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 impressme
reply to post by GoodOlDave
The point is that just because there are areas where information is missing it doesn't give anyone license to fill in the gaps with answers they're manufacturing themselves.
Manufacturing themselves? Dave please demonstrated where they Manufacturing answers?
Originally posted by Darkwing01
I don't think that is the issue Dave, the issue whether you are going to search for more and more ludicrous physical explanations just because the idea that Bush lied is implausible or whether you are going to search for more and more implausible political explanations just because the idea that 9/11 is uniquely resistant to explanation in terms of the scientific method is ludicrous.
I don't find find the idea that Bush lied implausible, at all.
I do find the idea that 9/11 is uniquely resistant to explanation in terms of the scientific method highly implausible indeed.
Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, I'd be happy to- the hijackers were all cavemen, no interceptors were scrambled, Cheney issued a stand down order, all the bomb dogs were withdrawn from WTC, all the Jews working in the WTC stayed home on 9/11, no arab names were on the passenger manifests, noone saw what hit the Pentagon, the Pentagon had anti-aircraft defenses, the planes didn't have any airphones, WTC 7 only had insignificant fires, the list of accusations they're making up to give themselves false credibility goes on and on.
Originally posted by psikeyhackr
He never really says anything interesting or unusual as far as I am concerned. The way historians look at an incident like this is peculiar to me. It is all about documentation and who said what. Physics does not conform to what people say and what people write.