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: 30
10
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Bingo, now your catching on. FINALLY

I am but I don't think you are. You must be claiming that nobody saw anything at either the WTC's or the pentagon.


No, its not that noboby saw anything, its the fact that the witnesses statements could be easily debunked due to all the misconceptions.


Then by all means since it is so easy to debunk the hundreds if not thousands of witnesses, go ahead.




posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually, this thread is about what amount or type of evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy.

Actually, the first part of this thread's title is '9/11'. This thread is about 911 conspiracies, not off-topic discussions about naval disasters.


Also, when are you going to answer my question? Do you believe actual planes hit the WTC's? If not, what do you believe hit the WTC's and why?

I've already answered these questions in previous posts. Perhaps you missed my answers. I don't know what allegedly hit the towers, if indeed anything did allegedly hit the towers. I've stated this before. It might pay you to read my responses before repeatedly asking the same question.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Also, when are you going to answer my question? Do you believe actual planes hit the WTC's?


Its not the point if planes hit the buildings, its WHAT PLANES hit the buildings.


[edit on 25-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

This question was not geared toward you. The person that it was posted for has implied that NO planes hit the WTC's.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
[Then by all means since it is so easy to debunk the hundreds if not thousands of witnesses, go ahead.


It would be so easy in court to debunk this statements.

1. Becasue of different types of planes reported.

2. Becasue witneses could not agree on if the plane hit the building or not.

3. Becasue at least 1 witness admitted he did not know what hit, he was told later. I wonder how many others were told what hit the Pentagon?

Also you have to look at some of the jobs the witnesses held becasue they are going to go along with the official story to keep thier jobs.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Then by all means since it is so easy to debunk the hundreds if not thousands of witnesses, go ahead.

Here are some witness statements that conflict with the official story. Have you seen these before?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
This question was not geared toward you. The person that it was posted for has implied that NO planes hit the WTC's.


Yes, but i answered the question.

Still waiting for evidence of what planes hit the buildings.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Actually, the first part of this thread's title is '9/11'. This thread is about 911 conspiracies, not off-topic discussions about naval disasters.


And once again, I explained that my comments were made to show that just because there was no photographic or video evidence, it does not mean the evengts did not happen.

Who knows, when the FBI and NTSB do finally release their completed reports, there may be more video evidence presented to the public.

At which time, it would most likely be written off as CGI, "Spielburg" fantasy stuff.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by Disclosed]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually, this thread is about what amount or type of evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy.

Actually, the first part of this thread's title is '9/11'. This thread is about 911 conspiracies, not off-topic discussions about naval disasters.

I read that persons post and they were using that as an example for purposes of comparison. If it continued on with a titanic conspiracy, it would have become off topic at that point.


Also, when are you going to answer my question? Do you believe actual planes hit the WTC's? If not, what do you believe hit the WTC's and why?
I've already answered these questions in previous posts. Perhaps you missed my answers. I don't know what allegedly hit the towers, if indeed anything did allegedly hit the towers. I've stated this before. It might pay you to read my responses before repeatedly asking the same question.


Or it might be nice to ACTUALLY answer the question instead of claiming to then not.

If you are saying you don't know that anything at all hit the towers, you must have a reason to believe that nothing hit the towers. What is that reason? You've seen all the photos, videos, etc. showing something hit the towers so are you claiming all those things are faked? Take a stand and give an actual answer and stand by it.

[edit on 25-3-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If you are saying you don't know that anything at all hit the towers, you must have a reason to believe that nothing hit the towers. What is that reason?

Firstly, there have been no aircraft identified at the alleged scene of the alleged crash. I can't believe that planes did hit the towers with any certainty, unless the planes have been forensically identified.



You've seen all the photos, videos, etc. showing something hit the towers so are you claiming all those things are faked? Take a stand and give an actual answer and stand by it.

I've seen evidence that news archives have been altered from the original live broadcasts. I've seen images of alleged planes, on videos, that appear to glide into the towers without any change in momentum or any stress buckling on the airframe. I've read witness reports that state they neither saw nor heard any planes.

How am I supposed to know what allegedly hit the towers without undeniable evidence?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

I have to ask, what specific evidence would be required to satisfy you that Flights 11 and 175 hit WTC1 and 2 respectively on 9/11?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine
I have to ask, what specific evidence would be required to satisfy you that Flights 11 and 175 hit WTC1 and 2 respectively on 9/11?

Undeniable, positive identification of the planes that were allegedly involved. Until that happens, we really don't know what allegedly hit the towers.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Okay, but what constitues 'undeniable, positive identification of the planes'?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by coughymachine
 

At this point in time, we don't have undeniable proof of which alleged planes were allegedly involved.

I find it interesting that the planes were not deregistered for some time after the alleged crashes. Why would they not be deregistered immediately if they were the planes that allegedly crashed?
Phantom Flights?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

I agree we don't have undeniable proof.

What I'm interested in is what, in your view, undeniable proof might look like. What form would it take, for example, and on what specific basis would you be satisfied with its authenticity?



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
If you are saying you don't know that anything at all hit the towers, you must have a reason to believe that nothing hit the towers. What is that reason?

Firstly, there have been no aircraft identified at the alleged scene of the alleged crash. I can't believe that planes did hit the towers with any certainty, unless the planes have been forensically identified.

Then what do you propose hit the towers?



You've seen all the photos, videos, etc. showing something hit the towers so are you claiming all those things are faked? Take a stand and give an actual answer and stand by it.

I've seen evidence that news archives have been altered from the original live broadcasts. I've seen images of alleged planes, on videos, that appear to glide into the towers without any change in momentum or any stress buckling on the airframe. I've read witness reports that state they neither saw nor heard any planes.

How am I supposed to know what allegedly hit the towers without undeniable evidence?

Well since you will claim that all evidence given to you will be tainted or fabricated, you'll never know the truth. So no evidence I can give you will ever be enough.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



I've seen evidence that news archives have been altered from the original live broadcasts. I've seen images of alleged planes, on videos, that appear to glide into the towers without any change in momentum or any stress buckling on the airframe. I've read witness reports that state they neither saw nor heard any planes.

Please provide verifiable evidence to support these claims. Please include how videos were altered to show false information and using what applications.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Then what do you propose hit the towers?

How many times are you going to ask me the same question, jfj123?

I don't know what allegedly hit the towers, if indeed the towers were allegedly hit by anything.



Well since you will claim that all evidence given to you will be tainted or fabricated, you'll never know the truth.

How do you know what I will or will not claim? Please don't make speculative statements about what my intentions may or may not be, when you really have no idea who I am, or what I may or may not claim.

Stick to the facts, with resorting to speculative, sensational claims, please.



So no evidence I can give you will ever be enough.

You haven't given me any evidence that positively identifes the two alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Then what do you propose hit the towers?

How many times are you going to ask me the same question, jfj123?

I don't know what allegedly hit the towers, if indeed the towers were allegedly hit by anything.

Ok fair enough. You have absolutely no evidence or opinion to know that anything or nothing hit the towers. I understand you are saying you have no knowledge of the situation regarding the WTC's and cannot logically make any type of determination until more evidence is released. Of course the evidence would be released from the government, which would automatically mean it has been tampered with or faked.



Well since you will claim that all evidence given to you will be tainted or fabricated, you'll never know the truth.

How do you know what I will or will not claim?
That observation is based on your posts. That's how I know.


Please don't make speculative statements about what my intentions may or may not be, when you really have no idea who I am, or what I may or may not claim.

Well since you refuse to make them, I assumed you had given up that right (sarcasm).


Stick to the facts, with resorting to speculative, sensational claims, please.

But according to you, there are not facts to stick to which only leaves us speculation.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 



You haven't given me any evidence that positively identifes the two alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers.


Like I've said countless times. I never said I could give you 100% undeniable evidence of the SPECIFIC planes that hit. All I'm saying is that some type of large planes did hit for sure based on available evidence and of course the IMPOSSIBILITY of holograms being used.



posted on Mar, 25 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
This is distracting.

The point is not which/whether planes hit the towers - its whether the US govt conspired 911. And then why did the towers fall? Nothing else matters - whether it wa flights 11 & 175 - who cares if the towers were full of explosives?

And can anyone who does not think 911 was a conspiracy please please give another explanation for the BBC report of Tower 7 falling BEFORE it happeend.

Watch
www.youtube.com...
and read
www.whatreallyhappened.com...

The press release said 'had collapsed' not was in danger of etc.

I can not think of another scenario apart from conspiracy and someone accidentally or deliberately releasing 'the news' early.

Apart from teh fact that tower looked very much like a controlled demolition, with squibs and the centre crack and then falling at pretty much freefall speed, onto its own footprint. Not to mention Larry Silverstein TV admission.


[edit on 25/3/2008 by hmmmbeer]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join