9/11: John Lear - Disinformation? Cia Operative?
Aug 19 2009, 10:07 PM
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1
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.
May 1 2010, 10:29 AM
Joined: 23-December 09
Member No.: 4,814
The issue of trusting people when they take any outlier (to the mainstream) position raises many troubling issues.
In the matter of 911 we have been told the official account of the events and have since embarked on a very costly (blood and treasure) and some say anti democratic series of policy initiatives. 911 was a real game changer. This is not in dispute.
We can also make the statement that many have a vested interest in the official account and the subsequent policy initiatives referred to above.
Therefore when individuals or groups surface and question aspects of or in fact the entire account, those vested interests will don one of two things, ignore the critics or attempt to discredit them. But the same reactions would happen when critics of evolution surface with their belief in creationism. Ignore them or refute and discredit them.
So it important to bring this back to science and facts.
The critics of the official 911 account have based their critique on their reading of the evidence available and the claim that much of the evidence has been with held from the public, with the strong implication that the with holding of evidence indicates that evidence would tell a very different story. This is sound logic, but it is not a proof that the with held evidence actually contradicts the official story. So we want to see the video of the pentagon to confirm what may have flown there and so forth. The government could release them and this may prove what happened. They have not. So we simply can't reach any conclusion as tempting as it is to say that the video evidence will contradict the official story.
So the truth movement has had to resort to whatever forensic tools are available and try to extract the truth. What the truth movement HAS done is raise all sorts of questions and show conflicts and contradictions and gaps in the official story. The sum total of these points again raises doubt of the veracity of the official account.
Armed with this mountain of doubt most in the truth movement will build their own "truth narrative" which purports to be science and fact based and fit the available evidence. This leads to hypotheses such as the north path flyover or the controlled demolition of WTC and a whole series of speculations about who planned it, was behind it, carried it out and covered it up.
The speculations are meant to have internal consistency and people who hold a belief in a hypothesis cling to it tenaciously because if elements of their speculation are shown to untrue, or unlikely their internally consistent narrative begins to unfold. And more than that, it appears that clinging to a hypothesis which becomes inflexible in accommodating new evidence appears as if these are belief systems and not scientifically created hypotheses.
So people who raise issues about one thesis or another are now looked at as agents from the government sent to discredit. remember you either ignore or discredit and both sides have only these two options. Of course there is the third option to continually modify the hypothesis to fit all the facts and science as they become available.
This brings me to the notion of what evidence is. We want to believe that evidence is a fingerprint... a unique tell tale of specific cause. While this may be true, it is not always true and evidence can be the result of many causes. If we see a building in pieces on the ground did it collapse, or was it made to fall somehow, or was it poorly designed, or demolished with a wrecking ball or a bomb or it collapse from termites. To make a determination we need to carefully examine the fallen building to look for clues. If we see signs of termites we might conclude that it was from termites eating away and undermining the structure. But that may have been the cause. Some one may have done some work in there and weakened the structure and a strong wind tipped it passed its limit and it collapsed. The point here is that reading the evidence back to a unique cause is difficult, especially when a complex system of hundreds of thousands of elements fails so completely.
Did the towers collapse or were they destroyed by "controlled demolition" which is meant to mean explosives and or something like extreme heat generating process which could destroy the strength of the steel structures.
Personally I believe it was both... the collapse and there was intervention. But the point here is that if you doubt the official story then you believe their was intervention and then you look at the evidence and interpret it to match your hypothesis. If debris is found several hundred feet from the tower it is read as evidence that it was explosively ejected. But it could also get their if it toppled over. The top of a flag pole would end up a distance equal to its height from the bottom if the pole toppled over. And the top would reach a maximum horizontal speed depending on its height. The top of a 100 meter tall pole would reach a horizontal velocity of 22 m/sec and a the top of a 10m pole would reach a horizontal velocity of 7 m/sec. That makes sense if you understand vectors. So when we see debris scattered around the twin towers we can determine what was the maximum horizontal speed they were traveling at to get where they landed. And to do that we need to know how far from the tower they were found and the height in the tower from whence they originated.
If we assume that the furthest found pieces came from the highest locations in the building we would use the elevation of collapse initiation since nothing shot off the top part as it was descending until what appears as an explosion at collapse initiation. This would put the max height for the south tower at +/- 1000' and the north tower at +/- 1150. If we then input the furthest debris located from each tower we find that the maximum horizontal speed was material from the west facade of the north tower and it was around 34 mph. If the debris came from lower such as 1000 feet it would have been as much as 37 mph.
If the entire side fell over like a flag pole the top would reach a speed of 90 mph and land 1350 away, from 1000 ft it would be 85 mph. We know the side did not topple. But it is more likely that sections of the facade fell off and continued moving west at about 30+ mph and landed where they were found. They were likely not ejected at high speeds.
But this would undermine a claim that there was explosive demolition. However this does not mean that there were not explosions or other engineering measures such as high heat to dismantle parts of the structure and cause it to collapse. If the falling of the facade is the correct explanation of that bit of evidence, those who claim explosives have to retreat from one of their "evidence claims" which support their main conclusion.
But how was their conclusion actually arrived at? For one it was based on assuming that the official narrative was a lie. And this depends on how far you want to walk back the "lie" ... the official narrative.
The building did not collapse - therefore they were blown up.
Therefore the planes had nothing to do with their destruction (because they had to be blown up)
And if they had nothing to do with the destruction of the towers then they were "decoys"
If they were decoys then perhaps they were not hijacked and other planes were used or
the hijackers were patsies and duped into flying the decoys
And so on and so on
Now you can look at any aspect of the narrative and find gaping holes in it such as the air speeds reported which seem to defy what those commercial planes could do, or the skill of the hijackers to fly those maneuvers, or the north flyover witnesses which seem to support the no plane hit the pentagon.
Nothing is adding up, but the evidence OF what happened is not there... yet. And this is causing speculation and entrenchment in one truth narrative or another and distrust of others whose own narrative does not support yours - they are labeled disinformation agents sent to... discredit.
Let's try to establish facts and not theories - the theories come later. We're still at the fact finding stage with no help from the government and the corporate world who are making out very nicely as long as the OCT stands.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 22nd May 2013 - 04:32 AM|