It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why There Were No Helicopter Rescues At The WTC’s On 9-11

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
1. Of course there were planes, thousands of people saw them not to mention video, cameras, etc...

Please confirm the identity of the alleged planes involved.

Thanks.




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
1. Of course there were planes, thousands of people saw them not to mention video, cameras, etc...

Please confirm the identity of the alleged planes involved.

Thanks.


Why? What does that have to do with anything?

If I see a dog bite somebody, and if I can't identify the breed that did it, in your world, it never happened ?????



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Why? What does that have to do with anything?

The official story identitifies the two planes allegedly involved, without offering any proof.

It's a bit absurd to claim that two planes hit the towers, without offering proof to identify them.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Why? What does that have to do with anything?

The official story identitifies the two planes allegedly involved, without offering any proof.

It's a bit absurd to claim that two planes hit the towers, without offering proof to identify them.



That's silly. So what you're saying is as follows:
Lets say you got ran over by a car and you are the only witness. The police ask you to identify the car but you can't. So they tell you that since you cannot positively ID the car, you were never hit by it. That is some really bad logic you have there.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Why? What does that have to do with anything?

The official story identitifies the two planes allegedly involved, without offering any proof.

It's a bit absurd to claim that two planes hit the towers, without offering proof to identify them.



That's silly. So what you're saying is as follows:
Lets say you got ran over by a car and you are the only witness. The police ask you to identify the car but you can't. So they tell you that since you cannot positively ID the car, you were never hit by it. That is some really bad logic you have there.


The official story is the victim that cannot see the car that hit it? I am afraid your logic here is twisted. Very much alive people that looked into it, are the ones that claimed to ID the planes and very much alive people are the ones that have not been able to ID the planes. This is all about alive people looking after the fact and making blind statements or lies, not about the people that got hit in the building not being able to ID the planes.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
That's silly. So what you're saying is as follows:
Lets say you got ran over by a car and you are the only witness. The police ask you to identify the car but you can't. So they tell you that since you cannot positively ID the car, you were never hit by it. That is some really bad logic you have there.

I wasn't typing about being hit by cars, jfj123.

All I asked you to do was to make a positive ID on the allaged planes that hit the towers.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
That's silly. So what you're saying is as follows:
Lets say you got ran over by a car and you are the only witness. The police ask you to identify the car but you can't. So they tell you that since you cannot positively ID the car, you were never hit by it. That is some really bad logic you have there.

I wasn't typing about being hit by cars, jfj123.

All I asked you to do was to make a positive ID on the allaged planes that hit the towers.


It's called an analogy
Look it up.
What does making a positve ID on the planes, have to do with whether they existed or not. We do know planes, of some sort, hit the buildings as we have thousands of witnesses, videos, images, etc...
So what is your point?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
What does making a positve ID on the planes, have to do with whether they existed or not. We do know planes, of some sort, hit the buildings as we have thousands of witnesses, videos, images, etc...
So what is your point?


A positive ID has a lot to do with a proper investigation.

How do we know the planes were not military planes or planes from another country unless we have a positive id?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
What does making a positve ID on the planes, have to do with whether they existed or not. We do know planes, of some sort, hit the buildings as we have thousands of witnesses, videos, images, etc...
So what is your point?

Wow, you can't see the point of making a positive ID on the planes. Unreal.

You don't know the contents of the alleged planes. You don't know who owned the alleged planes. You know nothing about those alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers until you can make a positive ID on them, yet you wave your hands around this, as though it doesn't matter?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
What does making a positve ID on the planes, have to do with whether they existed or not. We do know planes, of some sort, hit the buildings as we have thousands of witnesses, videos, images, etc...
So what is your point?


A positive ID has a lot to do with a proper investigation.

How do we know the planes were not military planes or planes from another country unless we have a positive id?



That's not relevant to my point that there were some type of planes. I never claimed I could positively ID them but I am claiming some type of planes did indeed hit the towers.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Wow, you can't see the point of making a positive ID on the planes. Unreal.


I'm pretty sure I've asked this of you before, but this is an open question for anyone who doubts the identity of the planes involved.

What evidence would convince you? What evidence would you expect to have survived in order to positively validate plane identification?



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
What does making a positve ID on the planes, have to do with whether they existed or not. We do know planes, of some sort, hit the buildings as we have thousands of witnesses, videos, images, etc...
So what is your point?

Wow, you can't see the point of making a positive ID on the planes. Unreal.

Ok since you obviously don't pay attention, let me make this simple.
You do not need to know exactly what planes hit the towers to know that some kind of planes hit the towers.
I, at no point in time, ever, did I say it wasn't important to have a positive ID of the planes. I only stated that it's not needed to know that some type of planes hit the towers. Do you get it now?


You don't know the contents of the alleged planes. You don't know who owned the alleged planes. You know nothing about those alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers until you can make a positive ID on them, yet you wave your hands around this, as though it doesn't matter?

All that is irrelevant to my point. I never said it wasn't important to know those questions, only that not knowing them doesn't mean some type of planes, didn't hit the buildings.

I'm not sure how else to explain this so hopefully it will sink in this time.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


don't forget, jfj, tezza freely admits he trolls. I think he is just playing with you...



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
That's not relevant to my point that there were some type of planes.


But it is relevant to a proper investigation.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
reply to post by jfj123
 


don't forget, jfj, tezza freely admits he trolls. I think he is just playing with you...


Of course he is. He appears in just about every thread I've posted in an keeps posting the same pointless question.

More importantly, I thought trolling was frowned upon on ATS ???? Maybe I'm wrong about that though ???



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
That's not relevant to my point that there were some type of planes.


But it is relevant to a proper investigation.


Then go conduct one and get back to me on that. Still not relevant to my point.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear
As for this whole conspiracy theory that the govt. wnted them dead because they needed oil for reptilians who have been working with our govt. to abduct us.




Oh for crying out loud, if you want to make a point make it without bringing in the rubbish about reptilians. Take them out of the equation and you have a completely plausible conspiracy theory.

Only a few nutjobs have considered the reptilian angle, yet many debunkers like to add it to give creedence to their view which in point of fact indicates their own ignorance rather than that of the truthers.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
but I am claiming some type of planes did indeed hit the towers.


We know planes hit the towers but what planes.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Still not relevant to my point.


But it is relevant to the point if the official story is right or wrong.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
The rooftop doors were locked. Ergo, nobody could get on the roof to be rescued.

Is that a sufficient answer to your question?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join