It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Big planes cause big damage

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1- They were bought when they were originally done , right? that's my point, and I have no clue how you get from there to having to buy them NOW in order to do an investigation. Strange logic path there. I'm not sure about whether or not your link proves the facts about the PA, nor am I sure about requirements about public entities giving away their property just because they may be publicly funded.

I'm not sure on the laws as I'm not a lawyer. That's why I asked you if you know of a law.

But, I will tell you that my company is testifying in a suit right now. Drawings have been brought into play. I'm not sure who owns those drawings but someone bought them and they are still being reviewed by all investigators. I'm pretty sure that drawings are considered a service and not property.

BTW, this is just because someone didn't take the time to find out what the building's facade was actually constructed of. Also, it's not my company, just so you know. I'm not sure if I should talk much about it as it's still in litigation so that is all.

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by Griff

I'm starting to get the gist of what you're saying now. Yes, perhaps the internet isn't the clearest form of comms.

1-you believe that the plans were hidden until subpeonaed
2-you believe that only a crook tries to hide evidence

1-has been proven untrue - the plans were given up freely.
2-while we're in agreement that a crook will hide evidence, that does not mean that an innocent person will distribute evidence freely. You know my thoughts on this, lawsuit wise and why they're not "out there".

And there is really my only point to you. Just because the plans aren't "out there" doesn't mean that they're crooks, or even do in fact have something to hide, engineering-wise.

IMHO, they're not related.

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by Seymour Butz

I can see what you're saying. I'd have to agree. But, that was my point about Robertson having a vested interest. To not get sued. So, I stand by what I say that he is not impartal.

new topics
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in