It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If Someone Proved one point Would Accept the rest?

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 10:59 AM
a reply to: RomanMaroni

No skyeagle409, i think the question really is, why are you here? ATS is a place for people to discuss possibilities. A place to point to unanswered questions and try to figure out what the answer is or may be. A place to think "outside the box." A great place to exercise your brain. You have proven my point over and over again that you are going to believe the same thing on Wednesday that you believed on Monday no matter what happens on Tuesday. You talk about conspiracy theorists as if they are morons yet here you are. I don't believe in bigfoot. Therefore I don't hang around in bigfoot forums telling them they are wrong and calling them names. Something brought you here skyeagle409. There's an old saying that says whenever you point a finger at someone, you have 3 more pointing back at you. Why are you adamant about defending your beliefs to people who are obviously beneath you? I wonder ....

Buhahaha ok enough RAOTFLMFAO!

Mr. RomanMaroni sir,

I have been waiting for someone to say what you just said for weeks.
Because everytime I tried to write like you just did. I had to hit delete
instead of reply by the time I finished. For the sake of my account.
Good on you man for seeking justice. Justice for the american people
and the families of 911 victims. You're a better than me sir.

A highly respected intellectual, as is David Ray Griffen also, says anyone
who believes the official account. Has no business calling themselves
a teacher, or any other kind of an intellectual.

And they decide to attack him? Because the truth has to be attacked.
It's the only way to suppress it. No one who believes what the OS
says faces anything like that from the truth movement. Truly incredible.

edit on Ram81615v32201500000008 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:10 PM
a reply to: randyvs

Just to let you know that you posted another bogus video. The guy claims that explosives took out the WTC buildings and yet, fire figthters, demolition experts, structural and civil engineers and architects have said that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC building and here you posted another video where the it is obvious the guy is lying. Perhaps, you should have check his background before you posted that video as a reference.

It is apparent that you were unaware that Kevin Barrett's own son debunked his dad. Now, let's take another look at Kevin Barrett

Kevin Barrett

Kevin Barrett is a prominent 9/11 activist. While he has significantly contributed awareness for the 9/11 truth movement, he has also damaged its credibility with damaging associations, discrediting theories, and controversial statements.

Barrett on “Directed Energy Weapons”

In late 2006, Barrett endorsed the study of directed energy weapons on his radio show to explain the destruction of the world trade center on 9/11:

“I would urge people to go take a look at this material… 'I think we don't really need any kind of unanimity from researchers… I don't think this is doing any permanent harm to the 9/11 movement… '

Kevin Barrett is an editor of "Veterans Today" and an associate with Gordon Duff. Now, let's take a look at the rest of the story.

Gordon Duff of Veterans Today Admits To Writing 40% False Information

Gordon Duff of Veterans Today in his own words. He admits To Writing 40% False Information and that at least 30% of the information on Veterans Today is false as well.

Your misstep in not doing your homework in this case is another example of why the Truth Movement is a laughing stock.You allowed yourself to be duped, but you were warned before about posting disinformation.
edit on 16-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:20 PM
a reply to: skyeagle409

Your ignorance is what I meant by truly incredible.

" He's lying " " That was debunked " and " You didn't do your home work "!

I don't even see anyone laughing.

The only thing left for you is name calling.

3...2...1...lift off!
edit on Rpm81615v33201500000024 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:49 PM
a reply to: randyvs

He's lying " " That was debunked " and " You didn't do your home work "!

I don't even see anyone laughing.

Of course Kevin Barrett is lying. Even his associate, Gordon Duff, has admitted to fabricating false tales about 9/11.

That is probably because they can't explain why a huge bomb failed to throw these steel beams anywhere. You will notice that the steel beams are sitting in the huge bomb crater. So, explain why that bomb failed to throw those steel beams anywhere.

Bomb Fails to Throw Steel Beams

Steel Beams Still Standing

Steel Beams Still Standing Here as Well

If you knew anything about explosives, you would have known that blast waves flow around steel beams like wind flowing around a flag pole.

edit on 16-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:53 PM

originally posted by: randyvs

I don't even see anyone laughing.

We are laughing at you.

Your heavy steel beams are light weight aluminum column covers.

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:01 PM
a reply to: waypastvne

Blown out 300 ft away from the building?
Sure is indicative of a collapse isn't it?
Redefine collapse for yourself now!
I'll wait.

And it's supposed to be a surprise that someone redacts
when examples of calling for peoples jobs is already evident.
That's pretty good indeed. I'm still laughing. We already know
the truth gets attacked. What part of that can be confused
with your lies?
edit on Rpm81615v13201500000025 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:12 PM
a reply to: randyvs

There is no evidence of explosives. Take an look at this video and explain what is flinging debris laterally and take note that no explosives are involved in the videos.

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:17 PM
a reply to: skyeagle409

You nailed it dude that's exactly what a collapse should look
like. Hell you keep making a better truther case than I am.
Ha ha ha!

no proof but the proof is even in the videos you post
for your argument. What part of the word explosion
don't you understand? how many times does it need
to be said. Gas explosions right? Between your ears?

The only thing you've proved redundantly is that you
believe massive amounts of bullsh#t! That's it that's all.

I might as well post a video like this.

And wait for you to post one that makes my
argument perfectly clear.

edit on Rpm81615v00201500000031 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:12 PM
a reply to: randyvs

Why do you continue to post bogus videos that have been debunked with facts and evidence? BTW, firefighters later attributed the explosions they heard to things that had nothing to do with explosives and look what you posted in your previous post.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail.

Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

Nothing in the fire chief's report about explosives. Do some homework for a change.
edit on 16-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:57 PM
a reply to: skyeagle409

If homework is gonna cause me to be stupid you can have it!
You are no patriot. You stand in the way of justice for your own interests.
You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.

edit on Rpm81615v05201500000045 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 04:13 PM
a reply to: randyvs

If homework is gonna cause me to be stupid you can have it!

Not doing your home is what has placed you in that position, and given the fact that you have been caught posting disinformation. Add to the fact that you failed to any homework to ascertain the background story regarding Kevin Barrett before you posted a reference to him. If you had done any homework, you would have found that Kevin Barrettas discredited long ago.

If you had done your homework, you would have found that no explosives of any kind were used during the 9/11 attack, which explains why there are no demolition explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed.

If you had done your homework, you would have found that firefighters confirmed that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

If you had done your homework, you would have been aware of the NBC news report where firefighters reported exploding gas lines.

If you had done your homework, you would have found the demolition experts confirmed that fire, not explosives, was responsible fo the collapse of the WTC buildings.

If you had done your homework, you would have found that structural, civil engineers and architects blamed fire as the main reason for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

If you had done your homework, you would have found that the videos you have posted as references were bogus.

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 04:26 PM
a reply to: skyeagle409

There's no " Homework " even needed to prove my point
i.e. you believe buullsh#t that has been bullsh#t and will continue to be

It really is quite obvious.
See when a person ( such as you ) makes a choice ( as you have obviously done )
to believe bullsh#t ( obvious bullsh#t ) no amount of homework on my part is
going to help you, I mean that person, okay you. You want to believe a
lie. I can't even surgically remove that want.
edit on Rpm81615v44201500000015 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 05:06 PM
Ok since nobody is getting anywhere with the WTC collapse conversation, which will always be the case, let's get back Alhazmi and Almihdhar supposed getting lost in Thailand. Keep in my mind I've obviously not done my homework so I'm sure skyeagle409 will be back shortly to correct me or respond to something not mentioned.

January 5-8 2000 A series of calls by al-Qaeda operatives, some of whom are under surveillance by the CIA and the Malaysian Special Branch at this time, links three sites involved in the bombing of the USS Cole. Even though the CIA is aware of the calls, it will later say it is unable to find the hijackers in Bangkok, the location of one of the call sites. The calls made by the operatives are between the following three locations:
*A payphone in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, near an apartment where about a dozen al-Qaeda operatives are holding a summit;
*The Washington Hotel in Bangkok, Thailand. Al-Qaeda operatives Ibrahim al-Thawar and Fahad al-Quso are staying at the hotel around this time. They will go on to be involved in the Cole bombing. They are later joined in the hotel by summit attendees Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, and Khallad bin Attash;
*Al-Quso’s house in Yemen. The calls from the payphone to this location are made by bin Attash.
Although bin Attash and possibly others call the Washington Hotel while they are under surveillance, the CIA will be unable to locate them there during the week they spend in Bangkok, from January 8-15 2000. Author Lawrence Wright will comment, “Although the CIA later denied that it knew anything about the phone, the number was recorded in the Malaysians’ surveillance log, which was given to the agency.” The FBI team investigating the Cole bombing will later learn some of this information before 9/11 and ask the CIA for details. However, the CIA will fail to disclose what it knows about the Malaysia summit or that it looks for the hijackers and associates in Thailand after January 8.

January 5-8 2000 Although Malaysian authorities video the militants attending al-Qaeda’s Malaysia summit on its first day, photos of the meeting’s attendees are later circulated and must be taken during the meeting as well. One account says that, in general: “As the terrorists left the [condominium where the summit was held], the Malaysian police clicked away with their cameras. There was enough material for a whole photo series.” None of the photos have been made public, and information about them is scanty. However, it is known that the photos include:
*Three high-quality surveillance photos later shown to the FBI. One is shot from a low angle and shows 9/11 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi standing by a tree. The two others in this set appear to show Almihdhar and Alhazmi individually, and will also later be shown to Yemeni authorities and an FBI asset in Pakistan.
*More photos of Almihdhar “meeting with other al-Qaeda operatives.” He is also “photographed in various locations meeting with several different people.” The photos of Almihdhar include ones taken at his hotel, which is discovered by the Malaysians, and more coming and going from the condominium where the meeting is held.
*A picture of al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash, standing by Alhazmi and Almihdhar.
*Photos of USS Cole bomber Fahad al-Quso standing next to Almihdhar.
*A picture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh next to bin Attash.
*Hambali, head of an al-Qaeda affiliate in Southeast Asia, is in some photos, and is immediately recognized by Malaysian intelligence.
*Yazid Sufaat, the summit’s host, is also in some photos, and also is recognized by Malaysian intelligence.
*On January 8, the CIA will be told that an unnamed new person has just joined Almihdhar and the others, and that additional photographs have been taken. It is not mentioned who the new person is.
The total number of photos taken and then passed to the CIA is not known. It is also unclear why only two or three of the photos are circulated within the within some US intelligence agencies before 9/11.

January 5 2000, Doug Miller an FBI agent assigned to Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, reads CIA cables reporting that 9/11 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar has a US visa and drafts a cable to the FBI to inform it of this. The CIA obtained the information through a tap on Almihdhar’s phone in Yemen and by monitoring him as he passed through Dubai on his way to an al-Qaeda summit in Malaysia.
Draft Cable - Miller writes that Almihdhar has a US visa and that the visa application states his destination is New York and he intends to stay for three months. The draft cable mentions the tap on Almihdhar’s phone, his planned travel to Malaysia, and the links between his phone and the 1998 East African embassy bombings. It also says that the CIA has obtained photographs of Almihdhar and these will be sent separately. Miller asks the FBI for feedback resulting from an FBI investigation.
Blocked - Another CIA officer named Michael Anne Casey accesses Miller’s draft about an hour after he writes it. The cable is then blocked on the orders of the station’s deputy chief, Tom Wilshire, as a few hours after Miller drafts the cable Casey attaches a message to it saying, “pls hold off on [cable] for now per [Tom Wilshire].” Miller is also told, “This is not a matter for the FBI.”
'No Reason to Kill the Message' - Author James Bamford will later comment: “A potential terrorist and member of al-Qaeda was heading for the US, the FBI’s jurisdiction—its turf—and he [Miller] was putting the FBI on notice so it could take action. There was no reason to kill the message.” Miller will later say he has no “rational answer” as to why the cable was blocked. Casey drafts a cable falsely saying that the information about Almihdhar’s visa has been shared with the FBI and there will be a discussion the next day about whether the cable should be sent. The Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General will later call the failure to pass the information to the FBI a “significant failure” but will be unable to determine why the information was not passed on. The 9/11 Commission will know of the incident, but will relegate it to an end note in its final report, omitting Wilshire’s role entirely. The CIA inspector general will falsely claim that the cable is not sent, “apparently because it was in the wrong format or needed editing.
edit on 16-8-2015 by RomanMaroni because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 05:07 PM
January 6 2000 Two of the operatives attending al-Qaeda’s Malaysia summit make short trips to neighboring countries, returning to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, within 24 hours. The two operatives are Nawaf Alhazmi and Khallad bin Attash and the two countries they visit are Thailand and Singapore, but it is not definitively known which operative goes to which country. However, an associate of bin Attash’s, Fahad al-Quso, arrives in Thailand around this day. In addition, Alhazmi will later be said to have visited Singapore. Presumably, therefore, it is bin Attash that travels to Thailand, whereas Alhazmi goes to Singapore. The 9/11 Commission will later say of these two trips, “After the fact, efforts were made to track them. US officials in Kuala Lumpur wondered if one of these Arabs was the still mysterious Nawaf. Both returned to Kuala Lumpur within the next 24 hours, though the authorities did not know it at the time.” Khalid Almihdhar is also said to visit Singapore, and both he and Alhazmi are said to travel to Indonesia around this time as well, but the circumstances of these additional trips, if they are actually made, are not known. Almihdhar’s passport was copied by intelligence services on the way to Malaysia and a similar operation to obtain Alhazmi’s passport details failed. These two trips represent opportunities to obtain Alhazmi and bin Attash’s passport details, but this is apparently not done, even though the two are under surveillance at this point

January 6-9 2000, On January 6, 2000, the CIA station in Malaysia begins passing details from the Malaysian government’s surveillance of the al-Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to the CIA Counter terrorist Center (CTC. Cofer Black, head of the CTC, orders that he be continually informed about the meeting. CIA Director George Tenet is frequently informed as well. They are given continual updates until the meeting ends on January 8. National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, FBI Director Louis Freeh, and other top officials are briefed. However, it appears that the CIA deliberately and repeatedly fails to tell the FBI that one attendee, future 9/11 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar, has an active visa to visit the US. No evidence will be presented suggesting anyone else outside the CIA is told this crucial fact either. The Malaysia summit ends on January 8. Officially, the CIA will later claim to have lost future hijackers Alhazmi and Almihdhar as they left the meeting. However, Almihdhar will later report back to al-Qaeda that he thought he was followed to the US.

After January 6 2000 Although the CIA passes information to the FBI about the attendance of 9/11 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi at al-Qaeda’s Malaysia summit, it repeatedly fails to mention that Almihdhar has a US visa. It also fails to check that the FBI has received this information. The CIA’s inspector general will say it “found no indication that anyone in [the CIA’s Counter terrorist Center] checked to ensure FBI receipt of the information, which, a few Station officers said, should have been routine practice.”

January 8 2000, The al-Qaeda summit in Malaysia ends and the participants leave. Hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar fly to Bangkok, Thailand, with al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash. Before the summit started the CIA knew one attendee was named Khalid Almihdhar and that another had the first name Nawaf. Around this time, on January 7 and 10, the CIA searches for their names in their databases but get no hits. Yet they don’t ask for a search of the much larger NSA databases, which had vital information on them. CIA headquarters asks the NSA to put Almihdhar on their watch list so they can pass on more information about him. However, neither Alhazmi nor Almihdhar are placed on the State Department’s watch list, which would actually prevent them from coming to the US. The CIA still fails to tell the FBI that Almihdhar has a valid US visa, and in fact seems to go out of their way not to tell the FBI about it.

January 8 2000, The CIA’s station in Bangkok, Thailand, is informed that future 9/11 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar has departed Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where he was meeting other top al-Qaeda operatives, en route to Bangkok. Almihdhar is known to be traveling with two companions, who turn out to be Nawaf Alhazmi and al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash. Malaysian intelligence and the CIA are aware of this flight.

January 8-15 2000, While in Thailand, 9/11 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi associate with three of the operatives who will later be involved in the bombing of the USS Cole. The two hijackers arrive with Khallad bin Attash, who will command the Cole operation.. While in Bangkok, bin Attash meets Cole bombers Fahad al-Quso and Ibrahim al-Thawar, who give bin Attash some money, possibly $36,000. Some of this is passed to Alhazmi and Almihdhar.

January 8-9 2000, After learning that 9/11 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar has flown from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, to Bangkok, Thailand, with two companions, the CIA obtains more information about the two men. Based on the flight manifest, it learns that one of them was traveling under the name “Alhazmi,” a reference to 9/11 hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi. The CIA knows that one of the people Almihdhar associated with in Kuala Lumpur was named Nawaf, but, apparently, does not connect the first name Nawaf to the second name Alhazmi. The 9/11 Congressional Inquiry will say that the CIA could have put the two names together and that this could have led to his watch listing, but this does not happen. The 9/11 Commission will add that, if the State Department were asked about Nawaf Alhazmi, it would discover that he had been issued a US visa in Jeddah around the same time as Almihdhar. The NSA has been intercepting Alhazmi’s calls to Almihdhar for at least a year and could promptly put Nawaf and Alhazmi together, but it is not asked. The second companion is al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash, who is initially reported to travel under the name “Salahsae.” The CIA will learn that this is part of the name Salah Saeed Mohammed bin Yousaf, one of bin Attash’s aliases, no later than March 2000.

January 9 2000, Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, sends the CIA station in Bangkok, Thailand, a NIACT cable about 9/11 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar and two associates, who turn out to be 9/11 hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi and al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash. NIACT means the cable is a very high priority and has to be immediately acted on by the duty officer, even if it is received at night. Almihdhar and his two associates arrived in Bangkok the previous day. Alec Station wants the Bangkok station to identify Almihdhar and his associates, although the precise contents of the cable and the response to it are unknown.

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 05:07 PM
Shortly after January 8 2000, The US knows that Hambali has ties to the 1995 Bojinka plot, but apparently fails to share this information with Malaysian authorities, who therefore miss a chance to arrest him. By 1999, the US determined that Hambali was one of the founders of Konsonjaya, a front company central to funding the Bojinka plot. US investigators also found a photograph of him on Ramzi Yousef’s computer in 1995, further tying him to the Bojinka plot. In January 2000, Malaysian intelligence monitors an al-Qaeda summit meeting at the request of the CIA. Malaysian intelligence recognize Hambali and Yazid Sufaat from photos of the meeting; both are long-time residents in Malaysia. However, because the US does not share the information about Hambali, the Malaysians decide not to arrest or question Hambali and Sufaat since they are not aware either man has any criminal ties. As a result, Malaysian authorities fail to learn more about this summit meeting, which was attended by two 9/11 hijackers. The US also fails to follow up with Hambali, despite their knowledge of him.

January 13 2000, Acting on a tipoff by the CIA, Thai intelligence puts 9/11 hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi on its watch list. In addition, it puts an alias al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash is using (Salah Saeed Mohammed bin Yousaf) on the watch list. The CIA is aware that the three men arrived in Bangkok on January 8. The Thai authorities will note their departure from Bangkok on January 15. The CIA will not add the three to the US watch list until late August 2000.

January 13 2000, The CIA station in Bangkok, Thailand, sends a cable to Alec Station, the CIA’s bin Laden unit, saying that it is unable to locate 9/11 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar and two companions, who turn out to be 9/11 hijacker Nawaf Alhazmi and al-Qaeda leader Khallad bin Attash, in Bangkok. The reason for not being able to locate them is according to an official, this was because “when they arrived we were unable to mobilize what we needed to mobilize.” Despite the high priority allocated to the search by CIA headquarters and the fact bin Attash was under surveillance in Malaysia when he called the hotel where the three are staying in Bangkok.

Mid January 2000, Following a request by the CIA, the NSA puts hijacker 9/11 Khalid Almihdhar on its watch list. This means that the NSA should pass details of any new monitored communications involving him to the CIA. The CIA is looking for Almihdhar and knows he has a US visa, but fails to add him to the State Department’s watch list until 19 months later. The NSA intercepts eight of Almihdhar’s calls from San Diego to Yemen during this time and even gives some details about some of the calls to the FBI. However, they do not tell the CIA everything about them, despite the watch list requirement to provide the information. It is not clear why the NSA failed to share this with the CIA. It is also not known if or when Almihdhar was removed from the NSA watch list before 9/11.

I can continue if you want more, but I think this is enough to at least make someone scratch their head. Do you still think Almihdhar and Alhazmi just “got lost” in Thailand? The CIA was tracking them, Malaysian authorities were tracking them, Saudi Intelligence was tracking them, Thai authorities were tracking them …. (and you're crazy if you think Mossad wasn't all over these guys, too), yet they just got lost by staying at a monitiored hotel with other guys all these agencies were tracking.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 02:10 AM
a reply to: randyvs

to believe bullsh#t ( obvious bullsh#t )

That is your problem, which doesn't change reality anyway.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 07:59 AM
a reply to: RomanMaroni

You might want to try a separate thread.
But I doubt you will get much in the way of activity on your topic.

Most of the CT believers only want to talk about the collapse.
They can't get their minds around the physics involved and therefore it must be some conspiracy.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:06 AM

originally posted by: samkent
If someone proved one of your sticking points that has prevented you from accepting the OS would you change your mind about the entire conspiracy?

Lets say Joe Schmoe's son is going through his deceased fathers things and finds a camcorder.
So he charges and hits play.
The tape was shot in DC and out the hotel window is the Pentagon and it clearly shows the plane hitting.


More debris is found between NYC buildings.
Again a camcorder.
This time it was shot on one of the planes clearly showing the hijackers doing their thing.

Would evidence like this stop your conspiracy in it's tracks?

Well the trouble is that the vast preponderance of the evidence works against the official story. Not just a piece here or there, but all the facts and evidence contradict the official story, or at the very least, do not support it.

Not to mention all the steps taken to cover up so much, the annual re-telling of the same bankrupt story.

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 09:32 AM
a reply to: samkent

That's an interesting question, but for that to occur, it would have to be some AMAZINGLY strong and thoroughly damning evidence. I can't, off the top of my head, think of any one thing that would even change someone's mind about individual parts of the theory (i.e. WTC 7, The Pentagon, WTC 1&2, Shanksville), much less the conspiracy as a whole.
I wonder, though, does it work the other way? For instance, if it were proven that the Emergency Management personnel in NYC decided to purposely bring down 7 because they believed it had sustained irreparable damage, would that change your mind about the collapse of 1&2?

posted on Aug, 17 2015 @ 10:59 AM
a reply to: skyeagle409

Nope you're wrong again.
And you have no interest in justice.
edit on Ram81715v02201500000011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in