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.
Then why not go for the White House? I mean, sure the WTC messed America up. But they had 4 planes, why not crash direclty into THE symbol of America?
Binalshibh reminded Atta that Bin Ladin wanted to target the White House. Atta again cautioned that this would be difficult. When Binalshibh persisted, Atta agreed to include the White House but suggested they keep the Capitol as an alternate target in case the White House proved too difficult.Source
Originally posted by jprophet420
First responders pointed them out many times. (explosions in the basement, lobby, and floors that were not burning). You use the word silly to describe it also, when there in fact had been bombs in the basement used in previous attacks.
As far as CD experts are concerned they met the industry standard definition of doing just that.
Another box of rocks I see...
WASHINGTON, Nov. 2, 2001
FBI: We Know Who Hijackers Were
FBI Says It Has More Than 400,000 Leads
FBI Admits No Evidence Linking Hijackers To 911
May 29, 2003 - 14:40
'left no paper trial.' The FBI director stated flatly: "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot." In describing Mueller's evidence fiasco, Los Angeles Times reporters Erich Lichtblau and Josh Meyer, whose article was reprinted in The Washington Post on April 30, note that: Law enforcement officials say that while they have been able to reconstruct the movements of the hijackers before the attacks - all legal except for a few speeding tickets - they have found no evidence of their actual plotting. The Times reporters acknowledge that Mueller's comments "offer the FBI's most comprehensive and detailed assessment to date of its investigation, remarkable as much for what investigators have not found as for what they have." The FBI director explained away the absence of evidence by making the disingenuous assertion that the hijackers used "meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy and extensive knowledge of how America works" to conceal their scheme.
You post statements saying that the FBI wasnt sure who the hijackers were. So when someone posts a story saying they know exactly who they were it confuses you....I get that.
You have a mouse in your pocket? It is not "we" it is you. You get hung up on no "paper" evidence, and ignore the rest of it.
Originally posted by impressme
STOP LYING! What Robert Muller said is:
]In September 2002, [FBI Director Robert Mueller] told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."
Right, and they share their info only with you, but you can’t post any sources to back up your ridiculous statements, from those websites that sell disnfo T-shirts that preach against the 911 OS is lunacy.
Yes they were successful, because it was an inside job. (Prove it was not?) You can’t.
All lies, where is your proof? If there is no paper trail then why should we believe in hearsay? Governments lie all the time nothing but lies.
If you want people to take you seriously then I suggest you start posting some sources and not your opinions.
Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by RenDMC
Targets were chosen for their symbolism and fact were very large
structures easily identified from air.
WTC was the Tower of the Jews - remember was attacked in 1993
Pentagon was Tower of War
Capitol Building - presumed target of United 93 was Tower of Laws
White House is actually fairly small, surrounded by trees and is difficult
to see from air.
Originally posted by RenDMC
"The complexity and precision of the approach maneuver are nearly impossible to reconcile with the official account that the plane was piloted by Hani Hanjour, an incompetent pilot of even single-engine prop-planes"