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: ParasuvO
originally posted by: audubon
originally posted by: Willtell
Number 9 is a new one to me, and seems to be proof on the side of the truthers who don’t think a plane hit the pentagon.
I just gave it a listen. I think that a transcription of the reporter's statements would miss the inflections and stresses in his voice.
Put baldly, he says: "There's no evidence that a plane hit anywhere near the Pentagon."
But when you listen to it, he says: "There's no evidence that a plane hit anywhere near the Pentagon."
What he's doing is actually saying that this wasn't a near-miss, it was a direct strike. He then goes on to talk about the bits of wreckage scattered around, saying that there are no large sections like tailfin or wings discernible. He's painting a picture for viewers, since news cameras were being kept at a distance, not promoting a controversial new theory.
This is laughable, in its entirety.
He is plainly saying, as EVERYONE KNOWS, that nothing AT ALL that comes from a plane could be seen, and we know it from the pictures.
The video he made years later in reverent fearful apology said nothing of the sort of what you are saying either.
He and everyone else there can think for themselves and realize no plane had hit.
In fact none of them at any point talked about planes until they were asked or TOLD about the planes hitting WTC.
Nothing about the damage, or any part of the story leads any logical mind to think a plane would have caused that damage.
Missile, anything else, not a plane.
originally posted by: NthOther
These past sixteen years have taught me one thing:
The American public is every bit as stupid as the perpetrators of the attack planned on them being.
Sixteen years and you f# retards are still bickering about the politics of a system that slaughters its own people and laughs in your face about it.
Sixteen years has taught me that America deserves to have its ass handed to it by whoever has the balls to get it done.
Ripe for the harvest.
Magical realism is defined as what happens when a highly detailed, realistic setting is invaded by something too strange to believe.
originally posted by: SuicideKing33
a reply to: neutronflux
No, do your own research. You all love to get mired down in the planes/demolition aspect huh?
P.S. Your sources suck.
originally posted by: Black_Fox
1. 9/11/01 Police Radio Transmission: "The Van Exploded"
2.911 - Dancing Israelis
3.9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon
4.9/11 - firemen , police saying there are bomb's in the buildings
5.Fabled Enemies Extra: WTC Eyewitness Barry Jennings
6.Explosions in the WTC basement before the Plane struck the tower.
7.9/11 Firefighters Reveal Bombs Destroyed WTC lobby
8.9/11 Flight 93 Crash Conspiracy in Under 5 Minutes
originally posted by: AnkhMorpork
a reply to: neutronflux
They didn't really "collapse" at all.
What you believe and are asking people to believe is outside the realm of possible and you want to argue a case based on credulity?