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.

 

Where were those 'puddles of jet fuel' at Shanksville?

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
You really need to get a better understanding of the words you use. Faith has no witnesses. Faith is belief without proof. Faith is the absence of proof. Proof denies faith.

Oh stop crying and give me a word that technically describes your blind trust in witnesses (some of the lousiest sources of proof).


There are witnesses, they attest to "puddles" of fuel and the odor of fuel at the site. I doubt there is photographic evidence. You doubt the witnesses - then test them. That is the essence of knowledge as opposed to faith.

There were tons of photos taken of the scene. Surely ONE photo captured these "puddles of fuel."


On another note - how exactly is someone not "accurate" about seeing puddles of fuel? I can see that argument if someone claimed that they saw a puddle containing 9.345 liters of fuel, but simply saying a puddle? Or are you simply trying to avoid openly calling them liars because you know that once you call them liars you are then burdened with proving they are liars which you know you cannot do?

Maybe is was just a puddle of water and they assumed it was fuel, or maybe it was a dark patch of ground that looked like a puddle from a distance. See? Maybe they weren't accurate. Not everyone has to be a liar like you wish I'm inferring they are.




posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



Maybe is was just a puddle of water and they assumed it was fuel, or maybe it was a dark patch of ground that looked like a puddle from a distance. See? Maybe they weren't accurate. Not everyone has to be a liar like you wish I'm inferring they are.


Or maybe a piece of heavy equipment sprung a leak, or maybe this or maybe that. You can "maybe" till you turn blue in the face. Some of the people who were first on the scene reported seeing collections of fuel on the ground and reported the odor of fuel. Deal with it. You want photographic evidence? That is one of the dumbest things I ever heard. If, as you propose, someone on the scene moments after the crash could mistake a puddle of fuel for a puddle of water then how, in the name of God, are you going to make that same differentiation 9 years later in a photo? Keep grasping at straws. You say stuff like this and then wonder why no one takes the 911 "truth movement" seriously.



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Hi, i am really intruiged by the whole 911 story, and personally dont believe the official story told by the government.

i was wondering if you could help me, or anyone for that matter. is there anywhere online where i can see/download/print the offical story from the investigation into 911 that the governement produced.

id like to read through it and pick some holes =]

MrWebby666



posted on Feb, 10 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWebby666
 


I don't think officials ever released any official information about the details of the alleged Flight 93 crash other than it supposedly crashed!

They leave the public having to piece the details from various news reports.

I've never heard of a plane crash where officials never released crash details.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


Oh ok then, I thought they release some kind of report of the events but I must be mistaken.

No i've never heard of that either, ahh well.

Cheers for replying, great post, S+F

MrWebby666



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join