I still say that these particular planes did exist and were just cover for the explosives.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
eyewitness accounts do not outweigh the evidence to the contrary, which is irrefutable.
Nonsense. Plenty of undoctored video images. And eyewitnesses didn't see any digital fakes. You are working hard to believe in a fantasy.
many eyewitnesses said they didn't see a plane, just heard an explosion.
the evidence is not on your side here
I didn't see Mt. St. Helens erupt either. Plenty of people heard it. I didn't. Others both saw and heard it. You don't realize your objection is logically absurd. The fact that some persons present did not see something WHOSE VIEW WOULD HAVE BEEN BLOCKED BY OTHER BUILDINGS, does not refute those who saw the collision. Those on the far side of the buildings would not have seen a plane; the approaching plane was hidden by the Tower itself.
You need to study a book on logic. I can just see a conversation between you and a police offticer after an auto collision. "Sir, didn't you see that oncoming car?" "No, officer. I did not see it. It must not have been there."
so because a handful of people claim to have seen it happen, that means it did?
i say again... the evidence is irrefutable. the planes were digitally inserted. zero planes hit the towers. the video evidence speaks for itself.