Just a Reminder that the Deep States Lies and the REASON they Lie to us is NOTHING NEW !!🤡🌎
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
I've heard 3 from family relatives 1 was a police officer, 1 is a taxi driver, and the last did odd jobs, was washing windows outside at the time. They all watched the 2nd one, the window wash saw the first. And yes I will take a few 1000 eye witnesses over someone who wasn't there.
ah, so you have a personal investment in the official story. that will definitely make it difficult to examine evidence properly. but if you care about truth, you will.
When new claims emerge that contradict the accounts of thousands of eyewitnesses, it's critical to assess these claims with a healthy dose of skepticism. Disregarding firsthand accounts and overwhelming evidence in favor of later, non-forensic theories is not a rational approach. Instead, it's more logical to question the validity of the contradictory opinion rather than dismiss the consistent and corroborated testimonies of those who witnessed the event firsthand.
To disregard the substantial body of evidence and eyewitness accounts in favor of speculative theories is to undermine the principles of critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning.
lol WHAT substantial body of evidence?? all we have are a few people who say they saw a plane. that is all the evidence you're going off. Ironic to use the word 'substantial' when its all just people talking.
Thousands of eyewitnesses, along with video evidence, provide substantial proof that planes hit the towers on 9/11. When thousands of people all corroborate the same event, and their accounts are supported by extensive video footage and forensic analysis, this constitutes strong, compelling evidence.
Dismissing this overwhelming body of firsthand accounts and visual documentation in favor of later, unsubstantiated theories is not a rational approach. The consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses, reinforced by video and forensic evidence, form a robust basis for understanding what occurred. It's important to critically evaluate all claims, but it's also crucial to recognize the weight of direct, corroborated evidence when assessing historical events.
Lmao, I'm not sure where you got that from, I think you should reread my first post on here.
the official story being that planes hit the towers, your personal investment being due to anecdotes from family members.
refusal to examine evidence is not a strong standpoint. you've been linked several compilations of evidence, and you continue to fall back on supposed eyewitness accounts.
nobody is going to report a plane not hitting a tower, not in a place like NY where they fly overhead all the time.
we have eyewitness accounts supporting the official story, but we also have eyewitness accounts saying there was no plane, only a bomb-like explosion.
you are discarding evidence because none of the eyewitnesses could possibly be mistaken or lying. that's wrong. and we have eyewitnesses with conflicting stories.. some supporting the official story, and some saying there were no planes.
the best thing to do is to examine the evidence. if you refuse to do that, you are just admitting you have no ground to stand on.
refute the evidence provided to you, or weaken your position even further.
Your argument suggests a refusal to accept the possibility of conflicting eyewitness accounts and emphasizes the need to examine all evidence. However, the volume and consistency of the eyewitness testimonies that confirm planes hit the towers are overwhelming. Thousands of people, including professionals such as pilots, firefighters, and journalists, have corroborated this event, and their accounts are supported by video footage from multiple angles, forensic evidence, and independent investigations.
To illustrate this point, consider the sinking of the Titanic. Some witnesses reported that the ship broke in two before sinking, while others believed it went down whole. Those who thought it sank in one piece were typically at the ends of the ship and couldn’t see the break, whereas many near the middle witnessed the split. This discrepancy didn’t mean the Titanic didn’t break; it highlighted the limitations of certain vantage points during a chaotic event.
Similarly, the accounts of people who didn't see a plane and only observed an explosion do not negate the presence of the planes. It simply indicates that their angle or position prevented them from seeing the impact. The overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses and video recordings clearly show planes hitting the towers, and these accounts have been verified through extensive forensic analysis.
Examining evidence critically is essential, but dismissing the robust and consistent body of eyewitness testimonies, supported by video and forensic evidence, in favor of less substantiated claims does not provide a stronger standpoint. The burden of proof lies with presenting verifiable evidence that can withstand scrutiny, and so far, the most credible and substantial evidence supports the fact that planes hit the towers on 9/11.