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.
Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Edgecrusher26
The pages and pages of interviews/reports start on the afternoon of 9/11/01, not someone remembering ten years later. Try actually looking at the records, rather than burying your head in the sand like so many others.
According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building
Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
Thousands of FBI and Secret Service agents worked thousands of hours running down finances/connections, conducting interviews, and a few thousand other things to show what happened. All that evidence is public, all you have to do is find it, and YOU wont accept it because it was done by government agents.
www.911myths.com...
Most truthers fear that link, but there are literally thousands of pages of the released files from the investigations on it...someone who put up and filed the FOIA's to get them......rather than sit around websites whining that there is no evidence.
Originally posted by vipertech0596
Wow, nice collection of falsehoods and lies. Glitzy, sarcastic and wrong.....should keep the average person frothing at the mouth for a while. Till the next such video comes out.
I really get tired of seeing the Larry Silverstein video in support of 9/11 truth. As much as "pulling it" is defined in demolition lingo, It baffles me why someone would go on camera admitting to that specific interpretation, if that would obviously jeopardize the authenticity of the accident.
Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
So are saying that man accidentally slipped in the truth, for all your convenience, admitting he demolished it. Then withdrawals that meaning when confronted. Is it more likely he meant his second meaning, or just didn't realize the impact the interview could have?
So are saying that man accidentally slipped in the truth, for all your convenience, admitting he demolished it. Then withdrawals that meaning when confronted. Is it more likely he meant his second meaning, or just didn't realize the impact the interview could have?
Originally posted by greenCo
It seems to me that you are burying your head into the official history as well, so what´s the difference. You actually buy the story that an entire buiding collapse even though there were no airplanes crashing on them. Do you remember Building 7?? was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on that day. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. So keep your head whenever you want...edit on 12-9-2011 by greenCo because: (no reason given)
Sadly it appears we are on the same side.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
So are saying that man accidentally slipped in the truth, for all your convenience, admitting he demolished it. Then withdrawals that meaning when confronted. Is it more likely he meant his second meaning, or just didn't realize the impact the interview could have?
Typically liars have to cover so many angles of the lie, they forget tons of other angles in the process.
That's why liars can't keep their story straight. Freudian Slip? Indeed.