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 A Fortiori
I started thinking about all of our areas of expertise and what would happen if we did our own 9-11 investigation.
Originally posted by A Fortiori
No YouTube videos done by others. No pointing to other websites.
Originally posted by A Fortiori
No snarking.
Originally posted by A Fortiori
Just an investigation and presentation of findings. You have to review the evidence of both sides as objectively as you can and present it like an academic paper, pro and con (showing you've addressed both).
Originally posted by A Fortiori
We could have people review the testimonies of the presenters and list potential biases (both sides) and their "track record", as well as, their ability to make the testimony.
Originally posted by A Fortiori
This experiment might be helpful in not only investigating the issue and learning to trust our fellow Americans, but seeing how we would rank compared to the 9-11 Commisssion.
Originally posted by A Fortiori
Would anyone be interested?
Originally posted by A Fortiori
I started thinking about all of our areas of expertise and what would happen if we did our own 9-11 investigation.
Originally posted by A Fortiori
I started thinking about all of our areas of expertise and what would happen if we did our own 9-11 investigation.
Originally posted by A Fortiori
. . .Weedwacker, you (and the other pilots) could examine. . .
Originally posted by A Fortiori
Would anyone be interested?
Originally posted by turbofan
It's a great idea, but I can't see it panning out for one specific reason:
We already have high level professionals submitting data for review.
Before any serious ad-hoc/independent "investigation" or collection of experts can take place, credible and experienced individuals/groups with a solid grasp on what the facts are (i.e. SAM missiles, Camp Springs 1 departures, "rush hour" traffic into DCA, P-56 fly-bys, etc) need to be agreed upon.
Originally posted by fromunclexcommunicate
The pretty lady with the wand thingy appears out of a cloud of smoke to say "I'm Glenda the *GOOD* which"?
Originally posted by turbofan
It's a great idea, but I can't see it panning out for one specific reason:
We already have high level professionals submitting data for review.
People are making excuses against the individual instead of the data.
IE: Steve Jones. He's apparently a crack-pot, and "pays" to have his
science published...yet nobody will attack the science constructively.
We already have live debate shows where professionals discuss video
evidence, and science only to be snuffed out by comments like, "e-mail
your questions and we'll get back to you" (< NIST ) never to be
heard from.
I guess what I'm saying is, we already have the scientific papers, the
video testimony, FDR analysis...but those who refuse to see the obvious
will never come to terms.
Also keep in mind, there are people here determined to spin the truth
and prevent us from getting a real investigation.
Let me know if there's anything I can do to help out. I'd like to see a few
people on this forum open their eyes. They know who they are.
Google Video Link |
I mean, you would research Weedwackers position and list the positive points
Originally posted by fromunclexcommunicate
The problem in this example is that much of the modern holographic design information that might have been employed is classified, so we end up finding only crystal acoustic optical modulation technologies from the 1920's to build our interpretation from.
Originally posted by 30_seconds
For example, Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, has compiled a fantastic presentation based on his and others' research.
To me, this was a more well done and professionally executed investigation into the collapse of these buildings than anything I've seen the government hand our way.
As far as I'm concerned, an independent analysis has been done, and I find it's conclusions convincing.
Originally posted by tomfrusso
I thought that was what is going on here at ATS - independent investigation and scientific analysis?
You guys have had 8 freak'n years to perform a "scientific study" but, what have you come up with? The theories from 911 truethers are endless....
I don't think I could name them all, from holographic planes, super thermite, controlled demolition, lasers from space, alien involvement, bush did it, cheney pushed the button, the u.s. military ordered to stand down, guliani - "pull it" statement, the freak avery and his edited versions of 9/11 video.......Oh and the new one I read just the other day - remote controlled planes.......the list goes on and on.
Since you guys believe there was a conspiracy, there is no way you can perform a NON-BIAS investigation. You have a tremendous conflict of interest.
Also, since you DISPUTE EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORTH BY THE SCIENTIFIC AND ACADEMIC COMMUNITIES...where are you going to start?
I believe your 8 years too late. Because, now, there is too much B.S. out there. All your arguing, bickering and so called "experts" are just not credible.
Just to make my point,
The last show brought on by the National Geographic channel was "dismissed" by your movement simply because (according to your "experts" that sat in and viewed the program - including the idiot averey) It did not meet there criteria. They even had the guy who conducted the experiments on the phone and could not ask him a legitamate question.
This special was "written off" by you guys as propaganda and disinformation by your "experts"
I'M NOT HERE TO PICK A FIGHT WITH YOU GUYS, BUT,
the math you're using is only going to add up to your preconceived conclusions because you already believe in the "conspiracy".
Also, where are you going to get your evidence from? Is the government going to let you in to these hangers and sites where the materials are for you to conduct your experiments? And what kind of experiments are you going to conduct that the experts have not?
Good luck - I'll be watching to see what comes of this.