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.

 

CNN First Blamed OBL at 9:54 AM on 9/11

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I was watching the CNN feed today and the first mention of OBL comes at 9:54am...

MAN THAT IS SOME GOOD DETECTIVE WORK! They only claimed to know it was even a terrorist attack about 15minutes before that, so they solved the crime of the century in FIFTEEN MINUTES?

The had the whole thing figured out in under an hour??? Give me a break. Neither building had even collapsed yet, but they knew OBL was behind it?

What a load of horse apples.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]




posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Good point. I'm wondering, was that Eastern time, Pacific or what, do you know? I do agree, whether it's 15 minutes or several hours, it's still not enough time to solve anything. I remember thinking about that at the time.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
wait a minute....

Now, I don't recall for sure, but I believe what was said by CNN, back on 9/11/01, was that the attack seemed to have a "fingerprint" of Osama.... or something like that... not that they knew for sure or that they suspected it was him....

at least thats what I remember... I could be wrong though...


CX

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Did they claim it WAS him, or that he was pretty much one of the top suspects?

I remember a lot of the news channels that day were immediately stating OBL as a prime suspect, but thats different from claiming he actually did it.

CX.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Could they have made that assumption because OBL was already in the spotlight from previous attacks?



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
How could it be a "fingerprint" of Bin laden? His terror group NEVER did anything this substancial....not to mention on civilians. That was NOT what they did up until that moment. So, how could it appear as Bin laden's handywork when there was no precident for this in the past?



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by annestacey
Could they have made that assumption because OBL was already in the spotlight from previous attacks?


what attacks? The '93 WTC bombing?

Please REMEMBER that the 'FOUND' ATTA's passport on 9/11 also... It flew on a plane with him, smashed into a building, flew out of his pocket, through a fireball, out of the building and onto the street below where in a MOUNTAIN of debris spread for miles it was FOUND on the same day...

NEAT coincidence.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by annestacey
Could they have made that assumption because OBL was already in the spotlight from previous attacks?


what attacks? The '93 WTC bombing?

Please REMEMBER that the 'FOUND' ATTA's passport on 9/11 also... It flew on a plane with him, smashed into a building, flew out of his pocket, through a fireball, out of the building and onto the street below where in a MOUNTAIN of debris spread for miles it was FOUND on the same day...

NEAT coincidence.


Haha... funny! I was referring to the attacks on the US Embassy in Kenya (and another one almost simultaneously... maybe Nigeria?) and the USS Cole.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I was simply stating that I only remember CNN as saying it could have been....OBL, not that it definitley was....

thats all....



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by annestacey
Haha... funny! I was referring to the attacks on the US Embassy in Kenya (and another one almost simultaneously... maybe Nigeria?) and the USS Cole.


Main issue... those were not domestic attacks... shouldn't they have been thinking Timothy McVeigh type by the same logic?

Oh, and ATTAs passport should probably have been covered in blood if he had to slash peoples throats with a box cutter to get control of the plane. We are talking GALLONS of blood just to kill the pilot and co-pilot.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by annestacey

Haha... funny! I was referring to the attacks on the US Embassy in Kenya (and another one almost simultaneously... maybe Nigeria?) and the USS Cole.


The point is, those are all military and/or government attacks. Not civilians. WTC was mostly civilians with some military. What does Bin laden have to gain by attacking civilians? I'm sure he said "hey, I know what, I want to be on the run the rest of my life when I have kidney failure and need dialysis often". Yup, that's how it went I'm sure.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
It was a logical assumption to make at the time.

I remember the first thing I thought when I saw it was "It's Al-Qaeda".

Those interested in international affairs pre-9/11 would know his status on the FBI most wanted list and that he had been responsible for acts of terrorism.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Oh, and ATTAs passport should probably have been covered in blood if he had to slash peoples throats with a box cutter to get control of the plane. We are talking GALLONS of blood just to kill the pilot and co-pilot.



Good point. I guess the fireball it flew out of probably chared the blood off?.....oh wait, the passport was in pristene condition. Doesn't fit well in my stomach.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join