It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Skibum
Instead of us 'conspiracy theorists' having to prove that it wasn't a plane why don't all of you sheep who see it the other way, prove to us that it was a plane?
Now off you go.
Probably because the "sheep" aren't the ones making the insane accusations.
The burden of proof lies with the one making the accusation not the other way around.
Oh sure...take the easy way out.
Always the same response from your side.
Bring some proof to defend your position.
How and why is it that 10 ton engines made of steel don't even make a mark on the facade of the building where they allegedly impacted? And don't show me again a picture of a burning building. This means absolutely nothing.
Why was their not an official and proper investigation into this 'air disaster' as would have been the case in any other situation? And don't cop out by saying this "wasn't any other situation".
Why is there no video proof provided by your puppeteers that clearly puts our suspicions to bed? What happened to the missing videos? Why did the FBI confiscate any other evidence that may be useful in wrapping this up?
By the way, having eyewitnesses is never taken as a means of conviction in any case. There has to be indisputable proof, which so far, is non-existent
How do you explain the nature of the explosion when your 757 hit the building? Clarify for me the differences in detonation and deflagration and relate that to what we see on the video.
It is a KNOWN FACT that a gas station cam was taken as well as other surrounding cameras and even some regular joe's on the streets had thiers taken both video and film.
Originally posted by The Joker
There is no f'ing way a nose cone of a Boeing can penetrate the three rings of the building, despite what Bob The Builder stated earlier.