It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by PeruvianNT
You have got to be kidding. Like is not 4,000,000 other threads on THIS EXACT SAME TOPIC. WOW!
Originally posted by spines
Forgive me if I am off target in my assumption.
Many people who are, like myself, on the fence still about the extent of government involvement/coverup/misinformation (if any), seem to want people to make up their minds for them.
Read the information, get both sides of the argument and then make up your own mind.
In my opinion, the best site to 'take it all in' is this one.
Originally posted by Sroek
There are countless sources of information and thorough analyses on the 9/11 conspiracy. If you're too lazy to research it yourself, then you're not worth anybody's time here. I'm not being a d*ck, I'm just being blunt.
Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from
which a person may reasonably infer the existence or non-
existence of another fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime
may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while
not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Originally posted by Cuhail
reply to post by Mister E
Well, that's a good question. I have an answer, you decide if it's good or not.
The highjackers were just that. Hijackers. They did what they trained to do and that is hijack airliners and crash them into the WTC, etc.
I'd even go so far as to say they took what was fed to them and ran with it.
They weren't rounded up before they could attack, like so many other terror cells just like them. They were successful.
Look into the their lives as they prepared this attack. Look into the backgrounds of the hijackers. You'll see the pre-made paths they followed to their ultimate destination.
They were set upon that path and it was cleared to let them advance un-impeded.
They were pawns.
In a major rebuke to the Bush administration’s theories of presidential power — and in an equally stinging rebuke to the bipartisan political class which has supported the Bush detention policies — the U.S. Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision (.pdf), declared Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional. The Court struck down that section of the MCA because it purported to abolish the writ of habeas corpus — the means by which a detainee challenges his detention in a court — despite the fact that the Constitution permits suspension of that writ only “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion.”