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: 53
10
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Where did the pieces go if not into the building?


Maybe if you knew what the nose was made of you would not need to ask that question.

Please do research before posting.

[edit on 21-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]


Actually what it is made of is completely irrelevent within the context of my question. Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed and you say the plane bits (matter) did not enter the building, it must be somewhere outside the building. Where are the plane bits ?




posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by jfj123
 


LoL!!
Isn't a graviton beam fiction? Thusly nailing down and refuting the use of a graviton beam would be a exercise in futility because someone could always come up with different attributes.


I bet that you can't not prove that a heavy graviton beam didn't, not do it... can you ???



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by tezzajw
[Where did the wings go? Why were the alleged wings never forensically identified to any plane?

Without wing debris, it's kind of difficult to assume that a plane crashed.


Yes, plus the fact that 80 ton planes would have left parts and debris, but we still have no information on the parts and debris matching any of the planes.


Well we know some type of planes hit or holographic planes hit. As it is IMPOSSIBLE for holograms to be used in this manner, that didn't happen so we can rule it out and rule in some type of real aircraft.



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


While I am at it why don't I try to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power?
THEN I am on to world hunger.
World peace.

Where those one socks of a pair go when you do the laundry.




posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by jfj123
 


While I am at it why don't I try to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power?
THEN I am on to world hunger.
World peace.

Where those one socks of a pair go when you do the laundry.



Forget those other things. If you can help me find my socks, I'd be eternally grateful !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 21 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


This is ten times crazier than those guys in the flat earth thread. Atleast, they provide a scenario that answers the questions as opposed to inventing imaginary unfalsifiables. Their answer might not be correct, but it's a straight answer explaining the scenario.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I bet that you can't not prove that a heavy graviton beam didn't, not do it... can you ???


Just more proof you live in a fantasy world and cannot face reallity.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
This is ten times crazier than those guys in the flat earth thread.


Whats even more crazy is how you can still live in a fantasy world and not accept facts and evidence presented to you.

I have proven (even with the frames of video posted by others) that the nose, wings and tail did not make it into the building.

The composite and aluminum could not stand up to the steel.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
This is ten times crazier than those guys in the flat earth thread.


Whats even more crazy is how you can still live in a fantasy world and not accept facts and evidence presented to you.

I have proven (even with the frames of video posted by others) that the nose, wings and tail did not make it into the building.

The composite and aluminum could not stand up to the steel.


You've certainly proven you will twist and obfuscate to avoid ceding a point. Congratulations, I suppose.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I bet that you can't not prove that a heavy graviton beam didn't, not do it... can you ???


Just more proof you live in a fantasy world and cannot face reallity.


In the real world this is what we call sarcasm. It's also an example of your logic.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


I guess if we can just pretend to see whatever we want in the video, I choose to see a giant, flying purple wombat that didn't make it into the building either. When the wombat hit the outside of the building it disappeared into a puff of smoke and now lives on the island of misfit toys.

Special note for ultima-I don't really believe this, I'm using this as an example of what some people chose to see instead of reality.

ULTIMA,
you never answered my question before
If the plane never made it into the building, where did it go? It was a physical plane so the physical parts went somewhere. Or are you claiming the planes were holograms? Were they real planes or not?

[edit on 22-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Whats even more crazy is how you can still live in a fantasy world and not accept facts and evidence presented to you.

I have proven (even with the frames of video posted by others) that the nose, wings and tail did not make it into the building.

The composite and aluminum could not stand up to the steel.


Now remember we're talking about a simulation and the frames of that totally disprove what you're saying (in relation to the simulation) and the nose, wings & tail are clearly shown from multiple angles entering the building and penetrating to the core. However, it is just a simulation (and a very good one IMHO) and perhaps the nose was totally obliterated in the real thing but where would it go to - inside the body of the plane in pieces perhaps?

You're entitled to use denial if all else fails but I thought that was the tactic you claim is used by your opponents. You could, of course, just show the frames from your version of the simulation depicting contradictory things if denying ignorance is your true goal. Is there more than one version of the Purdue simulation?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
If the plane never made it into the building, where did it go?

Again, that's the billion dollar question. It's difficult to reconcile that planes hit the towers, when no plane parts have ever been positively identified.



It was a physical plane so the physical parts went somewhere.

How can you state that it is a physical plane, when you can't provide any proof of where the parts went?

Any competent analysis of the crime scene should have recovered wreckage from the plane, which should have been positively identified. Why wasn't this done?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


That's funny. You see wombat? I see a giant sugar glider. Both are marsupials and have similar head structure though. You get a good glimpse in the frame when the starboard engine nacelle actually enters the building (I'll say enters because you may be too dumb to understand "penetrates" and might think it flies out the other side). He's certainly purple though, you've got that much right.
Also, it is well known that NO WOMBAT HAS EVER BEEN DOCUMENTED TO FLY INTO A BUILDING. I'll say it over and over again if I have to. That certainly is possible with a sugar glider. I definitely saw the puff of smoke though and therefore he certainly made it to Toy Island. The animation doesn't show him in Toy Island, so it's obviously dubious at best. A real model would show his arrival in Toy Island. I suggest that we focus on the common-ground our theories share instead of bickering though.

Wombat

Sugar Glider




[edit on 22-4-2008 by _Del_]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Any competent analysis of the crime scene should have recovered wreckage from the plane, which should have been positively identified. Why wasn't this done?


Well we can't conclude with certainty that the evidence wasn't collected, studied and filed away simply because it hasn't been made available to the public (as yet). The wheels of justice turn excruciatingly slowly.

I'm hoping that the current court cases directly attacking the official side of things will force some of that unseen evidence to be presented at long last.

[edit on 22/4/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Over 50 pages and 1000 posts in this thread (and it's not the first time such a question has been asked) and it always gets down to a 'yes it did - no it didn't - I'm not listening' argument because there simply isn't the solid evidence of conspiracy required OR no-one has presented it yet (I'll allow that it MIGHT exist). All those smoking guns that, on close inspection, don't appear to have ever been loaded.

For me, certain aspects of the reported events stink to high heaven but I have no proof of it unless intuition is enough to make a decision (it isn't). Lack of evidence is being proved here and no-one will be convicted on that premise.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
and the nose, wings & tail are clearly shown from multiple angles enteringthe building


SHOWN ENTERING BUT NOT SHOWN INSIDE THE BUIDLING.

As shown the nose is destroyed on impact, the wings, and tail do not make it inside to the core. They are shredded into very small pieces.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum I'm not listening' argument because there simply isn't the solid evidence of conspiracy required OR no-one has presented it yet


All thses years and still no actaul evidence to support the official story but yet people still believe it, (becasue they want to live in a safe fantasy world).

They do not want to admit that government has done anything like 9/11 before. (Like Pearl Harbor and the USS Liberty)



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
If the plane never made it into the building, where did it go?

Again, that's the billion dollar question. It's difficult to reconcile that planes hit the towers, when no plane parts have ever been positively identified.



It was a physical plane so the physical parts went somewhere.

How can you state that it is a physical plane, when you can't provide any proof of where the parts went?

Any competent analysis of the crime scene should have recovered wreckage from the plane, which should have been positively identified. Why wasn't this done?


Obviously there are 2 choices:
1. Physical, real planes hit the towers
2. Holograms were used to make it look as if real planes hit the towers.

Number 2 is NOT a possibility so we are left with 1.
Unless you can come up with a third choice.
Can you???



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Obviously there are 2 choices:
1. Physical, real planes hit the towers
2. Holograms were used to make it look as if real planes hit the towers.


1. So where is the evidnece that the planes that were supposed to hit the towers did hit them?

2. We are having an adult conversation about what the evidence does or does not show. So far the evidnce questions the official story.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join