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 dariousg
It is very interesting how few of the people actually took money for compensation.
Originally posted by pteridine
4. The energy of any radiation detected, and hence the radio isotope, cannot be accurately determined with a geiger counter. This means that if there was radiation detected, no one knows what the source was. Certain smoke detectors, for example, contain radioactive materials.
Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Not sure what the readings were at GZ
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Actually you are wrong.
There is a lot more evidence that questions the official story then supports it.
Originally posted by exponent
There is more evidence to support the "official story" than any alternate version.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show me this evidence that supports the official story. I mean evidence that would hold up in court.
Originally posted by exponent
There are well over 11000 pages in the NIST report, there are reports
Originally posted by gavron
Apparently the evidence DOES hold up in court. Remember the Moussaoui trial? Seemed to be good enough evidence for there.
Originally posted by gavron
So you ARE saying the Justice dept is in on it then?
With your NSA background, and unlimited resources, you should be able to expose them all, shouldnt you?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I asked for evidence that would hold up in court. The NIST reports would be laughed out of court since they failed to a proper investigation of building 7, plus the fact that they are not an official investigating agency for 9/11.
Also the fact that several other reports do not agree with NIST.
So either show some real evidence or just admit you have no real evidence to support the official story.
Originally posted by exponent
This would obviously be taken into consideration in a court of law but is irrelevant to the case you are presenting.
Ultima, if you deny evidence, nobody has any real evidence to support anything.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No it is relevant becasue it questions the official story.
How can i deny evidence that has not been posted? There is no real evidnece that supports the official story.
Originally posted by exponent how can the towers being susceptible to collapse from just fire possibly question the "official story?"
Therefore you have denied evidence that has been posted.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Because of several agency reports that state that the fire was the primary cause of the collapse, which we know that no steel building in the US has never collapsed from fire no matter how severe.
I asked for real evidence, not stories.
Originally posted by exponent
I've pointed out that you are wrong on this several times. No steel skyscraper has.
Like I said, you deny the evidence, it