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.

 

9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

page: 25
10
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
yes but for u to even sugest that is just plane lamen rhetoric dude and u know it get real make logic coments time always plays a role in phisics and you know it dose

so dont be a smart guy with a butt full of brains please




posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
yes but for u to even sugest that is just plane lamen rhetoric dude and u know it get real make logic coments time always plays a role in phisics and you know it dose

so dont be a smart guy with a butt full of brains please


My question is, what were the temps of the 2 fires? I asked this as opposed to someone telling me their guess. That same someone who has not been able to understand information they, themselves have posted.

Could you answer my question?
Couldn't a fire with poor ventilation, burn cooler then a fire burning the same material but with very good ventilation? Yes or No?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Ill find out , but right now im leaving for family ,get to gether ill be back to night


cant wait i love discussing with informed souls such ass here on ATS



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
But as a side note


we all must realize that opposeing sides is always good . because they oppose

It will always find info from both sides perspective

wich always will find the truth somewhere in the middle

all info is good for topics opposeing or agreeing

its not very often both sides get heard

for the most part history only tells the winners side never the loosers you know what i mean



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Planes obviously hit the buildings,

Using words to the effect, you have claimed in some posts that you are neutral and that you seek evidence. Fine. This is the first absolute statement I have seen you make. If it's obvious, then you'll show me how obvious it was?



There is photographic and video evidence and eyewitness reports, etc...

Photographic and video evidence only shows what appears to be planes hitting the towers. That doesn't prove that planes hit the towers. There are conflicting eyewitness reports as to what hit the towers.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Planes obviously hit the buildings,

Using words to the effect, you have claimed in some posts that you are neutral and that you seek evidence. Fine. This is the first absolute statement I have seen you make. If it's obvious, then you'll show me how obvious it was?

My evidence is as follows:
Hundreds of photos
Videos
Eyewitness accounts
wreckage
physical damage on the buildings
plane fuel
etc..

If you can prove planes didn't hit, please by all means do so. You'll also need to explain how all the above evidence isn't real also. Do yourself a favor and don't bring up holograms as that has been debunked completely.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If you can prove planes didn't hit, please by all means do so. You'll also need to explain how all the above evidence isn't real also. Do yourself a favor and don't bring up holograms as that has been debunked completely.

Then you'll be able to prove the identity of the two planes that hit the towers for me?

If you have the evidence, then I'd like to see how it proves the identity of the planes involved.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
If you can prove planes didn't hit, please by all means do so. You'll also need to explain how all the above evidence isn't real also. Do yourself a favor and don't bring up holograms as that has been debunked completely.

Then you'll be able to prove the identity of the two planes that hit the towers for me?

If you have the evidence, then I'd like to see how it proves the identity of the planes involved.


Why don't you tell me what hit the towers? Are you claiming nothing did? If you are, what was seen hitting the towers from all those different sources? You seem very confident I am wrong so please fill me in.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Why don't you tell me what hit the towers? Are you claiming nothing did? If you are, what was seen hitting the towers from all those different sources? You seem very confident I am wrong so please fill me in.

Please, don't avoid the question.

You claimed that planes hit the towers. I asked you to supply the evidence that shows the identity of the planes that hit the towers.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I can't speak for tezza, but I believe he is asking for proof regarding the exact planes that hit.

The argument isn't whether or not planes hit the buildings. The argument involves proof of what planes hit.

Where's the serial numbers, the wreckage, etc etc.

Am I right tezzaw?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You might appreciate this from IvanZana:

Flight 11, 175 did not hit the WTC



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 

biggie smalls, I wish I knew what really happened on 911.

If there were planes that struck the towers, then those planes should have been identified.

Where is the evidence that has identified the planes that struck the towers?

Edit: Yeah, thanks for the link to Ivan's threads. I've already been reading them this morning. Ivan's threads are always packed with emotion. He's a crusader!

[edit on 23-3-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by jfj123
 


I can't speak for tezza, but I believe he is asking for proof regarding the exact planes that hit.

The argument isn't whether or not planes hit the buildings. The argument involves proof of what planes hit.

Where's the serial numbers, the wreckage, etc etc.

Am I right tezzaw?


All I said was planes hit the buildings. He obviously must disagree with that statement or he wouldn't be arguing the point. At no point have I even said what kind of planes hit the buildings. The only thing I know with absolute sureity is that holograms were not involved.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
reply to post by biggie smalls
 

biggie smalls, I wish I knew what really happened on 911.

If there were planes that struck the towers, then those planes should have been identified.

Where is the evidence that has identified the planes that struck the towers?


biggie smalls, notice how he said "IF" planes hit the buildings?

So what hit the buildings if planes didn't?
For you to know planes didn't hit the buildings, you must know what did so as to identify the non-planes.

So what hit those buildings?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
All I said was planes hit the buildings. He obviously must disagree with that statement or he wouldn't be arguing the point. At no point have I even said what kind of planes hit the buildings.

How do you know that planes hit the towers if you do not know the identity of the planes?

Any competent investigation would have identified the alleged plane wreckage to identify the alleged planes that were involved. Failure to identify the alleged planes involved would be proof of a criminally negligent investigation.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
All I said was planes hit the buildings. He obviously must disagree with that statement or he wouldn't be arguing the point. At no point have I even said what kind of planes hit the buildings.

How do you know that planes hit the towers if you do not know the identity of the planes?

Any competent investigation would have identified the alleged plane wreckage to identify the alleged planes that were involved. Failure to identify the alleged planes involved would be proof of a criminally negligent investigation.


Please tell me how many times I need to tell you this so I can get it all out of the way at once:
We have video evidence, photos, eyewitnesses, wreckage, outline of impact on building, etc.. Unless you're saying all of this has been faked ?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what hit the buildings? Are you going to claim it was holograms???

We all know what planes look like so we can identify that there were planes. We may or may not be able to identify exactly what planes hit but that doesn't mean planes didn't hit at all.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what hit the buildings? Are you going to claim it was holograms???

I'm still waiting for you to positively identify the two planes that you claim hit the towers.

Why can't you positively identify the two planes that hit the towers?



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what hit the buildings? Are you going to claim it was holograms???

I'm still waiting for you to positively identify the two planes that you claim hit the towers.

Why can't you positively identify the two planes that hit the towers?


You're just not getting this. I never said I could. Look back at my posts and carefully re-read them and you'll notice I've only claimed planes hit. That's it. Nothing more. Do you understand that??

And why ask me to answer questions when you're refusing to?
Remember the 4 times I've asked you what hit the towers if not planes? So if you can't answer, I must assume you also believe that planes hit regardless of whether or not it was the exact planes claimed in the official reports.



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


He is not saying no planes hit.

Read this again:


How do you know that planes hit the towers if you do not know the identity of the planes?

Any competent investigation would have identified the alleged plane wreckage to identify the alleged planes that were involved. Failure to identify the alleged planes involved would be proof of a criminally negligent investigation.


"Any competent investigation would have identified the alleged plane wreckage to identify the planes involved."

Nowhere has he said no planes hit.

He is asking for proof of what planes hit the WTCs.

I honestly believe two planes hit the WTC. I do not think that was the only cause of the collapse though.

IF I was head of the NIST investigation, I would expect adequate research to be done to identify what planes hit the buildings.

Not that there wasn't planes. But which planes.

I do not know if Flight 11 and 175 hit the WTCs. I've seen plenty of proof to allude to a government plane loaded with high powered explosives hit instead of the civilian airliner (there are photos with a huge tank on the bottom of the plane, not consistent with civilian versions).

We know that the government flies the same size planes. They have them in their possession.

We also know the military planes look like the ones I mentioned.

Therein lies the conspiracy.

We don't have proof that Flight 11 and Flight 175 hit.

That's all tezzaw is asking for and I'd like to see proof as well (from the government).



posted on Mar, 23 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You're just not getting this. I never said I could. Look back at my posts and carefully re-read them and you'll notice I've only claimed planes hit. That's it. Nothing more. Do you understand that??

So you can't positively identify the planes that you claim were involved. How do you know that planes were involved if you can't identify them?

You asked for evidence of a conspiracy in your original post. Wouldn't you consider that an investigation which failed to positively identify the two alleged planes involved, is evidence that there was a conspiracy to obfuscate the truth?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join