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.
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.
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?
2. We are having an adult conversation about what the evidence does or does not show. So far the evidnce questions the official story.
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.
No, no, no... I'm not falling for that trap.
Originally posted by jfj123
Then post the other choices.
We KNOW holograms didn't hit the towers so please post what you're thinking.
Originally posted by tezzajw
No, no, no... I'm not falling for that trap.
Originally posted by jfj123
Then post the other choices.
We KNOW holograms didn't hit the towers so please post what you're thinking.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by jfj123
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?
Originally posted by jfj123
Admitedly, I haven't seen alot of physical evidence about the specific flight number
Originally posted by jfj123
People have posted photos of plane wreckage.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So you agree then the thier is no evidence to support the official story as far as what planes hit?
But the photos of the wreckage and parts are unsourced, so they are not verifiable evidence.
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,
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?
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.
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?
Originally posted by Pilgrum
That's not twisting anything -
Maybe the NYPD could alleviate your concerns about the photographer and,
Originally posted by jfj123
Photos of some type of aircraft wreckage taken at the crash site.
Videos, photos and eye witness reports showing/stating planes hit the towers.
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.
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.
Originally posted by jfj123
So you're saying there IS physical wreckage.
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 of scraps.