Discussion in '9/11' started by genericBob, Oct 26, 2014.
Evidence. Got any?
No Bob,Your side deals entirely from incredulity.
It's a given.
Wholly from incredulity with a heavy dose of paranoia....plus it doesn't answer the question.
Prove it was planted.
Not how it works genericBob.
If you were accused of stealing something from store that I owned and I provided surveillance videos and photographs showing as much, it would be up to your defense attorney/team to show that the videos and photographs were faked or doctored if that was what you were claiming as your defense.
are you saying that AMERIKA has become an oppressive
GUILTY until proven INNOCENT system?
BTW: the videos of WTC1, 2 & 7 "collapsing" are iron clad proof of CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, and the videos of "FLT175" are also guaranteed fraudulent representations.
If you want to play the battle of expert witnesses,
look at http://patriotsquestion911.com/ and note that there are plenty of people fully qualified to be expert witnesses for the false flag case.
Why would so many experts go on record as saying they know that 9/11/2001 = false flag attack?
It's quite simple genericBob.
I accuse you of stealing from my store. You say you didn't. We go to court. I provide video surveillance tapes and photographs of you stealing stuff from my store. You and your defense attorney say that you're innocent because they're fake and/or doctored.
Who wins this case at this point? You because your only defense is to claim they're faked or me because I have video evidence?
If you say you're innocent because my videos and photos are faked, then you have to prove it? If you don't, guess what? You're going to jail.
That's how it works. You're convoluted sense of logic won't work here no matter how hard you try and sell it.
Tell you what.
Pick out one of those people from that site and show me what proof they provide that shows it was a conspiracy? Just one is all I ask. Do any of those engineers provide and calculations that prove the planes couldn't penetrate the perimeter facade like they were shown? Why not genericBob? Is it because they can?
I saw the 2nd plane crash into the south tower.
I was on East Broadway near Essex St., when it happened.
I invite the readers of this forum to check a map and note that the vantage point described would NOT have a view of the south wall of the south tower and so a critical piece of info is missing, also note the distance.
sorry bro, but from East Broadway and Essex I had a fabulous view of the World Trade Center towers.
they had the large Municipal Building with the gold statue on top, right between the towers.
if your video alleged to show me slipping a microwave oven into a pocket and making said item disappear, that would be most certainly cause to declare the video fake. Now observe the "crash" of "FLT175" do you see an actual crash? OH BUT THE PLANE WAS GOING SOOOO FAST!!!
give me a break!
and you allege that you had a view of the south wall of the south tower?
here is the view I had.
right behind that pointy building, was both towers.
I had a great view of everything.
- - - Updated - - -
and from here, i saw the 2nd plane crash into the 2nd tower.
plane went in...no plane came out. just fire and smoke.
In the pix you showed, there is an object, is it an airliner, a drone, a helicopter.... or? and from the aprox a mile range that you would have been viewing this scene, could you positively identify a commercial airliner as opposed to a missile or drone? it is also significant that you did not have a view of the south wall of the south tower because you then could not observe the aircraft "melt" into the side of the tower.
its called a street light!!!!
man, you bring paranoia into every posts huh?
yes, from this corner I saw the 2nd plane go into the building, and not out.
are you gonna call everyone who saw the 2nd plane, a liar????????????
What I sincerely question here, is the validity of the judgment as to exactly what was seen. From aprox a mile away one sees an object that is allegedly identified as a Boeing 757/767 type airliner however, how can you be certain? really, I'm serious, was it really a missile? how could you tell? and indeed not being in a position to see the south wall of the south tower then leaves out the critical bit of data about the crash event itself, the video(s) of the event do NOT show a real crash event but rather a bit of B movie special effects like the plane was a GHOST.
yes, clearly EVERYONE who saw the plane is a liar.
EVERYONE who disagrees with 9-11 Truth is an agent or shill.
EVERYONE who believes 9-11 was NOT an inside job, is brainwashed.
sir, your paranoid/arrogant attitudes is why 9-11 Truth is a miserable failure.
You can be mistaken without having the intent to commit fraud.
Your conclusion jumping is a factor that clearly indicates there is something VERY wrong with the official story.
What a strange post. Why is it incumbent upon the media to prove the obvious?
That evinces a poor understanding of the role of the media in western society. So, let me get this straight; because the media isn't interested in the illogical claims of 9/11 truth, it must control the world through surrogates?
So it is logical to assume that a hijacked airliner can fly >500 mph near sea level and be controlled by an amateur pilot, and impact a steel framed skyscraper, leaving behind a plane shaped cut-out of itself and totally disappearing inside the building ( 2X ) and then THREE steel framed skyscrapers are not just damaged but completely destroyed by FIRE?
and you claim 9/11 truth is illogical?
They weren't amateur pilots.. the just couldn't speak the international language of aviation to get a pilot's ticket.
You mean like the engine and landing gear parts on site?
- - - Updated - - -
Or you can be delusional without having any intent on being rational.
In what way was it shown that is guaranteed for certain, that any of the bits allegedly recovered from the crash sites matched up with any of the 4 airliners that were allegedly hijacked?
I just don't get it. Why would the government go to all the trouble of blowing up the buildings and making it look like a jet hit the buildings when it would have been much easier to hire people to actually fly planes into buildings or just plant the explosive and say terrorists planted a bomb like the first attack on the Twin Towers? Why the elaborate plot that would be easy for people to unravel?
There were four other aircraft hijacked that day?
Separate names with a comma.