Comment: I'm sorry but a bunch of scattered junk isn't proof

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: What evidence have I failed (see in situ)

I'm sorry but a bunch of scattered junk isn't proof

as much as even I'd like it to be. Listen, I actually bought the original story and I too was at the time "convinced" that it was a plane that hit the building. But then I heard about the supposed plane that crashed into a field leaving nothing but a hole in the ground that I guess was supposed to look like a plane went nose down and then... just disappeared? It melted from "high heat" they said. Then Building 7 just "falls" for no reason??? Ok, something is up here. Then I looked back at the pentagon and saw early shots where all there was present was a round hole. No engine impact points, no wing impact points. You just cannot ignore the facts no matter how much debris there is that LOOKS like plane debris.

If you came to a scene where someone was found dead with what looks like bullet holes in and out of their bodies but found no bullets that exited the body and no holes in any walls, you would either assume that the body was either moved from the original crime scene or that something other than a bullet caused that damage. Here you have bullet holes, possible bullet fragments and no body of a victim but a shoe and a scarf. DO you have enough proof for positive ID of the victim? No, you do not.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin