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.
I can see several parts, that really may have been part of a 757, but when I look at the pictures of the 757, I think there should be more debris.
By the way - Rummy is of german origin, that should tell you something, shouldn't it?
Originally posted by Peloquin
reply to post by thedman
Thanks, thedman! Ok... the comparison of parts of the debris with the pictures of the engines show indeed similarities! So I have to say, that now I tend a bit more to the real possibility, that a plane may have crashed there. But again - as far as I can remember, the plane was not much time in the air, when it came down, so the tanks should have been filled with a lot of fuel. Wouldn't that amount of fuel have caused more damage?
I'm asking this, because as we were told, the amount of fuel in the tanks of the planes that hit the WTC was able to cause a temperature that made the steel of the towers melt down.
edit on 26/6/11 by Peloquin because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by userid1
Originally posted by DIDtm
reply to post by userid1
Do you know the definition of 'exclusion'.
I recommend you look it up.
Call me thick, if you wish....but I doubt you even know what you are implying when you use such a term.
Then again...your avatar is of some weird guy who comes across as an imbecile.
I see you're unable to defend your point that DNA wasn't passed by the FBI to Military Mortuary Affairs. Which is pretty much like all the other "holes" you mentioned that were addressed and you couldn't defend.
So we're left with avatar bashing...so pathetic.
Have a nice day.
Why did the FBI provide no DNA samples to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to make comparisons to the remains from the other crash sites? Why did the FBI only have DNA samples for the alleged NY ten? Why was the FBI so slow in cooperating with the OCME in any way when they were in fact under fire in the public eye of the attacks for their lack of cooperation with other government and intelligence agencies? One would think the FBI would be bending over backwards to appease. Instead it looks more like they were looking for a fix to create a distraction. They got both by way of the OCME positively identifying terrorists with DNA that has no documented accession before it arrived at the OCME.
Do you know the definition of 'exclusion'.
I recommend you look it up.
Call me thick, if you wish....but I doubt you even know what you are implying when you use such a term.
Then again...your avatar is of some weird guy who comes across as an imbecile.
Not so much avatar bashing, but pointing out your inability to comprehend equals one of the same as your avatar.
Why did the FBI provide no DNA samples to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to make comparisons to the remains from the other crash sites? Why did the FBI only have DNA samples for the alleged NY ten? Why was the FBI so slow in cooperating with the OCME in any way when they were in fact under fire in the public eye of the attacks for their lack of cooperation with other government and intelligence agencies? One would think the FBI would be bending over backwards to appease. Instead it looks more like they were looking for a fix to create a distraction. They got both by way of the OCME positively identifying terrorists with DNA that has no documented accession before it arrived at the OCME.
I have ALREADY shared this with you. Your speculation that it is untrue holds no weight, holds no water, and surely makes no sense.
And of course I cannot defend 'holes' in a story. That is why they are 'holes'.
Like I said, I dont claim to know what happened that day
..., I claim to know that we are being lied to in many avenues.
The term to define you escapes me at the moment. Obtuse comes to mind, but your rationale is not that sharp.
By the way...did you look up the term 'exclusion'?
Funny that you argue both sides.
Originally posted by DIDtm
By the way...did you look up the term 'exclusion'?
Originally posted by userid1
Why? I never used it. However, I understood its meaning as did everyone else who read it in its proper context - except you of course.
Originally posted by DIDtm
Originally posted by DIDtm
By the way...did you look up the term 'exclusion'?
Originally posted by userid1
Why? I never used it. However, I understood its meaning as did everyone else who read it in its proper context - except you of course.
Im only to respond to one of your many clueless points.
The fact that you never used the term 'exclusion'.
1 - Show me where I used the term "exclusion" - I dare you in front of all the readers here.
OKAY!....Have a look.
RIGHT HERE
Blatant disillusion on your end.
Right here you claim it as YOUR ARTICLE.
If you cannot keep up with your claims, how are you supposed to have a civilized conversation?
By the way the article is claiming that the alleged hijackers DNA was found by exclusion. Meaning that they matched the DNA from the victims to the DNA they got from relatives. It also means that the DNA that they had left over, was from the terrorists. Found through 'exclusion'.
Just so you understand.