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 syrinx high priest
whay didn't the families bring forward lawsuits ? You don't think they use the internet ?
Originally posted by eyewitness86
In order to convict someone for an alleged offense, three things MUST be proven beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. That is, a certainty to the extent that a reasonable person would judge it to be given the evidence at hand. Those things are : MOTIVE , METHOD and OPPORTUNITY. MEANS is another category but I am including it under METHOD for simplicity.
It is easy, disgustingly easy, to prove in all categories the guilt of the Bush regime in the 9-11 events.
Originally posted by bovarcher
After 6 years, we are still waiting for EVEN ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE which might support any of the MIHOP agenda. None appears to exist.
Originally posted by bovarcher
After 6 years, we are still waiting for EVEN ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE which might support any of the MIHOP agenda. None appears to exist.
Originally posted by bovarcher
I've done some research into CDs, Pepi. It's not a CD, or at least it doesn't look like one to me now. If it did, then I might be on the road to buying into the MIHOP agenda.
This is patently false. A crime is defined in a statute, and it is the elements of that statute that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction. But that is a mere technicality.
Originally posted by eyewitness86
In order to convict someone for an alleged offense, three things MUST be proven beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT. That is, a certainty to the extent that a reasonable person would judge it to be given the evidence at hand. Those things are : MOTIVE , METHOD and OPPORTUNITY. MEANS is another category but I am including it under METHOD for simplicity.
I understand your point, but I have trouble believing that they would have the technical expertise necessary to weigh in on these sorts of issues.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Maybe you can tell me why more and more first responders are speaking out against the official story.
[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]
So that could only mean that when the fire chief decided to PULL IT he meant the building.
We also have the statement by chief Hayden that they were worried if the builidng collapsed it would spread more fires and cause more damage.
[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]
I understand your point, but I have trouble believing that they would have the technical expertise necessary to weigh in on these sorts of issues.
Originally posted by Togetic
[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by bovarcher
Hi, ULTIMA1. That's your interpretation of 'Pull it.' You can't assume that's what was meant by the speaker, unless he actually admits that's what he meant.
For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I understand your point, but I have trouble believing that they would have the technical expertise necessary to weigh in on these sorts of issues.
Originally posted by Togetic
[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]
Kind of like the fact that after 6 years i have not seen any physical evidence or official reports that support the official story.
It has been proven time and time again how many holes are in the official story and how much information is missing or left out of the official story.
[edit on 10-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]
Originally posted by bovarcher
One thing I do know is that your current govt, or agencies within it, would never be capable of mounting any kind of op like 9/11 and successfully covering it up. That, my friend, is inconceivable. I mean, just look at them.
I tend to believe more that our government knew it was going to happen (because of all the warnings) and let it happen ?
Do you know what agencies track terrorist organizations and thier finances? I do, i have several unclassified and classified sites i use for resources
Also have you seen the theory that Al-Qaeda doesn't actually exist, it was made up?
Originally posted by bovarcher
Yes, I think that is credible. More likely laziness, incompetence and ineptitude, the hallmarks of the current US administration, let it happen. But someone may have had detailed information about the actual date. We don't have any firm evidence one way or the other.
That would be interesting. Any chance of sharing this?
Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well if the agencies involved were incompetent why was no one fired. The people from NORAD were all given promotions and awards.
Originally posted by bovarcher
This is a very good question. It's not unique to 9/11 though, we see this kind of nest-feathering all over the world all the time.
Thanks for the links. Very much obliged.