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: 55
10
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


You're making the claims of guilt. Just like in a court of law, the burden of proof is on you.




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
[You're making the claims of guilt. Just like in a court of law, the burden of proof is on you.


If you claim the official story is correct then the burden of proof is on you.

We have suplied lots of evidence to question the official story, but you have not supplied 1 piece of hard, physical evidence to support the official story.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
[You're making the claims of guilt. Just like in a court of law, the burden of proof is on you.


If you claim the official story is correct then the burden of proof is on you.

We have suplied lots of evidence to question the official story, but you have not supplied 1 piece of hard, physical evidence to support the official story.



I haven't seen any evidence you have supplied. You have claimed you have supplied evidence but in reality, your own evidence disproves your ideas.

I have posted evidence you have chosen to ignore.

Innocent until proven guilty. You have proven NOTHING . Keep up the good work.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I haven't seen any evidence you have supplied. You have claimed you have supplied evidence but in reality, your own evidence disproves your ideas.


I have shown lots of reports and even the NIST computer model that states the buildings withstood the planes impacts.

I ahve shown evidence that states no steel building has ever collasped from fire.

Where is your evidnece to debate this, if we were in court you would have to provide evidence to support your claim of the official story. SO lets see it or you lose the case.



[edit on 23-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
I haven't seen any evidence you have supplied. You have claimed you have supplied evidence but in reality, your own evidence disproves your ideas.


I have shown lots of reports

The reports you've posted disagree with your statements.


I ahve shown evidence that states no steel building has ever collasped from fire.

Irrelevent as the towers were also hit by planes and not just were on fire.


Where is your evidnece to debate this, if we were in court you would have to provide evidence to support your claim of the official story.

No actually I wouldn't. I could post contradictory evidence to yours however your evidence supports the official story so I don't need to. Even so, I have posted reports that support the official story.

The burden of proof COMPLETELY rests with the prosecution.



[edit on 23-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The burden of proof COMPLETELY rests with the prosecution.

Completely correct.

It is also very clear that the prosecution has not done its job well. The prosecution has failed to identify the alleged wreckage of the alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers.

The prosecution claims that 'terrorists' flew planes into the towers, yet the prosecution has failed to substantiate its case against these 'terrorists'.

The only meaningful conclusion is that without evidence to prove the prosecution's position, it must be discarded.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Irrelevent as the towers were also hit by planes and not just were on fire.


I have shown buidlings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings and did not collaspe.

If the judge ask you for evidence to support your theory and the official story you will not be able to provide it, you will lose the case.

Since you cannot show any actual evidence to show what planes hit the towers your case would probably be thrown out.




[edit on 24-4-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
The burden of proof COMPLETELY rests with the prosecution.

Completely correct.

It is also very clear that the prosecution has not done its job well. The prosecution has failed to identify the alleged wreckage of the alleged planes that allegedly hit the towers.

The prosecution claims that 'terrorists' flew planes into the towers, yet the prosecution has failed to substantiate its case against these 'terrorists'.

The only meaningful conclusion is that without evidence to prove the prosecution's position, it must be discarded.


Within the context of my statement, you would be considered the prosecution.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
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?


You know, if I wasn't 12000 miles away or I thought a foreign civilian FOI request would yield results I'd be tempted to follow that up if just to see what denials would follow


Please at least admit that you have no proof of the NYPD photos being photoshopped or staged plus they DO show major plane parts. At least one civilian was a casualty of those falling parts - do you believe he volunteered for that as part of the (conjectured) conspiracy?

I'm open to any proof for or against what appeared to happen but, thus far, the 'against' case is greatly lacking in evidence (I mean real evidence). By your own declaration, corroborating evidence supporting the official version can't be assumed to not exist (referring to FBI etc) as we can be certain they collected it. Let's hope the current legal proceedings cause some of it to be released although claims of DEWs, holograms etc won't really require it compared to the mountain of other (yes sourced & verified) evidence already available.

If the whole aim of your argument is to point out the lack of evidence it's been successful in terms of evidence of conspiracy contrary to the official version of events.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Within the context of my statement, you would be considered the prosecution.

No.

If you support the official story, then you're taking the stance of the prosecutor, trying to prove that alleged hijackers took control of the alleged planes and allegedly flew them into the towers.

All that I am doing is pointing out that your case does not substantiate itself, when key pieces of evidence are missing and/or unidentified. For example, you can't even tell me what type of plane allegedly hit the towers. How can you build your case any further when the alleged plane remains a mystery?

Your case would be thrown out of court. Thanks for trying though.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Please at least admit that you have no proof of the NYPD photos being photoshopped or staged plus they DO show major plane parts.


When you admit that you cannot post a source of the photos. I have asked several times and you and others have failed to post a source of any of the photos taken. So just admit you have no source of the photos.

So how can you still believe in somthing that you cannot provide proof of?



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jfj123
Within the context of my statement, you would be considered the prosecution.

No.

Well thank you for telling me what I meant and what I wrote. By the way, you're still wrong.

The official story is the equivalent of THE ACCUSED
The supposed truthers such as yourself are attempting to convict or impeach the official story so you would be considered the prosecution. If you don't understand this, please read a few law books then get back to me. It's hard to discuss the basics of law with someone with no apparent knowledge of the law.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Irrelevent as the towers were also hit by planes and not just were on fire.


I have shown buidlings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damage then the WTC buildings and did not collaspe.

You've made CLAIMS of this but you've failed to provide actual proof. Claiming something doesn't make it so.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   
lets take a look at the photo and video problem.

How many photos are out there?
How many different sources of those photos are out there?

How many videos are out there?
How many different sources of those videos are out there?

How many eye witnesses are out there?

Those videos and photos show the same thing, planes hitting towers. This means that all of those private civilians who took videos and photos are either part of the super vast conspiracy or those photos are legitimate. If even 5% of the photos and videos are legit that means what was seen on them are also legit. Does it seem logical that so many people could be part of the conspiracy and keep it quiet? I just don't see it.



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Here's an interesting site with a lot of photos

www.september11news.com...


also here's an interesting photo that shows that the south tower didn't fall straight down on itself like some have claimed. Someone may have already posted the pic.

www.time.com...

[edit on 24-4-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Apr, 24 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
The official story is the equivalent of THE ACCUSED

No.

The official story accuses alleged terrorists of allegedly taking control of alleged planes and allegedly flying them into towers.

The official story acts as the prosecution against the terrorists.

If that's too difficult for you to conceptually understand, then you should use the book vouchers that you suggested I need.

The official story is not a given axiom, where it can then be 'defended'. The official story needs a clear chain of evidence, which leads to prove its claims against the alleged terrorists. The official story fails to do this.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
You've made CLAIMS of this but you've failed to provide actual proof. Claiming something doesn't make it so.


Stop the lies.

I have shown the firefighter site many times that show steel buildings that had longer lasting fires and more structural damge the the WTC buildings.

Why must you lie?



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Those videos and photos show the same thing, planes hitting towers. .


All those videos and photos but no real evindece to support what planes hit the towers.

The official story would not hold up in court.



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
The official story would not hold up in court.


That assumption is about to be tested at least which will be interesting.

From your 1st post in this thread:


Well i do not have evidence (yet) of the governemnt being directly involved but i have aleady posted evidnece that they had lots of warnings and could have stopped it.


Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with that
Your stance has progressed somewhat so does that mean you're in possession of the evidence you didn't have at first?

You've made statements like


The EPA recovered all the fuel in the ground floor tanks.

and others which were proven to be incorrect.

Could you also be mistaken about what you think is evidence?

Are you trying to claim there is no evidence in the published reports?

The thread was started in the hope of bringing out evidence but none has been presented that overwhelms the existing published studies. No I'm not claiming such evidence doesn't exist but where is it?


[edit on 25/4/2008 by Pilgrum]



posted on Apr, 25 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The EPA recovered all the fuel in the ground floor tanks.

and others which were proven to be incorrect.

The EPA statement has not been proven incorrect.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join