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: 54
10
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:45 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.

Only two choices? Hmmm, I could think of a couple more...

The lack of physical evidence makes it difficult to believe any story that implies choice 1 is correct.




posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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?

This statement has nothing to do with my above comment.


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

Some of us are having an adult conversation. Please read my statement above and respond to it if you like or start another statement as your current responses are not on topic with what I've written above. Thank you.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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.

Only two choices? Hmmm, I could think of a couple more...

The lack of physical evidence makes it difficult to believe any story that implies choice 1 is correct.


Then post the other choices.
We KNOW holograms didn't hit the towers so please post what you're thinking.
Thanks.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Then post the other choices.
We KNOW holograms didn't hit the towers so please post what you're thinking.
No, no, no... I'm not falling for that trap.

Unless I have proof of what I think, then I'll not post it.

Truth seekers only need to continually point out the flaws and inconsistencies in the official story to show that it is bunk. Until the curtain of lies surrounding the official story has been removed, it will always be difficult to find the truth.

Again, without any recovered wreckage from any alleged planes, it is difficult for the official story to assume that planes crashed into the towers.

I don't need to post alternate scenarios, I only need to question the official scenario. The burden of proof is upon the people who believe the official story, as they claim it is true.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Then post the other choices.
We KNOW holograms didn't hit the towers so please post what you're thinking.
No, no, no... I'm not falling for that trap.

Unless I have proof of what I think, then I'll not post it.

Truth seekers only need to continually point out the flaws and inconsistencies in the official story to show that it is bunk. Until the curtain of lies surrounding the official story has been removed, it will always be difficult to find the truth.

Again, without any recovered wreckage from any alleged planes, it is difficult for the official story to assume that planes crashed into the towers.

I don't need to post alternate scenarios, I only need to question the official scenario. The burden of proof is upon the people who believe the official story, as they claim it is true.


You can do whatever you want. My only point was to NARROW down the possibilities which I have done from 2 possibilities to 1. Let me modify that one possibility in that some type of real aircrafts hit the buildings. So my point remains that we KNOW they were not holograms (ie imaginary stuff) but some type of real stuff impacted the buildings.

See, we're now making a bit of headway !!! HURRAY !!!!



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So my point remains that we KNOW they were not holograms (ie imaginary stuff) but some type of real stuff impacted the buildings.

Where is the alleged wreckage of this 'real stuff' that allegedly impacted the towers?

Without positively confirmed wreckage, it's difficult to believe that something real impacted the towers.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So my point remains that we KNOW they were not holograms (ie imaginary stuff) but some type of real stuff impacted the buildings.


Now you just need evidnece of what planes hit the buildings. Which i have been asking for a while.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
So my point remains that we KNOW they were not holograms (ie imaginary stuff) but some type of real stuff impacted the buildings.

Where is the alleged wreckage of this 'real stuff' that allegedly impacted the towers?

Without positively confirmed wreckage, it's difficult to believe that something real impacted the towers.


We've seen photos of wreckage and photos and videos of planes hitting the towers. Since holograms of that type are not possible, then something real hit. How many times do I need to explain this to you?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
So my point remains that we KNOW they were not holograms (ie imaginary stuff) but some type of real stuff impacted the buildings.


Now you just need evidnece of what planes hit the buildings. Which i have been asking for a while.


Admitedly, I haven't seen alot of physical evidence about the specific flight number but there has been some physical evidence proving some type of planes hit. CORRECT?



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
So my point remains that we KNOW they were not holograms (ie imaginary stuff) but some type of real stuff impacted the buildings.

Where is the alleged wreckage of this 'real stuff' that allegedly impacted the towers?

Without positively confirmed wreckage, it's difficult to believe that something real impacted the towers.


I'm not going to keep going over this. People have posted photos of plane wreckage. If you can't disprove those photos as fake, then accept them as real. Videos and photos show planes hitting the towers. If you can't prove them as fake, you must accept them as real. So YES at the very least, something real hit those towers. Stop dodging around the hologram idea as it has been COMPLETELY BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER.



posted on Apr, 22 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
We've seen photos of wreckage

None of which has been positively identified.



and photos and videos of planes hitting the towers.

I've seen probable evidence of TV broadcasts that were fake on other websites. Photos show what appears to be a plane about to hit a tower - that's not physical proof that a plane hit a tower.



Since holograms of that type are not possible, then something real hit. How many times do I need to explain this to you?

You're the one who using the word holograms, not me. I'm asking how you can prove that a plane hit the tower, when you can't show me any identified weckage from the alleged plane?



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Admitedly, I haven't seen alot of physical evidence about the specific flight number


So you agree then the thier is no evidence to support the official story as far as what planes hit?


Originally posted by jfj123
People have posted photos of plane wreckage.


But the photos of the wreckage and parts are unsourced, so they are not verifiable evidence.


[edit on 23-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you agree then the thier is no evidence to support the official story as far as what planes hit?


We also see no evidence to refute that the suggested flights actually hit the targets



But the photos of the wreckage and parts are unsourced, so they are not verifiable evidence.


A number of photographs of wreckage in the streets were taken by an NYPD photographer prior to WTC2 collapsing, pictures of plane parts that fell in the streets around the towers, parts that could only have gone right through the building to get where they ended up.
Do you class those as unsourced as well?

I'm interested in finding the truth also but I'm not slipping into the falsehood of searching for the particular truth I want to find. I'll settle for the real facts whatever they may be.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
We also see no evidence to refute that the suggested flights actually hit the targets

A number of photographs of wreckage in the streets were taken by an NYPD photographer prior to WTC2 collapsing,


Stop twisting what i post (we need the truth not people keep twisting what is posted). Where is the evidence of the flights that were supposed to hit the towers?

What was the Photograhers name, where and when were the photos taken ? What about the photos at the Pentagon?



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Stop twisting what i post (we need the truth not people keep twisting what is posted). Where is the evidence of the flights that were supposed to hit the towers?

What was the Photograhers name, where and when were the photos taken ? What about the photos at the Pentagon?


That's not twisting anything - it's a statement of fact unless there's solid evidence of different aircraft being involved. You could also go with the no-plane theory but again, no damning evidence for it but plenty against it.

Maybe the NYPD could alleviate your concerns about the photographer and, as for the time they were taken, at least one of them shows an intact tower (WTC2) in the background and lack of commotion surrounding it suggests the photo was snapped before WTC2 was struck or, at the very least, before it collapsed.

Note that I'm not making any assumptions on what the truth is.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
We've seen photos of wreckage

None of which has been positively identified.



and photos and videos of planes hitting the towers.

I've seen probable evidence of TV broadcasts that were fake on other websites.

Please post the evidence that the TV broadcasts have been faked. Please include forensic evidence proving they're faked.


Photos show what appears to be a plane about to hit a tower - that's not physical proof that a plane hit a tower.

Let me correct you. Photos AND VIDEOS show what appears to be planes about to AND HITTING the towers.



Since holograms of that type are not possible, then something real hit. How many times do I need to explain this to you?
You're the one who using the word holograms, not me. I'm asking how you can prove that a plane hit the tower, when you can't show me any identified weckage from the alleged plane?


Photos of some type of aircraft wreckage taken at the crash site.
Videos, photos and eye witness reports showing/stating planes hit the towers.

So we know based on visual evidence that something in the shape of aircrafts, interacted with the towers once again, due to eye witness reports, photos and videos. Now either that interaction was with a real, physical object or a non-physical object. If it were a non-physical object, it would be a hologram. We know it can't be a hologram so by default, physical objects must have interacted with the towers.
This is some pretty basic deductive reasoning. Please tell me you understand this so we can move forward.

[edit on 23-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
That's not twisting anything -

Maybe the NYPD could alleviate your concerns about the photographer and,


Then why can't you just answer the question? Do you have evidnece to support what planes hit the towers to support the official story?

So again what was the photographers name, where and when were the photos taken, or admit the photos are unsourced?





[edit on 23-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Photos of some type of aircraft wreckage taken at the crash site.

Wreckage that could have been planted inside the building and ejected at the time of the explosion. Unless the wreckage is positively identified, then its origins are unknown.



Videos, photos and eye witness reports showing/stating planes hit the towers.

Videos that may have been altered. Videos that show what appears to be a plane gliding into a building without any reduction in velocity, upon alleged impact and without any deformation of the fuselage. Google 911 TV fakery, you'll find enough to keep you reading for a while. Other witnesses reported that they did not see or hear planes impact the towers.

You're free to believe what you will, jfj123, based on the limited amount of verifiable evidence that you believe to be true.

I'm far more interested in this court case and its possible outcomes.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Photos of some type of aircraft wreckage taken at the crash site.

Wreckage that could have been planted inside the building and ejected at the time of the explosion. Unless the wreckage is positively identified, then its origins are unknown.

So you're saying there IS physical wreckage.



Videos, photos and eye witness reports showing/stating planes hit the towers.
Videos that may have been altered. Videos that show what appears to be a plane gliding into a building without any reduction in velocity, upon alleged impact and without any deformation of the fuselage. Google 911 TV fakery, you'll find enough to keep you reading for a while. Other witnesses reported that they did not see or hear planes impact the towers.

The VAST MAJORITY of witnesses say they saw planes.

I assume since you couldn't post any evidence that ALL those photos and videos were faked, you are just making assumptions without evidence. Someone looking for the truth would not ignore piles of evidence for scraps.




[edit on 23-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So you're saying there IS physical wreckage.

Where has this alleged wreckage been identified as belonging to any alleged plane that allegedly hit the tower?

As I stated, the presence of alleged wreckage, does not mean that alleged wreckage was from an alleged plane that allegedly hit the tower.



The VAST MAJORITY of witnesses say they saw planes.

Please supply how you determine that the vast majority of witnesses saw planes. From where are you sourcing your data?



I assume since you couldn't post any evidence that ALL those photos and videos were faked, you are just making assumptions without evidence.

I'm assuming that you didn't read the link that I provided to the court case, nor click on the same site to read how some of the TV footage may have been altered. I'm also assuming that you didn't type 911 TV Fakery into google and read the first few hits.

I'm also assuming that you can prove that ALL of those photos and videos are real? You claim them to be real, so you have the proof that each and every one of them can be verified as true?



Someone looking for the truth would not ignore piles of evidence of scraps.

Someone looking for the truth would actually try to identify the alleged piles of scraps, rather than assuming their origin without investigation.




top topics



 
10
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join