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.

 

What Happened to the Planes? 911 and Logic

page: 20
14
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Name one piece of evidence that points to a missile.
This entire thread is filled with it. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it as evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence.




posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by samkent

Name one piece of evidence that points to a missile.
This entire thread is filled with it. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it as evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence.


No it isn't. Unsupported assertions are not evidence. Point me to any physical evidence of a missile and a witness to same.

We are in the loony situation where people like you say it couldn't have been a plane because there is not enough debris so it must have been a missile for which there is not so much as a rivet. At the same time hand-waving away scores of witnesses.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

I'm switching over to the OS side....

[reaches for prozac/vicodin cocktail]


LOL. NO. Our party drug of choice is an '___'/Cocaine coctail. Of course we get a discount, as both of these are sold by our CIA paymasters.



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 




I have no doubt that a missile hit the Pentagon. Why? Because ALL the evidence points to that conclusion. If "eyewitnesses" saw what they thought was an AA flight, then I can draw the conclusion that the missile was disguised as exactly that. And that's exactly what I've done.

Name one piece of evidence that points to a missile.
By your logic it could have been a UFO that crashed. As in only a few frames of video. Maybe it was a test UFO painted to look like an airline just to fool any citizen that happen to see it.


Show us some real evidence that planes actually hit anything! Not planted junk either!



posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by samkent

Name one piece of evidence that points to a missile.
This entire thread is filled with it. Just because you refuse to acknowledge it as evidence doesn't mean it isn't evidence.


No it isn't. Unsupported assertions are not evidence. Point me to any physical evidence of a missile and a witness to same.

We are in the loony situation where people like you say it couldn't have been a plane because there is not enough debris so it must have been a missile for which there is not so much as a rivet. At the same time hand-waving away scores of witnesses.


The missile idea admittedly is a theory, but it's fa far more feasible theory than planes actually hitting the building. Way too much evidence to prove there were no planes, than evidence to prove there were planes. Please dont try the old trick of saying the TV footage, or witnesses etc, they were faked, so nothing official can be taken seriously. The only official thing about the day was it was on 9/11/01 and 2 towers collapsed.

It was either a missile or a bomb, but definately not a commercial plane as you and the government want people to believe.



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4hero
Please dont try the old trick of saying the TV footage, or witnesses etc, they were faked, so nothing official can be taken seriously.


Do you have any proof that this statement is true? How do you support the notion of them being faked?

I'm tired of truthers drawing conclusions and then declaring all counter-evidence to be fake based on their earlier conclusion. It's stupid!



posted on Apr, 29 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I'm tired of truthers drawing conclusions and then declaring all counter-evidence to be fake based on their earlier conclusion. It's stupid!





posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
9/11 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying

www.youtube.com...
edit on 30-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   
High-Ranking Army
Officer - Missile Hit Pentagon
Radiation Expert Claims High-Radiation Readings
Near Pentagon After 9/11 Indicates
Depleted Uranium Used

www.rense.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by 4hero
 



Way too much evidence to prove there were no planes....


Wow. No we're proving negatives! Here's a challenge - please present the evidence that it was not a flying saucer. Or the evidence that it was not the Titanic.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by 4hero
 



Way too much evidence to prove there were no planes....


Wow. No we're proving negatives! Here's a challenge - please present the evidence that it was not a flying saucer. Or the evidence that it was not the Titanic.


Completely nonsensical and ridiculous drivel. This is not "proving a negative". I can prove there is no rhinoceros in my living room right now. How do I know? I look around and there's no rhinoceros in my room. Since my house probably could not support the weight of a rhinoceros in my room, and the floor is not damaged, this is further evidence that there is no rhinoceros in my room. But if someone is hallucinating that there is a rhinoceros in my room, there is little I can do to convince them there is no rhinoceros in my room. All I can do is point them to the nearest shrink.

The Pentagon has released 5 frames showing as much as they could afford to show us about what hit the Pentagon. Those 5 frames in and of themselves are proof that there was no 757, unless you are hallucinating. Military experts have checked in all over the Internet corroborating that all the evidence from the Pentagon suggests it was a missile. And yet you buffoons can keep going on and on about how there is more evidence for a 757 than a missile.

Your position has become laughable. You lose. Give it up. We deny ignorance. And we're not buying the useless claptrap of shills over the testimony of experienced experts, who merely corroborate what we can see with our own eyes.

I won't be responding to any more shill b.s...... have a good one. On to bigger fish to fry....the actual perps. Their pitiful disinformation henchmen are rendered irrelevant.
edit on 30-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 



Completely nonsensical and ridiculous drivel.

To your average conspiracist, yes it is. Their existence and belief systems are intimately dependent on logical fallacies.

This is not "proving a negative".

When you use the words "prove" and "no" that is asserting that you have proof of a negative propostion.

I can prove there is no rhinoceros in my living room right now.

No you can't.

How do I know? I look around and there's no rhinoceros in my room.

So how does that prove it to me?

Since my house probably could not support the weight of a rhinoceros in my room, and the floor is not damaged, this is further evidence that there is no rhinoceros is my room.

So how does that PROVE it to me? You're simply stating some assumprtions.

But if someone is hallucinating that there is a rhinoceros in my room, there is little I can do to convince them there is no rhinoceros in my room. All I can do is point them to the nearest shrink.

So how does that PROVE it to me? You are confusing your contention that something is highly unlikely with absolute proof.

The Pentagon has released 5 frames showing as much as they could afford to show us about what hit the Pentagon. Those 5 frames in and of themselves are proof that there was no 757, unless you are hallucinating.

How does that prove the negative proposition that there was no 757?

Military experts have checked in all over the Internet corroborating that all the evidence from the Pentagon suggests it was a missile.

Oh well then, I didn't realize that military experts on the internet have corroborated the missile thing - let the investigations begin!!!

And yet you buffoons can keep going on and on about how there is more evidence for a 757 than a missile.

Its based on observational reality, not irrational false logic.

Your position has become laughable. You lose. Give it up. We deny ignorance.

Yes, I lose. That's why the whole country is clamouring for new investigations!!! Every day and night, thats all you hear on the television, on the radio and in the newspapers!

And we're not buying the useless claptrap of shills over the testimony of experienced experts.

Fine.

I won't be responding to any more shill b.s...... have a good one.

In other words....you give up. But if your argument is so iron clad, your internet experts so undeniable, then you should have no problem defending them from a little scrutiny.

On to bigger fish to fry....the actual perps.

Good luck with that! Just a little info - its been 11 years now.

Their pitiful disinformation henchmen are rendered irrelevant.

And yet....



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Oh no, I'm not giving up. I've just realized the utter foolishness of trying to reason with a cinder block.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


If "all the evidence from the Pentagon suggests it was a missile" how about posting that evidence (and I don't mean photo-shopped pics) and some witnesses to same.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


If "all the evidence from the Pentagon suggests it was a missile" how about posting that evidence (and I don't mean photo-shopped pics) and some witnesses to same.


Just for starters,

Exhibit A: "Engine" travels more than 100 yards through Pentagon and creates perfect 16-foot round hole exiting the C-ring with burn marks at the top. The other engine disappears.

Exhibit B: Orange fireball "Blast Signature" identically matches that of a cruise missile.

Exhibit C: White smoke in Pentagon frames: rocket engines do this, not 757 engines.

you ask for witnesses? There were dozens just from the Pentagon alone. They testified at the 911 Commission hearings. People like Sibel Edmonds and Norman Mineta, who had direct contact with the perps, meaning, infinitely closer than you can claim. All their testimony was thrown out and they were issued subsequent gag orders. The excuse: "National Security". "State Secret Privilege." The only security that was threatened was that of the criminals.

I'm really tired of your nonsense already and I'm done with you.
edit on 30-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by SimontheMagus
 


If "all the evidence from the Pentagon suggests it was a missile" how about posting that evidence (and I don't mean photo-shopped pics) and some witnesses to same.


Just for starters,

Exhibit A: "Engine" travels more than 100 yards through Pentagon and creates perfect 16-foot round hole exiting the C-ring with burn marks at the top. The other engine disappears.

Exhibit B: Orange fireball "Blast Signature" identically matches that of a cruise missile.

Exhibit C: White smoke in Pentagon frames: rocket engines do this, not 757 engines.

you ask for witnesses? There were dozens just from the Pentagon alone. They testified at the 911 Commission hearings. People like Sibel Edmonds and Norman Mineta, who had direct contact with the perps, meaning, infinitely closer than you can claim. All their testimony was thrown out and they were issued subsequent gag orders. The excuse: "National Security". "State Secret Privilege." The only security that was threatened was that of the criminals.

I'm really tired of your nonsense already and I'm done with you.
edit on 30-4-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)


Exhibit A : Who says it was an engine or just ann engine that made the exit hole ? Certainly engine parts were recovered which aerospace engineers identified as from Rolls Royce RB 211 engines as fitted to AA 77 and not to a missile.

Exhibit B : - Typical fireball associated with burning fuel. Certainly not high explosive.

Exhibit C :- Just exemplifies how you don't have a clue. Cruise missiles, which you identified in an earlier post, do not have rocket engines but turbofan jet engines. The white smoke, if that is what it is, could well have resulted from an RB 211 engine ingesting a light from one of the poles struck.

Where is the physical evidence I asked for ? You haven't pointed me in the direction of so much as an alleged bolt from a missile. Everything is Boeing 757, Boeing 757, Boeing 757.

When I asked for witnesses you must have known I wanted witnesses who said they saw a missile at the Pentagon that day. Not Norman Mineta. Where are your witnesses ? there are buckets of plane witnesses.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 17  18  19   >>

log in

join