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: 28
10
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
HAVING ALL THE EVIDENCE and having NO EVIDENCE. Do you understand that?


There is no real, physical evidence to support the official story. Do you understand that?


Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Read the thread I posted.
Interesting stuff and it shows the debris from the plane as well as things like broken lamp posts on the highway where the plane flew in.


Well the Flight 77 FDR from the NTSB shows a different Flight path then the official story, it shows that the plane was not near the poles and could not have hit the poles.

Also there is not match to the engine found outside the Pentagon to a RB211 that Flight 77 used.

[edit on 24-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]




posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
HAVING ALL THE EVIDENCE and having NO EVIDENCE. Do you understand that?


There is no real, physical evidence to support the official story. Do you understand that?





No, there is vast amounts of physical evidence witnessed, observed or cataloged by literally thousands of people. YOU choose not to accept it, because you were not one of them, nor did anyone personally take you to observe it for yourself.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, there is vast amounts of physical evidence witnessed, observed or cataloged by literally thousands of people.


But the physical evdeince has not been matched to any of the planes.

So you cannot say there is physical evidence of the planes that were supposed to it the buildings.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Yes because every INCH of a plane has serial numbers on it so as they can't get too damaged not to see them.

(Please note the sarcasm.)
Your living proof my friend that a shadow of a doubt can be found in anything if one is so inclined to find it.
Seeing as to how hard you try to prove this stuff. (Not very convincingly but you do get a A for zealotry.)



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, there is vast amounts of physical evidence witnessed, observed or cataloged by literally thousands of people.


But the physical evdeince has not been matched to any of the planes.

So you cannot say there is physical evidence of the planes that were supposed to it the buildings.



No, no one has shown YOU that.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to Swampfox46_1999
post by Swampfox46_1999

 


sorry i had some people come over ILL brb back with my pics for you to see



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
quote]Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Yes because every INCH of a plane has serial numbers on it so as they can't get too damaged not to see them.

I guess you do not know to much about planes and what would survive a crash and all the different parts that are numbered?


Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
No, no one has shown YOU that.


Please show me the FBI and NTSB reports that match any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.


[edit on 24-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to WraothAscendant
post by WraothAscendant

 


I dint try to gang up on anyone

im in the middle on it all. No one here has proved that it was flight 77

untill I see proof of that specific claim that it was flight 77

no body here has proven it was flight 77 do we agree

All info here just proves some kind of flying object hit the petagon

Have i disagreed with that?? NO

There are tons of cameras at the pentagon showing the flying object hitiing and exploding

All they have to do is show them to the public

It would end all the disputes,

do U agree??

The penagon was the most pretected building in america with lots of camera angles just a few, could end all the plane thing

then we could focus on the real issue of why it all happend Do You agree ??




BRB with pics for the other guy/gal (Update 5:18 pm ) all my old links seem to be broken or erro message, but i will find them for You (Swampfox46_1999)

bare with me u know how videos and picture links on this subject seem to always vanish or links break so i should have them by tonight

going to cook dinner for wife be back latter tonight.









[edit on 24-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 24-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 24-3-2008 by plasmacutter]



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
reply to jfj123
post by jfj123

 


Do you believe planes hit the tower?

YES.


and petagon

YES.


And what kind?

The ones in the pictures and videos. Except of course the pentagon as they have only released one video which isn't really a video but a CCTV clip and it doesn't actually show anything but the explosion.


And your photos ?? Of all 3 planes

I would refer you to all photos and the videos posted all over the internet. If you like, I can post some of them here at your request.


That would help here to make what ever point you have been trying to make

all i see you doing is hearsay

[edit on 24-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

My point is that real planes hit WTC 1 and 2 and not holographic, fairy, magical planes. Am I 100% sure that they were the flights the governments claims? NO of course not.

Hopefully that helps.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
reply to mikesingh
post by WraothAscendant

 


seen it and the clip that they released

seen the gas station footage

seen the the lil wheel from the landing gear seen the engine

All that did was prove it wasnt flight 77

Looks more like an UAV , and engine to me gear to me
images.google.com...

Like i said i want proof of flight 77 not a plane

I know it was somthing flying

But what??? has not been proven yet


Well at least you are not claiming it was a hologram. Thank god for that



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
HAVING ALL THE EVIDENCE and having NO EVIDENCE. Do you understand that?


There is no real, physical evidence to support the official story. Do you understand that?

OK that is a ridiculous statement. Of course there is evidence. There is wreckage, there are dead bodies, there is photographic, video, eye witness accounts. There are many different types of evidence including physical evidence. By the way, the WTC's themselves can be considered physical evidence.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by plasmacutter
reply to WraothAscendant
post by WraothAscendant

 


All they have to do is show them to the public

It would end all the disputes,

do U agree??

Of course it wouldn't end all the disputes because there will be some nutbag who's going to claim that the videos and photos were faked, we've all been hypnotized, or we've all been reprogrammed to believe what we see as we live in the matrix. These have all been actual claims made to me by people on ATS so I'm not exagerating in the least.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Here are some photos

Notice debris everywhere. Hardly a sign of a controlled demolition.


767 shaped hole in side of building
i225.photobucket.com...

Engine bit

i225.photobucket.com...

Plane about to hit
i225.photobucket.com...

Here's a video of a plane hitting one of the towers
www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
There are many different types of evidence including physical evidence.

Where is the physical evidence that confirms the identity of the two alleged airplanes that allegedly smashed into the towers?



By the way, the WTC's themselves can be considered physical evidence.

Where are the reports that showed this evidence was thoroughly examined for explosive residue? Where are the reports that show detailed analysis of the steel and other materials?

Why was the evidence quickly shipped off to China to be destroyed?



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Where is the physical evidence that confirms the identity of the two alleged airplanes that allegedly smashed into the towers?


There were plane parts recovered at the scene.


Originally posted by tezzajw
Where are the reports that showed this evidence was thoroughly examined for explosive residue? Where are the reports that show detailed analysis of the steel and other materials?

Why was the evidence quickly shipped off to China to be destroyed?


Why would there be? Everyone saw the plane hit the buildings...everyone watched the fired burning. There were literally tons of steel that was examined.

And the stell was shipped to several locations. MAny tones stayed in the United States. What else did you want them to do? You see.. .it is a VERY small group of people that think the towers were brought down by a CD. And a MUCH smaller group that thinks no planes actually hit the towers.



posted on Mar, 24 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
There were plane parts recovered at the scene.

Were these alleged plane parts ever identified to be parts from the alleged flights in question?

Show me the proof that they were.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
OK that is a ridiculous statement. Of course there is evidence. There is wreckage, there are dead bodies, there is photographic, video, eye witness accounts.


Ok lets do this again for the 100th time.

1. There are no FBI or NTSB reports that matches any of the wreckage (parts) found to any of the 9/11 aircraft.

2. There is no evindece of the bodies from the planes being in the buildings. Plus the fact that ID was done before the newest DNA testing was complete.

3. There are no photos of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

4. There are no videos of FLight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

5. The eyewitness accounts (specailly at the Pentagon) would not hold up in court.


Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Why would there be? Everyone saw the plane hit the buildings...everyone watched the fired burning. There were literally tons of steel that was examined.


But what planes hit the buldings?

No, you are wrong. NIST did not test the steel for explosives and chemicals and NIST failed to recover any steel from building 7 for testing.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
There are many different types of evidence including physical evidence.

Where is the physical evidence that confirms the identity of the two alleged airplanes that allegedly smashed into the towers?

I'll tell you what, I'll consider answering MORE of your questions once you start answering mine.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Originally posted by jfj1

No, you are wrong. NIST did not test the steel for explosives and chemicals and NIST failed to recover any steel from building 7 for testing.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Just curious but why do you think they would test for explosive? That's like a coroner testing to see if someone died of cancer after being blown up by a grenade.

Assuming they really didn't test for explosives, I would think that since the causal factors of the WTC's are so incredibly obvious, they might not of thought to test for explosives. They also probably didn't test for anti-matter bombs, or damage from a micro-black hole that could be teleported into the heart of the WTC's.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
What evidence would make me believe in a 9/11 conspiracy?

Absolute, point blank, damning, uncontestable evidence would do it for me. The sort of evidence that's notable in its absence here or anywhere else and the bigger the conspiracy that's suggested, the less likely it is that such evidence will ever be presented - the old 'proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt' thing.

I have a few uneasy feelings related to the 'official tale' about radical terrorists but that's all it is IE gut feeling which is not evidence.

About the possibility of evidence of explosives on the recovered steel - wasn't all the rubble at places like Staten Island picked through meticulously for human remains, personal effects, valuables etc primarily for identification of victims?
I see no mention of anything related to signs of explosives being observed there and that workforce looked at everything.

What of all the live witnesses to the WTC & Pentagon attacks - can they all be discounted as being 'controlled' or delusional?

Like it or not, the official saga (which itself is based on a conspiracy) is standing up better than the multitude of mutually exclusive alternative conspiracies being presented with no concrete evidence to support them.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join