Believe A Pilot?

[Quaalude]

John Lear has the answer to 9/11

http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc

3 min

[Quaalude]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:38:44 -0400, Quaalude wrote:

> John Lear has the answer to 9/11
>
> http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc
>
> 3 min

Proof?

http://youtu.be/ek-Q0T9wK2g

[george152]

On 30/09/2011 10:38 a.m., Quaalude wrote:
> John Lear has the answer to 9/11
>
> http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc
>
> 3 min

That would be 3 minutes you'd never have again!

[Quaalude]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:07:37 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:

> In article >,
> Quaalude > wrote:

>> John Lear has the answer to 9/11
>>
>> http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc
>> 3 min

> Can someone summarize?

3 min

[Quaalude]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:07:37 +0000 (UTC), Edward A. Falk wrote:

> In article >,
> Quaalude > wrote:

>> John Lear has the answer to 9/11
>>
>> http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc
>> 3 min

> Can someone summarize?

3 min

[[email protected]]

Edward A. Falk > wrote:
> In article >,
> Quaalude > wrote:
>>John Lear has the answer to 9/11
>>
>>http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc
>
> Can someone summarize? My guess is that it's a pilot explaining
> how fire can't burn hot enough to weaken steel. The next video
> will be a metalurgist explaining how it was clearly a controlled
> demolition. We'll round off the series with a demolitions
> expert explaining how a plane can't be piloted accurately enough
> to hit a building at high speeds.

Sure; John Lear is a well known UFO and conspiracy theory kook.

It was his father Bill that built the Lear jet.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
wrote:

> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Quaalude > wrote:
> >>John Lear has the answer to 9/11
> >>
> >>http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc
> >
> > Can someone summarize? My guess is that it's a pilot explaining
> > how fire can't burn hot enough to weaken steel. The next video
> > will be a metalurgist explaining how it was clearly a controlled
> > demolition. We'll round off the series with a demolitions
> > expert explaining how a plane can't be piloted accurately enough
> > to hit a building at high speeds.
>
> Sure; John Lear is a well known UFO and conspiracy theory kook.
>
> It was his father Bill that built the Lear jet.

I knew his brother, who died 2 years ago. The description of John Lear
is right on!

As an engineer, I can vouch for the weakening of steel at elevated
temperatures.

As an additional note: If there really WERE a conspiracy, it would
revolve around the use of substandard steel in the construction of the
WTC. I do not know the differences in price among structural steel
grades, but, with something like 200 million tons of steel involved, the
urge to cut corners in the construction of WTC (and to pocket the
difference) would have been a huge temptation!

[[email protected]]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Quaalude > wrote:
>> >>John Lear has the answer to 9/11
>> >>
>> >>http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc
>> >
>> > Can someone summarize? My guess is that it's a pilot explaining
>> > how fire can't burn hot enough to weaken steel. The next video
>> > will be a metalurgist explaining how it was clearly a controlled
>> > demolition. We'll round off the series with a demolitions
>> > expert explaining how a plane can't be piloted accurately enough
>> > to hit a building at high speeds.
>>
>> Sure; John Lear is a well known UFO and conspiracy theory kook.
>>
>> It was his father Bill that built the Lear jet.
>
> I knew his brother, who died 2 years ago. The description of John Lear
> is right on!
>
> As an engineer, I can vouch for the weakening of steel at elevated
> temperatures.
>
> As an additional note: If there really WERE a conspiracy, it would
> revolve around the use of substandard steel in the construction of the
> WTC. I do not know the differences in price among structural steel
> grades, but, with something like 200 million tons of steel involved, the
> urge to cut corners in the construction of WTC (and to pocket the
> difference) would have been a huge temptation!

Nah, it is in essentially banning the use of asbestos to insulate structural
steel against the temperatures of fires.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Quaalude]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 00:56:51 -0000, wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>>> > In article >,
>>> > Quaalude > wrote:
>>> >>John Lear has the answer to 9/11
>>> >>
>>> >>http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc
>>> >
>>> > Can someone summarize? My guess is that it's a pilot explaining
>>> > how fire can't burn hot enough to weaken steel. The next video
>>> > will be a metalurgist explaining how it was clearly a controlled
>>> > demolition. We'll round off the series with a demolitions
>>> > expert explaining how a plane can't be piloted accurately enough
>>> > to hit a building at high speeds.
>>>
>>> Sure; John Lear is a well known UFO and conspiracy theory kook.
>>>
>>> It was his father Bill that built the Lear jet.
>>
>> I knew his brother, who died 2 years ago. The description of John Lear
>> is right on!
>>
>> As an engineer, I can vouch for the weakening of steel at elevated
>> temperatures.
>>
>> As an additional note: If there really WERE a conspiracy, it would
>> revolve around the use of substandard steel in the construction of the
>> WTC. I do not know the differences in price among structural steel
>> grades, but, with something like 200 million tons of steel involved, the
>> urge to cut corners in the construction of WTC (and to pocket the
>> difference) would have been a huge temptation!
>
> Nah, it is in essentially banning the use of asbestos to insulate structural
> steel against the temperatures of fires.

http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc
3 min

[[email protected]]

Quaalude > wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Oct 2011 00:56:51 -0000, wrote:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Edward A. Falk > wrote:
>>>> > In article >,
>>>> > Quaalude > wrote:
>>>> >>John Lear has the answer to 9/11
>>>> >>
>>>> >>http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc
>>>> >
>>>> > Can someone summarize? My guess is that it's a pilot explaining
>>>> > how fire can't burn hot enough to weaken steel. The next video
>>>> > will be a metalurgist explaining how it was clearly a controlled
>>>> > demolition. We'll round off the series with a demolitions
>>>> > expert explaining how a plane can't be piloted accurately enough
>>>> > to hit a building at high speeds.
>>>>
>>>> Sure; John Lear is a well known UFO and conspiracy theory kook.
>>>>
>>>> It was his father Bill that built the Lear jet.
>>>
>>> I knew his brother, who died 2 years ago. The description of John Lear
>>> is right on!
>>>
>>> As an engineer, I can vouch for the weakening of steel at elevated
>>> temperatures.
>>>
>>> As an additional note: If there really WERE a conspiracy, it would
>>> revolve around the use of substandard steel in the construction of the
>>> WTC. I do not know the differences in price among structural steel
>>> grades, but, with something like 200 million tons of steel involved, the
>>> urge to cut corners in the construction of WTC (and to pocket the
>>> difference) would have been a huge temptation!
>>
>> Nah, it is in essentially banning the use of asbestos to insulate structural
>> steel against the temperatures of fires.
>
> http://youtu.be/3jCiQVnbwfc
> 3 min

Sorry, I don't have 3 min to waste on kook babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[VOR-DME[_4_]]

In article >, says...

>
>Can someone summarize? My guess is that it's a pilot explaining
>how fire can't burn hot enough to weaken steel.


No! Nothing as boring or "forensic" as you suggest.

It’s a certifiable case explaining that ‘holographs' have come so far
these days that this simply "has" to be the explanation for what
happened (or didn’t happen) on 9/11. This person is too far out there to
be held accountable for illusions, be they the latest Augmented Reality
technology or even old style movies! He’s back in the generation where
people jumped under the seats in the theater when they saw a b/w grainy
image of a train coming head-on. His theory may run into some snags
though, when one asks him where the twin towers really went, or what
really happened to the airline flights and their hundreds of passengers
that day. He’s pretty much locked himself into stating that the twin
towers "were never there" at all, and were just a holograph, that
someone "turned off" that day, or else that they are still there, but
"a holograph" hides them. Same for all those people, whose families were
deceived into believing they existed, when they were just government
holographs.