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 mondegreen
I see a lot of highjacking of the thread.
A. the engine is not from a 757 but is a arxicillary 3007ab engine possibility only. Rolls Royce spokeperson did not identify engine as being made by them or being from a 757. Six different types of engines go on 757 worldwide. Spokesperson is not expert on engines he does not count.
Originally posted by snafu7700
i've been here a year and have been very hesitant to comment on this subject because of a combination of the high emotions and close minded comments from individuals on both sides of the argument. however, after reading this particular thread i have two comments:
1. iw for a fact that a commercial airliner hit the pentagon. i know an individual who, as far as i am concerned, is unimpeachable. he was there and saw the whole thing.....cant prove it (and i know i will never be able to convince any of you), but as i said, i'm convince knod.
hello from the uk ,
i am struggling here ,, could someone tell me that there are more eye witnesses who actually saw the plane hit the building ?
was the whole area deserted for some reason ?
are we saying that there are absolutely no private, cell phone , or any
kind of footage at all , considering the magnitude of the event ,
are we trying to determine what exactly here?
I CAN NOT BELIEVE FOR 1 SECOND THAT THIS HUGE EVENT WAS.NT SEEN BYE AT LEAST A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ?
[edit on 2-8-2006 by snafu7700]
Originally posted by Cotechs
The problem now is all of the "I was right there!" guys. Some say they saw a missile...some saw a small plane...some a hang-glider with dynamite strapped to his chest.
It's hard to believe these orals. As much as I know in my heart that the Pentagon was NOT hit by a passenger jet...I will not believe anyone's testimony without visual proof.
Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Ya know, this guy would probably have alot more credibility in my mind, if he, oh I don't know, didn't wait 5 freaking years to bring this point up! It'd be the equivalent of a witness coming forward 5 years after the O.J. trial, gee thanks pal, that's helpful. I mean come on, ovbiously this guy didn't have too big of an ethical issue with the Pentagon attack not for half a decade anyway, but now he does? I suppose I'd be a neo-con if I questioned his motives.
You have decent sources showing this?