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.
I believe this thread is nothing but bait for all.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Yes that means that almost none exists but that's my point.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
They remind me of angry judgmental Christian fundamentalist moral police types who are really closet sexual deviants.
Obvious, I have a question that seems to have never been brought up. It appears that every person you list as a witnesses that states anything about fuel, either smelling, seeing it burn, smelling flesh burn, witnessing the actions of the firefighters comes from articles that are no longer available and can't be found. All links are gone for some reason. I'm talking about the original articles that quote these witnesses. Everything available on the net is just quotes from the main source, but no original source is out there. At least not to my knowledge. Can you or Craig verify this? If so, why is this?
Originally posted by hybridx
You guys have a great debate going here I am just afraid that the OP is not going to accept anything you have to put out there. I respect the OP's intent of the thread but I really do believe there is nothing anyone can provide that contrasts his views that will be accepted as proof. Maybe I am wrong.
But as I stated before, IF anyone did provide NEW PROOF they would be up to their necks in some serious poo for witholding evidence on a federal case.
Originally posted by hybridx
Not trying to offend ya' OP but man, you have to have a solid scenario yourself before you challenge anyone. I can argue peoples ideas all day unless if I dont state EXACTLY where I stand from the get-go and that seems like what you are doing.
Originally posted by coughymachine
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Yes that means that almost none exists but that's my point.
And this is why I think this thread is poor - a waste of time. Maybe even a distraction. I'd far rather see some more effort being put into either verifying or else retracting the claims made about the feasibility of the VDOT flyover.
I'm sure this rather tasteless assessment works both ways.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The point of this thread is that people who choose to dismiss this corroborated hard evidence are rejecting evidence and scientific reasoning
Therefore they can not be considered true skeptics or critical thinkers and they reveal a confirmation bias.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
The point of this thread is that people who choose to dismiss this corroborated hard evidence are rejecting evidence and scientific reasoning based on nothing but pure faith in what the government tells them.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
You seem to agree with this notion yet STILL have a problem with this thread for some reason.
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Call it tasteless all you want but if the shoe fits....
Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT
Corroboration is the scientific method used by investigators to determine which claims by eyewitnesses are correct.
Originally posted by nicepants
You're rejecting the "hard evidence" that AA77 hit the pentagon.
Now who's biased?