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:
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.
Along with the physical events that followed, yes, it did. You can't prove they didn't see what they saw. In other cases of government culpability (e.g., TWA 800), the exclusion of eyewitness accounts is a key sign of a cover up.
I haven't seen such videos, and I am more susceptible to the expectation that they are frauds created by "truther" fanatics. Conspiracy fanatics are not above such hoaxes. The "xxxx-trails" and "Fxxx-Earthers" are in that category. But if you can provide a link, I am willing to view what you deem to be so irrefutable.
someone else on GAW has a different documentary on this issue, that comes to the same conclusions.
but this is the one I've got.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2ynY9D0sfusP/