Why are you ignoring the video of the planes hitting the towers?
Also let us not forget the Millions that watched it live that fateful day...
My many brother and sister officers that were there, in person...
If we are going to start saying that all of them are lying, then we might as well accept that Elvis is in Panama having tea with Princess Diana and
John Kennedy while watching Jim Morrison play guitar...
The way that I see it is if we begin to simply discount "eyewitness" account, than most of history can be discounted.
There is no real proof that it is ME here typing this post to ATS, except my wife sitting next to me. If the eyewitness's are lying about 9/11, maybe
my wife is lying too and I am not really here...
As silly as that sounds, it is as applicable as believing no planes hit the towers.
How is it scientific in any way to pick and choose what eye witness accounts you are going to believe and which you are not? Is it scientific to
believe only the ones that fit what ever conspiracy theory we make up in our minds and disbelieve all others?
The actually hilarious thing is when the "discounters" demand factual evidence... When did it become necessary for someone supporting the factual
side of a debate to provide proof to someone supporting an alternate theory?
Would it not be more appropriate for the "non believers" to provide said proof?
The supporters of the facts have numerous film accounts, plane parts and destroyed buildings as well as hundreds of eyewitness accounts, yet the
"nonbelievers" still "demand" proof.. That is rich...
Maybe JFK was not shot...
Maybe Pearl Harbor was never attacked...
Maybe the Oklahoma bombing never took place...
I've watched the Shuttle go up, but maybe it only goes behind a cloud and comes back down...
And just because I say I have watched it, maybe I have not....
If one is going to think it is scientific to disbelieve eye witness testimony, then where do you draw the line on believable? Pearl Harbor? JFK?
Elvis?
Semper