently for years to gather this information and make it public. And these same people want to hang their arguments on issues of credibility??

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