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 exponent
It did not hit the ground before impact, it hit a camera pole, took a chunk out of a bush, hit 5 lamp poles, a construction trailer, the concrete ground structure and then impacted the building. Many people saw the impact directly, and I can show you their statements if you would like.
an event witnessed by over 100 people
Originally posted by winston_jones
Better still, why not find some of the witnesses, including police officers, take them back to where they were that day and ask them to go over again what they saw. Ask them to consult maps and draw diagrams.
Since you seem particularly convinced of the Pentagon stuff I really recommend taking a look at this:
Originally posted by CynicalM
Care to show this info?? Videos please or atleast something...
Originally posted by dereks
So exactly which law did that break?
Originally posted by winston_jones
Originally posted by dereks
So exactly which law did that break?
The national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, requires that, without exception, the rubble of buildings over 10 stories tall that collapse must be retained for analysis.
Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by winston_jones
We therefore do not even know whether those engine parts belonged to the planes that hit the buildings,
And this is the reason the truthers have zero credibility, so just which planes were they from?
Originally posted by winston_jones
by simply doing a routine forensic analysis that should have been done anyway!
Originally posted by exponent
This is one of the theories I was talking about. They ignore all evidence except the recollections of people years after the event, and then they selectively choose which ones to believe to come up with a theory that even they cannot explain the rationale behind.
Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by winston_jones
by simply doing a routine forensic analysis that should have been done anyway!
How do you know that it was not done?
Originally posted by winston_jones
Source here
The fact that, nine years on, there is still debate over the identity of the planes is because this routine procedure was not followed.
Originally posted by dereks
Only people claiming there is any doubt over the identity of the planes are conspiracy theorists, who are known to constantly tell lies!
Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by winston_jones
" ... over 80% of the steel rubble was whisked away and sold to China before accident investigators could get their hands on it. "
This has been proven to be a lie , over and over , and over again .
Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by winston_jones
" Just think how many zero credibilty truthers would be silenced ... "
None . Zero . Nada . Those same truthers would continue with their usual rhetoric . As they currently do .
Look at all the conspiracy theories that have been proven to have no merit . Look at all those that have been proven to be outright lies .
Originally posted by Skinon
Just been reading this topic lately and of course its the 9 year anniversery, so it's fresh in alot of peoples minds...
Anyway, this topic is more to for me to try and figure out how people STILL hopelessly cling to the OS BS.
So imagine if you will, that on that fateful day, it was admitted (for whatever reason) that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.
Now all of a sudden these 'crazy' conspirisists come out claiming that it was actually brought down by jetfuel and weakening of 'vital' support structures. Now i find if you try to spin this around, you can actually realise how REDICULOUS the OS actually is. It's funny because then you would really be calling them crazy conspiricy theorists haha..
Originally posted by winston_jones
They chose witnesses who were located in elevated positions that gave a good view of both the skies and the building. The great majority of witness had POVs that were largely obscured by trees or the roofs of their own cars.
I do not share the authors' conclusions as to what actually happened but their basic research is solid and should not be dismissed lightly.