John Lear & Andrew Johnson on the 9/11 Plane Stories - Reynolds Reveal # 44 - March 5, 2014 //Richplanet TV - April 2014 Show - 9/11 Plane Fakery

[Cidersomerset]

I posted these two interview / discussions on another thread among several others
where most won't see them. They are quite good explaining Dr.Woods and their own
views of what they believe possibly happened on 9/11 with their on going research.
Easier to understand and follow than some of the more technical vids, but still full
of interesting info imo.


John Lear & Andrew Johnson on the 9/11 Plane Stories - Reynolds Reveal # 44 - March 5, 2014

Pz0ZiF9j6To

Published on 15 Mar 2014


Follow up interview - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLaP-6...
Andrew Johnson's website - http://www.checktheevidence.com/
Morgan Reynolds' website - http://nomoregames.net/
Reynolds Reveal Archives - http://guerillamedianetwork.com/show-...
Dr. Judy Wood's website - http://www.drjudywood.com
Website for her book - http://wheredidthetowersgo.com

This is episode # 44 of the Reynolds Reveal from March 5, 2014.
mp3 - http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio...

See also Ex-CIA Pilot Gives Sworn Testimony That No Planes Hit The
Twin Towers - US Will Have To Rebut Or Accept Statement As
Truth - http://neonnettle.com/news/211-ex-cia...

Pilots for 9/11 Truth - http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

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

This is the follow up interview to the above........They start off commenting about
flight MH370 , as they saw a it couple months ago.....John says both Boeing & Rolls
Royce know where it is. They then go into 9/11...

Richplanet TV - April 2014 Show - 9/11 Plane Fakery

uOcdAhVgJQM

Published on 30 Mar 2014


Please visit Richard D Hall's website RICHPLANET.NET
http://www.richplanet.net/starship.php to see all his past shows, and so much
more, covering all types of alternate issues that the mainstream refuses to
acknowledge.

In this show, Richard joins Andrew Johnson, and John Lear on the Morgan Reynolds
show, to discuss the No Planes theory.

In the show, Richard's 2012 analysis of the 9/11 radar and video evidence of flight
175 which allegedly impacted the world trade centre South Tower is discussed. The
video and radar data shows that the object was travelling at around 580 miles per
hour. Most pilots agree that 580 miles per hour is an impossible speed for a 767
travelling near sea level. Not only that, close up videos showing the alleged plane
impacting on the side of the tower show completely impossible impact dynamics.
So with two major impossibilities the question arises, what was actually used? By
studying the video evidence closely it suggests that some kind of illusion was being
generated to trick observers of the existence of a 767 aircraft. It is possible that a
solid object was cloaked inside the illusion. John Lear explains just how impossible
the speed was, which is a piece of glaring evidence that is not going to go away.

Richplanet TV - 9/11 Fake Plane Video and Radar Analysis from 2012..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-cRJTkMPNA




previous threads.....


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?57234-Dr-Judy-Wood-Several-good-interviews-in-early-2013&p=652289#post652289


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?41614-Where-Did-The-Towers-Go-Dr-Judy-Wood-in-the-UK....Sky-200-TV-with-Theo-Chalmers.&p=438224#post438224

[Matt P]

I have something to share that I have only told a couple other people about and I've never heard anyone in the movement talk about. I noticed it a year or two ago while watching videos and I saved the link. Perhaps some other folks have noticed it now, I don't know. So I went in my files, found the link and the youtube video is still there. What I found is still in the video. What is cool is that I had totally forgotten about this and when I found this it was before I knew as much as I do now about the craft that we and they have.

Well maybe this is what did the projecting....

DoE8Uz2ia3M

Flying object shadowing plane/missile that hit the second world trade center tower. You have to watch closely because of the speed it's moving.

8:00

8:50 **

9:35

The one at 8:50 is best because you can see the vehicle's speed and that it makes a right turn as it passes the plane hitting the second tower. Three things jar the mind. One, the speed of the second vehicle and making the turn at that speed and, Two, the timing of two radically different velocity vehicles to meet at precisely the impact on the second tower and, three, while the sound of the impact aircraft is obvious, no sounds for the much faster vehicle is detected.

What is this aircraft and why is it there?

One camera catches what looks like a laser site focusing on the second building just before impact. This is at the 4:35 mark.

Matt

[edit: and, cidersomerset, thanks for the post and jarring my memory]

[Cidersomerset]

The one at 8:50 is best because you can see the vehicle's speed and that it makes a right turn as it passes the plane hitting the second tower. Three things jar the mind. One, the speed of the second vehicle and making the turn at that speed and, Two, the timing of two radically different velocity vehicles to meet at precisely the impact on the second tower and, three, while the sound of the impact aircraft is obvious, no sounds for the much faster vehicle is detected.

What is this aircraft and why is it there?

Yeah I could clearly see the 8.50 craft/plane shoot past and would
fit perfectly with Richard Halls theory of the parallel plane approach.
explained in his 2012 presentation. When comparing the civilian
and military radar approaches of the alleged jet liner. It shows
that two planes/craft were running in a parallel approach before
impact. Could that be the one in the vid ? needs someone with
photo analytic skills.


http://www.richplanet.net/i/911_vid.png
Detailed 3D Analyis

On the day of 9/11 the North tower was "struck" first. There is only one piece of
film footage known to have recorded this event. The second "impact" was recorded
by between 50 and 60 different video cameras, each having a different viewing
perspective of the same event. Even though there are so many recordings of what
happened, the evidence in these recordings casts huge doubt over whether boeing
767s were used in the attacks. Other non video evidence also supports the "no
planes" hypothesis. In this film Richard D. Hall analyses all of the video footage of
the alleged second impact and compares what was seen on video with a 3
dimensional computer model of the World Trade Centre and surrounding area. The
findings of this film bring us one step closer to the truth about how 9/11 was
carried out. A major finding is uncovered in the analysis which shows official radar
data recorded by the military was different to that reported in a civilian radar
report. The discrepancy suggests one of these sets of data is bogus and sheds light
on how the illusion may have been created. It seems 9/11 was a highly organised,
technologically sophisticated psychological operation which fooled half the world.
Not only was advanced technology being deployed in the form of an energy weapon
to "dematerialise" the towers, but further advanced technology may also have been
used to create the visual illusion of passenger airplanes in the sky. The detailed 3D
video and radar analysis is presented in part two of this video. In parts one and
three, Richard D. Hall is joined by Andrew Johnson for a discussion on the 9/11
video evidence and possible attempts to keep people from finding the real truth
about the technology used. A truth which the orchestrators of 9/11 are continuing
to divert people away from.





Richplanet TV - 9/11 Fake Plane Video and Radar Analysis

9-cRJTkMPNA

[Matt P]

Well, I'm no video expert but I'd say the craft that I point out in the above video was NOT an accompanying (conventional) airplane. It is moving at speeds and making turns at those speeds that suggests it's probably one of our anti-gravity craft, which adds a whole new dimension to the discussion I think.

Matt

[Gardener]

mpennery thank you for posting that compilation of shots. It does bring home how important that second 'plane' was in the unduction of deep trauma, I had never quite grasped that fact so clearly. This section you wrote....

One camera catches what looks like a laser site focusing on the second building just before impact. This is at the 4:35 mark.
Clearly seen, the bright light moves across the building as the 'plane' approaches (therefore not a window reflection) laser guided something. Coupled with the 'other' item flying past, I am left in little doubt that the two are connected. Had it not been for this light it might be argued that the 'item' flying past could be film damage, but to be honest the co-incidence is at least interesting.

From Cider's post...#3

It seems 9/11 was a highly organised, technologically sophisticated psychological operation which fooled half the world.

Yup!
And some.

[Gardener]

There is just something about John Lear that gives me reservations, can't quite put my finger on it.

[tnkayaker]

yes definately after pausing/playing and rewinding a ton of times, one can see a small shadow wizzing by, gotta be cruzing at 5 or 6 or 7 thousand miles an hour, its a blink of an eye , but man thanks for posting this and being able to see it in the first place brother, kudos! i was able to caatch it at the 8:50 and the 9:35 mark, but definately its there, now what it is ..? HA im not going to venture to guess, but it could be a ufo for sure, whats interesting is not all the cameras caught the little bugger either just some of them hmmmm i wonder if the footage was doctored ( not that that is ever done right) then again its prolly the fact some cameras have f-stops set to a faster preference than others , just a note, when you set your f-stops slower it makes for better quality pictures and close ups, but you cant catch like a race car go by without alot of blur, same thing here, f-stops can be set to one specific speed or can be set to adjust automatically ,is different on each camera ,,,thanks for the post mpennery, peace,dennis

[Gardener]

The main question about the 'other' item flying by, is why it can not be seen in any other shot. Foreground item ie bird would appear to go much faster.

[jake gittes]

yes definately after pausing/playing and rewinding a ton of times, one can see a small shadow wizzing by, gotta be cruzing at 5 or 6 or 7 thousand miles an hour, its a blink of an eye , but man thanks for posting this and being able to see it in the first place brother, kudos! i was able to caatch it at the 8:50 and the 9:35 mark, but definately its there, now what it is ..? HA im not going to venture to guess, but it could be a ufo for sure, whats interesting is not all the cameras caught the little bugger either just some of them hmmmm i wonder if the footage was doctored ( not that that is ever done right) then again its prolly the fact some cameras have f-stops set to a faster preference than others , just a note, when you set your f-stops slower it makes for better quality pictures and close ups, but you cant catch like a race car go by without alot of blur, same thing here, f-stops can be set to one specific speed or can be set to adjust automatically ,is different on each camera ,,,thanks for the post mpennery, peace,dennis

True about f-stops. There is a phenomena called the wagon-wheel effect along these lines. You can see it often in old movies. A car's wheels or the wagon wheels in a Western, seem to be going backwards. It has to do with the speed of the film not matching up to the speed of the action and only getting x-amount of data recorded on film, i.e., only some of the pictures being taken (movie film is a series of several individual snapped pictures) are seen in the processed film, making it appear the wheels are going backwards. I hope I didn't convolute that too much.

[jerry]

This is the kind of stuff that leaves us all looking like conspiracy nuts, focusing on things like this are distracting to say the least and are summarily forted by the officials with the gullible public, fuel for their lies. The 911 truth movement that's gaining steam with their fact finding mission statements that deal with facts, are our best route to rout out those responsible. We need something that's a little easier to draw the general public's focus to, other than holographic planes and secret microwave death rays. While its all good and even believable to a few, the vast majority will never go there with this approach.

[ThePythonicCow]

This is the kind of stuff that leaves us all looking like conspiracy nuts
The truth, to someone who chooses not to be ready for it yet, will be dismissed.

Whether that dismissal is done by ignoring what's said, or ridiculing it, or whatever ... that's the choice of the (non) listener.

For some of us, myself amongst them, such technical discussions to what destroyed the WTC twin towers were the primary "gateway drug", that led us from fully supporting the War on Terror, to where we are now.

If we stopped talking what most would consider nonsense, or worse ... then we might as well just stop talking.

[jerry]

I agree, point well taken .... I just choose to channel my time to something more concrete when trying to awaken someone that's in denial of any inside job. Its been my experience that its much easier to spoon feed the deniers than to hit them with the full force of what may very well be the truth .

[tnkayaker]

The main question about the 'other' item flying by, is why it can not be seen in any other shot. Foreground item ie bird would appear to go much faster.

garrdner i caught the image in 2 of the videos, so its not just one, as i said in my post some cameras have f-stops set at differnt speeds so some cameras can catch this image and some wont, some have automatic f-stop settings and some dont so it doesnt surpise me that most cameras didnt catch this, also as i SAID in my post when u set ur f-stop at a SLOWER speed, face and up close images are much more desirable to those watching, the images are much "cleaner" with a high f-stop the images are "grainy" but faster moving objects are caught and can be caught clearer where as there would normally be blurry so u cant have your caje and eat it too, if u want clear nice facial images then u use a slow f-stop setting, so im sure there wasnt time to re-set cameras at the time they caught these images, prolly doing more up close work then the planes came into view and they used the zoom option while not resetting the f-stop, who has the frame of mind to reset ones camera when things are unfolding right in front of u ? it is what it is but i did catch the image being discussed here in 2 videos, if u watch closely the video also has a image wizzing by at 9:35, i also see the image of a possible ufo at 8:50 ,peace,dennis

[Cidersomerset]

Quote Posted by Gardener (here)
The main question about the 'other' item flying by, is why it can not be seen in any other shot. Foreground item ie bird would appear to go much faster.
garrdner i caught the image in 2 of the videos, so its not just one, as i said in my post some cameras have f-stops set at differnt speeds so some cameras can catch this image and some wont, some have automatic f-stop settings and some dont so it doesnt surpise me that most cameras didnt catch this, also as i SAID in my post when u set ur f-stop at a SLOWER speed, face and up close images are much more desirable to those watching, the images are much "cleaner" with a high f-stop the images are "grainy" but faster moving objects are caught and can be caught clearer where as there would normally be blurry so u cant have your caje and eat it too, if u want clear nice facial images then u use a slow f-stop setting, so im sure there wasnt time to re-set cameras at the time they caught these images, prolly doing more up close work then the planes came into view and they used the zoom option while not resetting the f-stop, who has the frame of mind to reset ones camera when things are unfolding right in front of u ? it is what it is but i did catch the image being discussed here in 2 videos, if u watch closely the video also has a image wizzing by at 9:35, i also see the image of a possible ufo at 8:50 ,peace,dennis

So what we are saying is that the object is real ??