Magically Healing Columns

[marky 54]

[Roadrunner]

You claim that planes hit the Twin Towers. Your claim came first. Now you must prove it. And you can't. You know you can't. 6 years later your lies are exposed as lies. They fail the evidence test. They come from sources that are completely unaccountable.

Case Closed

[chek]

[Roadrunner]

Ask your questions on a separate thread and I will answer you without delay.

Now, will you finally answer the 3 questions on the BBC and its television coverage on 9/11/2001 ? Or shall I just stop asking ?

[truthseeker john]

[Stefan]

No, the onus is to disprove planes.

Nothing can be 100% proved except our own existence and then only to ourselves.

The 9/11 Truth movement has taken the official story and proved certain parts wrong - that is the logical method.

The idea that the starting point should be that everything was faked on computer and move onwards is pure nonsense.

We saw planes on TV.

Eyewitnesses, including a person I've met, saw planes.

The damage is consistent with planes.

That is our starting point

Now you can argue that we saw faked images on TV, that people who saw planes are lying, that the damage is not consistent with planes, and you can attempt to prove those claims.

But you don't.

Everyone of the arguments above have failed to stand up to even gentle scrutiny, that is why the overwhelming majority of people do not believe and indeed find laughable your claims.

Your faked images "research" is a joke. Your claims that people are lying are based on the above "research" and you continually dodge the requests to explain how anything but a plane could cause the damage we saw.

If you want us to dismiss evidence for planes you have to demonstrate each of your claims, and it has to stand up in debate. So far, you've presented those claims and then called anyone who brings them into question either "trolls" or any number of ad hominem slurs.

You have to do better.

[gruts]

^^^ what he said.

the onus is on people who believe in no planes hit the towers to provide some plausible reason for others to believe it.

you can jump to conclusions based on subjective interpretation of low quality, nth generation compressed clips with multiple compression artefacts and piss poor resolution until the cows come home - but it will never be credible proof of anything.

especially if you also haven't got a clue how to explain any of the major implausibilities of the scenario you are presenting - like how the impact damage was created in the absence of a plane - and if all the claims you do make have more plausible explanations.

bitching about lack of better quality video doesn't change the fact that you can't credibly jump to the conclusions to which you have jumped with the available material.

it's like you're standing up in court and saying "well m'lud, my evidence doesn't actually have any credibility, but it's all I've been able to get - so couldn't we just pretend that it's credible?"

sorry, but no.