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.
Have you ever been to a plane crash site? I have. Three separate times where I was early on the scene.
Originally posted by yeahright
reply to post by shortsticks
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Do you see the little box around everything I posted in this thread? I assume your powers of observation are sufficient for that. It means I won't be closing this thread, or moderating it in any way.
I have no problem with you telling your story. I do take issue with your calling it something other than what it is. When I see "first hand knowledge" in a title, that's what I expect to read in the thread. That's not what this is.
"First hand knowledge of Bigfoot rampaging through a house", doesn't mean I saw the damage days later and drew a conclusion.
You have no first hand knowledge. You couldn't testify to anything other than your claim that you personally failed to observe anything after the fact which would lead you to conclude a plane hit the Pentagon.
Now if people find that worthy of discussion, have at it. I'm out.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Originally posted by shortsticks
Well I know that a slab of the pentagon was there inclined when I first arrived, and then it didn't fall completely until later. Exact sequence of events? Sure I can't say. Perhaps I shouldn't have implied that I saw the original hole that can be found by a quick internet search. If that causes holes in my account, then good lol.
Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by underduck
aye since 2007 thanks.
And let me state. I don't care about the official line.
I want the truth.
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by getreadyalready
Have you ever been to a plane crash site? I have. Three separate times where I was early on the scene.
But yours wer not traveling 500mph into a stationary object.
Originally posted by hooper
Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by yeahright
technically correct. inherently incorrect. I hope you and others can understand. My first-hand knowledge of the debris is: FIRST HAND. No plane parts. how is this so hard? I don't understand. Try again, if you please.
So, according to you, on 9/12/2001 there was a complete and total collection of all the "debris" all fully assembled and you saw no plane parts?
what proof has a first-person account to give, I ask you? were you there? doubt it. if you were, you'd probably have something better to call me on. but you haven't. so you're not winning, you know...for the record and all. just sayin.
Originally posted by underduck
Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by grey580
omg, if you are here to tell the official story, I think you're on the wrong forum, bud!
Ummm Grey580 has been around for a couple of years. You have been around a couple of days. I think he/she knows a little bit more about these forums than you. Just saying.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by getreadyalready
The eyewitnesses who were there at the time of the impact have differing opinions, the only released camera footage lacks any evidence of an airliner, so this person's first-hand knowledge is just about as close as one can possibly get to "facts."
Except for the witnesses who saw a plane.
That is exactly why I say they had differing opinions. There were many eyewitnesses, and many of them saw different things. Some saw the plane over here, some over there, some heard it but didn't see it, some even claim to have seen it miss the Pentagon and fly off.
There is no clear-cut fact, there is no clear-cut video that has been released, there is no clear-cut radar footage, everything is a shade of gray.
So, when it comes to this 9/11 story, our OP here is as close to first-hand knowledge as we can get.
The part that I always thought suspicious, was the trajectory.
Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by underduck
aye since 2007 thanks.
And let me state. I don't care about the official line.
I want the truth.
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by getreadyalready
Have you ever been to a plane crash site? I have. Three separate times where I was early on the scene.
But yours wer not traveling 500mph into a stationary object.
If you didn't arrive until the 12th there's no way in hell you saw the impact hole. The whole 55-65ft section collapsed within 35-40 minutes of the initial impact.
[paraphrase]
The hole was small and it didn't collapse until After I was there on the 12th
[/paraphrase]
Your words, not mine.
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by snowspirit
The part that I always thought suspicious, was the trajectory.
Look at the Google sat view.
If you had a choice I think you would have chosen the same wedge. It had a long aproach without tall structures in the way.
Originally posted by shortsticks
Originally posted by underduck
Originally posted by shortsticks
reply to post by grey580
omg, if you are here to tell the official story, I think you're on the wrong forum, bud!
Ummm Grey580 has been around for a couple of years. You have been around a couple of days. I think he/she knows a little bit more about these forums than you. Just saying.
I don't have a history per se yes it's true. That can work in someone's favor or not, can it not?
Originally posted by crankyoldman
reply to post by shortsticks
Thanks for sharing. I have a question for you that might sound a bit complicated but I think your answer will be very helpful for many.
The preamble. The "official" story of any event is the explanation that is given, in not too specific detail, within the first 24 hours of the actual physical event. This is a known, time tested, technique that exploits a defect in the brain. Once the official story is established as FACT, then everyone who has heard the official story is then charged with accepting it, or PROVING the story is false - proving it as false is nearly impossible. Instead of people showing what the story is through the process of experiencing the events details without prejudice, the brain has to debunk the official story first - the brain defect is that the brain is mostly unwilling to do so. It is like asking a computer to just "ignore" the code just written, it can't, and if you need to keep the unwanted code in place, the workaround code can't be a huge challenge or pain to accomplish.
The question: I'll have to assume that you were told the "official story" in the first 24 hours, PRIOR to you going on site. What was your mental process when you saw things that didn't jibe with the official story? How did you overcome the need to accept the official story, in the face of debris that didn't match up to that story?