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.

 

Looking For 911 Truths? You Will Not Likely Find It on These Websites

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Lets be honest here, both sides have opinions and speculation. IF there was a true independent investigation with citizens and scholars of both persuasions with no ties or benefits from either conclusion entreated with following all leads, inconsistencies and clues no matter how seemingly unlikely, we might have less speculation and certainly less bickering at the end of it.




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 

We only support the proven scientific facts, nothing more. As far as the OS it is mostly proven lies.
The last poster I responded to decided to make up a story in supporting the OS and when confronted about it he made every excuse to not show proof, because he was not being truthful.

We are in here to dig for the truth of 911 and assumptions and opinions are not facts.
If that’s what everyone wants then lets just turn ATS into a common chat board and mud-sling our opinions and call it OUR truths.

It seems most people in here do not know how to debate. If we are looking for opinions perhaps we all should buy the National Enquire, or look at mainstream News media they have plenty.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 

We only support the proven scientific facts, nothing more. As far as the OS it is mostly proven lies.


What about the study done by MIT? The one that indicated that it was possible for the WTC towers to have collapsed from airplanes and fire?
It was full of science and detailed explinations and equasions explaining how they arrived at the conclusion.


web.mit.edu...



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by iamcpc
 



This may be true. The problem is that 2343 demolition experts say controlled demolition and 2343 demonlition experts say airplane crash and fire.

Do you have a sources for this information?


I am still waiting for your proof of [color=gold]2343 you have only provide 38 people.



1195 architectural and engineering professionals
and 8111 other supporters including A&E students
who will disagree with you and your very few

cms.ae911truth.org...

I have, 1195 architectural and engineering professionals who will disagree with you and have gone on to sign a petition for a new investigation.

Here are plenty more people who do not agree with you.


200+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
1,100+ Engineers and Architects
250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals


www.patriotsquestion911.com...

Looks like 38 people who have their heads buired in the sand compare to some of our experts. still waiting for you to prove your [color=gold]2343



[edit on 14-5-2010 by impressme]


I just typed a number and made sure it was the same number that I had typed for the experts supporting truther theories in an attempt to point out that in order to accept one theory you have to ignonore half of the science and experts.

Saying "I think we need to investigate the possiblity that explosive were used" is different than saying "I think explosives were used".





[edit on 17-5-2010 by iamcpc]



new topics

top topics
 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join