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.

 

The 9-11 Passenger List

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dariousg
It is very interesting how few of the people actually took money for compensation.


I think to be honest if any of my family were on any of the 'Supposed' planes and knowing whats flying around (Rumours, Conspiracies etc) I dont think I would want any money from the fund because it nothing more than bloody money, I would feel as though the government had bought my family member as part of their master plan. This is in no way a dig at those that have accepted any funds but it may also indicate something that perhaps the families that have'nt have thought about as well.

Would rather not have any money, answers are worth more than any amount of money.




posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
1. An Army Major is not a senior officer and this expert was an expert in radiation from depleted uranium warheads and not missile strikes.
2. He, and the linked website, have an axe to grind and need attention to be paid to their depleted uranium cause. He seems to be generally clueless about cruise missile impacts and effects.
3. The big airplane that flew toward the Pentagon just as a hole appeared in the side of the building that was then engulfed in a large fuel fire never flew away. Therefore, the big airplane hit the building.
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.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 11:24 PM
link   

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.


1. There was high level radiation found at the crash sites. The EPA stated it was from DU from the planes, problem is the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

2. Please show us the amount of radiation that is in a smoke detector and how many smoke detectors it would take to get the radation level found.



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Not sure what the readings were at GZ

In regards to the smokes, The average activity in a smoke detector source is about one microcurie, 1 millionth of a curie.

You can only speculate how many were in each tower. my building has around 2 thousand smokes. It's about 1/3 the size of the WTC buildings. So... 12 thousand of them in the rubble?



posted on Sep, 20 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Not sure what the readings were at GZ


Well it was enough that the EPA blamed it on Depleted Uranium from the planes, even though the 757 and 767 do not carry DU.

Probably too much to blame it on smoke detectors.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Actually you are wrong.

There is a lot more evidence that questions the official story then supports it.

Perhaps you should re-read what I said. Even if what you say was accurate (it is not) that does not change my point. There is more evidence to support the "official story" than any alternate version.

If you think that this is incorrect, please start a thread promoting a specific alternate version at least as detailed as the "official story" is.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
There is more evidence to support the "official story" than any alternate version.


Please show me this evidence that supports the official story. I mean evidence that would hold up in court.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please show me this evidence that supports the official story. I mean evidence that would hold up in court.

There are well over 11000 pages in the NIST report, there are reports from Weidlinger, Edinburgh, Purdue. Papers by Bazant, Greening, Benson, Urich. There is the 911 commission report, the FBIs PENTTBOM investigation etc.

The evidence is extensive, and I notice you have failed to respond to the point of my post. I will not get into some silly debate over which reports are "official" in this thread. Official or not, they support the "official story" and that is all you asked for.

If you wish to present an alternate theory, please do it in its own thread.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
There are well over 11000 pages in the NIST report, there are reports


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.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


Apparently the evidence DOES hold up in court. Remember the Moussaoui trial? Seemed to be good enough evidence for there.

Unless you are accusing the Justice Dept now of being in on your conspiracy too....



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
Apparently the evidence DOES hold up in court. Remember the Moussaoui trial? Seemed to be good enough evidence for there.


And you actually believe the Moussaoui trail was a fair trail? No wonder you believe the official story fantasy.

I am still wating for actual evidence to support the official story.



[edit on 21-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ULTIMA1
 


So you ARE saying the Justice dept is in on it then?

Who else is in on your conspiracy now? The NYPD? The NYFD? Port Authority? How deep does your conspiracy theory go?

With your NSA background, and unlimited resources, you should be able to expose them all, shouldnt you?



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by gavron
So you ARE saying the Justice dept is in on it then?


Please do not misquote me, it really makes you look immature.


With your NSA background, and unlimited resources, you should be able to expose them all, shouldnt you?


Well i will be exposing the official story when i get the information i have been requesting.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   

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.

They would not, NIST is an official investigating agency despite your denials, and I have shown you the law that makes this so. Regardless they would not be laughed out of court as they are composed of experts which would qualify as expert witnesses. I've discussed this with lawyers before now so unless you are about to present one I think it's going to be hard for you to simply dismiss the NIST report in such a manner.


Also the fact that several other reports do not agree with NIST.

Indeed, some reports predict that fire alone would cause collapse. This would obviously be taken into consideration in a court of law but is irrelevant to the case you are presenting.


So either show some real evidence or just admit you have no real evidence to support the official story.

Ultima, if you deny evidence, nobody has any real evidence to support anything. Your tactics here are transparent to everyone.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:00 AM
link   

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.


No it is relevant becasue it questions the official story.


Ultima, if you deny evidence, nobody has any real evidence to support anything.


How can i deny evidence that has not been posted? There is no real evidnece that supports the official story.



[edit on 21-9-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
No it is relevant becasue it questions the official story.

Unless you believe that no planes impacted the towers, how can the towers being susceptible to collapse from just fire possibly question the "official story?"


How can i deny evidence that has not been posted? There is no real evidnece that supports the official story.

Uh, perhaps you should re-read what you posted above. You denied the NIST report. The NIST report is public. Therefore you have denied evidence that has been posted.

You can deny all the evidence you like, but it holds no weight, and the NIST report would most certainly be given serious weight in a court of law. It was compiled and created by several hundred licensed and highly experienced engineers, courts do not have the luxury of simply ignoring this fact as you seem to be attempting to.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent how can the towers being susceptible to collapse from just fire possibly question the "official story?"


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.


Therefore you have denied evidence that has been posted.


I asked for real evidence, not stories.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   

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've pointed out that you are wrong on this several times. No steel skyscraper has. Even so, fire being the primary cause of collapse does not contradict the "official story". How can it? Nobody (within the group we're discussing) denies that the planes impacted the buildings, just that the towers could be more susceptible to fire damage than NIST suggests.


I asked for real evidence, not stories.

Like I said, you deny the evidence, it is obvious to anyone that you are not seriously addressing the facts of the matter and are just claiming the NIST report is inaccurate.



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I've pointed out that you are wrong on this several times. No steel skyscraper has.


No, no steel building over 40 floors has collapsed from fire.


Like I said, you deny the evidence, it


What evidence, show me actual evidence that i have denied?



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NinguLilium
 


That was really well said
I never knew about any of that. I always wondered what happened with the funding, but I never knew it went that deep. I also wonder about the passengers on the Pentagon "flight". I have heard phone calls played on the news and on the net from the people on the planes going to the WTC a million times. Yet, I don't recall ever hearing a phone call from the pentagon flight. Come to think of it, I never met anyone that lost someone on that flight either. Very odd.. I feel so bad for the people that were dragged into that mess on 9-11.. Its very sad.



new topics




 
12
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join