It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by XGovGirl
I thought this might be a good place because it seems people have open minds enough to look at things like 9/11 conspiracy theories and weather conspiracy theories so what is so off the wall about covering up nuclear contamination. It has happened before and it will happen again. If it happened in NO you better believe the authorities didn't want to deal with people knowing.
Do you think Entergy wants the exposure? Do you think the Govt/military wants to deal with questions right now? Can you imagine just the phone calls that would come in, no less the incredible fear the public would have. It would cause chaos in itself, thus why a coverup. It's a pretty simple thing. The govt does not want any extra chaos in this already chaotic time.
Originally posted by XGovGirl
Believe me this is a system I support more then you realize. I'm very involved in military issues and I have a HUGE mouth when it comes to injustices. This I truly believe is fact. If you can't see it then fine don't bash it, but don't expect me to have cold hard proof in the matter of say a
news article...but hey maybe we'll see one in a few months after it is way too late.
I'm sure we will be made aware at some point, unfortunately that being way way too late.
Originally posted by shots
Before anyone asks she has been globaled by a MOD so you will not see her posts.
Originally posted by loam
Originally posted by shots
Before anyone asks she has been globaled by a MOD so you will not see her posts.
No doubt, that is the outcome you were seeking. Frankly, you led her down that path. I'm not defending her outburst, put I am pointing out that you provoked it.
Good job! I shall maintain a long lasting respect for the skillful manner by which you respectfully questioned XGovGirl on her postings. It's nice to know that new members are treated so well and are received with such open arms as yours.
EDIT: And, MODs. Was it necessary to delete the tons of material she posted? Wouldn't just deleting the offending section have been enough? I see no compelling reason the entirety of her posts should have been removed. Moreover, there were many who were attempting to validate, as well as dispute, her assertions. Now those efforts to analyze her material are no longer possible. Bad form, in my view.
[edit on 21-9-2005 by loam]
Originally posted by shots
Now to answer this nonsense
Originally posted by XGovGirl
...but don't expect me to have cold hard proof in the matter of say a
news article...
Don't expect me to have cold hard proof is exactly what I suspected you would come up with.
Originally posted by loam
No doubt, that is the outcome you were seeking. Frankly, you led her down that path. I'm not defending her outburst, put I am pointing out that you provoked it.
Good job! I shall maintain a long lasting respect for the skillful manner by which you respectfully questioned XGovGirl on her postings. It's nice to know that new members are treated so well and are received with such open arms as yours.
[edit on 21-9-2005 by loam]
Originally posted by shots
It is real easy for people to come here and say this is a fact knowing all along it is false information. Most of the time those are the ones who never have one shred of evidence as appears to be the case here.
Her theory was sound but lacked backing therefore the right thing for anyone to do is to challenge her allegations by asking her for proof which in effect up holds the ATS Motto "Deny Ignorance."
Originally posted by loam
If you had bothered to read the entire thread, you would have determined that she was attempting to accomplish that. The fact that she remained unsuccessful in doing so was not a justification to DEMAND she have all of the answers immediately. She provided enough of a circumstantial nature that it was worth further exploration.
I noticed you failed to provide anything of a substantive nature that *disproved* ANY of her assertions. I suppose it is easier to throw "peanuts from the gallery" then it is to do the hard work and present the other side of an argument in a thoughtful, sound, objective and factually supported manner.
Please allow me to share what I've got so far, it might take me a bit to get it all together but I'll start with my initial post days ago about this issue and then go on to back everything up with documented proof from the government.
Originally posted by XGovGirl
EPA Testing not allowed to be done anywhere near effected areas
[edit on 14-9-2005 by XGovGirl]