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

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually the official story would explain the conspiracy of Al Queda and wouldn't be part of the conspiracy.

So if the ofrficial story is based on a conspiracy then it is a conspiracy theory, if we go by your logic.

Actually what I said is what I said and it doesn't need to be misinterpreted by you. My statement stands.

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually what I said is what I said and it doesn't need to be misinterpreted by you. My statement stands.

So you agree the official story is based on a conspiracy?

reply to post by Pilgrum

Well I will keep you posted... I do not know if it will be public...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually what I said is what I said and it doesn't need to be misinterpreted by you. My statement stands.

So you agree the official story is based on a conspiracy?

Please pay attention. The official story itself is not a conspiracy as that would imply that the official story is a lie. There is a conspiracy that explains the official story. There's a difference.

Originally posted by jfj123
The official story itself is not a conspiracy as that would imply that the official story is a lie.

So the official story is a consporacy theory since thier is no hard evidence to support it, correct?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
The official story itself is not a conspiracy as that would imply that the official story is a lie.

So the official story is a consporacy theory since thier is no hard evidence to support it, correct?

Only in your mind.

Originally posted by jfj123
Only in your mind.

Then show me some hard evidence that supports the official story. I have been waiting for almost 7 years to see any real evidnece that supports the official story and still have not seen any.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


And have received it time and time again then proceeded to pretend otherwise.
Your reaction to the Perdue video rings a bell.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And have received it time and time again then proceeded to pretend otherwise.

Only in your mind.

I am still waitng for any official reports or physical evidence that supports the official story.

Otherwise the official story is just a conspiacy theory.



[edit on 14-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Actual video footage proof would make me believe in the illuminati! Now that is what I really want. The stuff that can be analyzed.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Only in your mind.

Then show me some hard evidence that supports the official story. I have been waiting for almost 7 years to see any real evidnece that supports the official story and still have not seen any.

It has been posted but you can't see it because you won't look. Admitedly there are a lot of holes that have not been filled in yet for various reasons but there are solid answers also.

Originally posted by jfj123
Admitedly there are a lot of holes that have not been filled in yet for various reasons.

But why can't you admit there is more evidence that questions the officail story then supports it ?



[edit on 14-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Admitedly there are a lot of holes that have not been filled in yet for various reasons.

But why can't you admit there is more evidence that questions the officail story then supports it ?

[edit on 14-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Because there isn't. A lack of evidence is not evidence. How many times do we have to go over that?

Originally posted by jfj123
Because there isn't. A lack of evidence is not evidence. How many times do we have to go over that?

Yes there is. I have and can post tons of evidence that quetion the official story, a lot more then support it.

And lack of evidence is used as evidence in court all the time.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Because there isn't. A lack of evidence is not evidence. How many times do we have to go over that?

Yes there is. I have and can post tons of evidence that quetion the official story, a lot more then support it.

And lack of evidence is used as evidence in court all the time.

A lack of evidence has NEVER been used to convict anyone in court. Here's an example of a lack of evidence:
Person A is accused of killing person B.
The prosecuting attorney does not have the weapon used in the killing. The lack of the weapon, cannot be used to convict person A.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


LoL!!!!
That was logical. (NOT)

But that is par for the parcel I have learned in my time of dealing with you. Shall we go down the list of unspoken (non)wisdom I have learned?
A airplane tech is by proxy a high velocity physics expert.
Hitting the ground (aka a horizontal surface) is the same as hitting a building in midair (aka a vertical surface).
Pictures of clouds and the shapes they can take for a split second is conclusive proof.
Pictures of months into the clean up are good evidence for the events of the original event.
When in doubt, pretend you just don't see what they are talking about.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Hitting the ground (aka a horizontal surface) is the same as hitting a building in midair (aka a vertical surface).

As stated the photo of the aluminum airframe destroyed by the trees clearly shows how easly the airframe can be damged and would be even more damaged by the wall of the Pentagon and not make it through the rings of the building. I am still waiting for any evidnece that disputes this.'

Also photos of the parts at the Pentagon are unsourced so therfore cannot be used as real evindence.

[edit on 15-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Ummmmmmm.....
The perdue video is about the WTC which is what I was talking about.
As you should have remembered.

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Well all Ultima needs to do is some very advanced physics calculations to disprove the Purdue video. I'm sure we'll be getting those calculations any minute now

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As stated the photo of the aluminum airframe destroyed by the trees clearly shows how easly the airframe can be damged and would be even more damaged by the wall of the Pentagon and not make it through the rings of the building. I am still waiting for any evidnece that disputes this.'

I believe we've previously been over that invalid comparison of a plane attempting to get on the ground without loss of life in a crisis to a plane deliberately impacting a structure as fast as possible. No-one can possibly suggest that the airframe would suffer no damage, it would be totally obliterated but a 100 tons of smashed metal has the same energy as a 100 ton intact aircraft at the same speed and that's simple physics.

Were the internal walls of the Pentagon as 'hard' as the outer columns?

They appear to be fairly ordinary brick walls to me and my car could make a hole in one of those (no - it's not a tank )