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.

 

Oh No!! Not Another Theory!!!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Based on bsbray11's post in this thread, I thought I'd propose another possible theory for these events. I have no evidence one way or the other, but I would like opinions on the viability of it. I haven't heard this theory ever proposed (although I'm sure it probably has), and if it has been I'd appreciate a link to whereever I could find a better description.

The post I'm referring to there discusses various coincidences that I'm sure many of you have heard. Among others, two of the major ones are security/threat assement levels immediately prior to the attacks, as well as drills being conducted at the time that are of a similar nature of the attacks.

What would be the possibility that, whomever the "enemy" is--be it AQ or some other unknown, they had certain foreknowledge of these two situations (the drills and the lowered security.) With just the lowered security, would that not be a prime time to stage an attack? And if the government is monitoring your communications, and is basing their security announcements based at least in part on those communications, would it not make sense to intentionally misdirect those listening to think that everything is safe for the time being?

Knowing that the drills are being performed at a given time would give an even greater chance of adding insult to injury. Think about it; it's basically saying "Yeah, if you had done this last week you might've been ready. Sucker."

It would still require government involvement of some kind, just to know about the drills at least. And I don't imagine it would be too difficult to find someone to make an extra copy of a training schedule with the right amount of dollars/pounds. In fact, that may even be public record; I've never looked into that myself.

I know this doesn't cover all the coincidences--the financial transactions are still a little out of reach for me in terms of how the would fit. It doesn't necessarily cover any of the other conspiracy evidences laid forth either, such as reports of extra planes during 9/11, family members being carted around by the government, etc. But I'm merely throwing this out to see what you guys/girls/gentlemen/ladies/reptilians/CIA agents might think of it.

Any ideas or comments?




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Well think of it this way. 9/11 was needed to create the Patriot Act. Or should I call it the Anti-Constitution Act. Interestingly enough the 7/7 attacks come only days before the vote to renew parts of the Anti-Constitution Act. Just for good measure a 2nd attack was thrown in like the day before.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I'm not sure but I think those types of events (wargames) aren't publicly announced by the military, so al Qaeda would have to get some kind of inside information from the military. We still don't even know what most of the wargames were, or exactly how many there were, so there obviously wasn't that much information publicly available at the time.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Indy:
That's true, and like I said it doesn't cover all of the coincidences. If we were only dealing with 9/11, it could be that Bush & Co. saw the opportunity caused by the attack and capitalized on it to implement something he'd been wanting to do anyways. But there's also the London incidents to worry about and how they relate (directly or otherwise) to PA2, so that's definitely a strike against the theory I'm proposing. Hmmmm.....

Bsbray11:
First off, I wanted to say I hope you don't mind me referring to your post; I didn't even think of that last night. I don't think it would be that difficult for someone to get info for the war games. I could be wrong, but at the same time a couple of bucks would easily open someone's mouth if you asked them "So, any interesting drills going on soon?" And that would also involve fewer links in the chain than some of the other theories out there--just a grunt who now has his kid's school paid for or something. They could also be "disposed" of in a fashion that wouldn't draw as much attention as if it were a more important player; the public would probably never even notice a random accident occuring a month or two before the attacks that kills a PFC or Corporal. At the very least the connection would never be made.



posted on Jul, 26 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

First off, I wanted to say I hope you don't mind me referring to your post


Of course I don't mind. Freedom of speech.



I don't think it would be that difficult for someone to get info for the war games. I could be wrong, but at the same time a couple of bucks would easily open someone's mouth if you asked them "So, any interesting drills going on soon?" And that would also involve fewer links in the chain than some of the other theories out there--just a grunt who now has his kid's school paid for or something. They could also be "disposed" of in a fashion that wouldn't draw as much attention as if it were a more important player; the public would probably never even notice a random accident occuring a month or two before the attacks that kills a PFC or Corporal. At the very least the connection would never be made.


That's possible, but it would create some interesting problems. The most obvious problems would be created when the suspicion would be thrown back upon al Qaeda, at which point the evidence suggesting the Twin Towers were demolished would be complicated.

The evidence from the WTC, as controversial here as it is, shows pretty conclusively I think that those buildings came down with a little more than just gravity. There were even numerous demolition squibs caught on tape as the buildings free-fell, for Pete's sake. Too many problems, noted mostly in the WTC thread.

So then how would al Qaeda acting alone fit into this? Did al Qaeda plant the explosives and detonate them? If that's the case, then how did they get past security, and why did they fly planes into the buildings too? Why would they even wait for NORAD was busy to launch hijackings to the WTC when they could just bring the buildings down with the push of a button?

The WTC security was overseen by Marvin Bush, one of the president's brothers, which might answer 'how' security was breached to plant explosives. The security was lowered before the Thursday before the attacks by employee accounts, answering 'when' security was likely breached to plant the explosives. Security may have been back to normal on 9/11. FEMA visited the WTC in NYC on Sept. 10 according to Rudolph Giuliani, to set up, allegedly, for a wargame that was to take place on the 12th. Bush said he saw the first plane hit on TV. At least one of them mirrored an exact aspect of the 9/11 hijackings. The nature of the others has not been officially commented on. Larry Silverstein was quoted, and recorded, saying he gave an order to "pull it" in regards to Building 7.

Those are some of the things that the al Qaeda theory would have to compensate or compromise. I don't really see how it could. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence linking these operations and even the attacks themselves to government officials. There is direct evidence linking the WTC Towers with controlled demolition. If these guys were taken to the World Court and a fair trial took place, I'm confident Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld and all would be convicted.

The circumstantial evidence linking the events to al Qaeda, though, is few and full of holes. The hijackers were not on the passenger lists of any of the hijacked flights, and yet still managed to get on without a problem. The suspect list given to us by the FBI is very questionable, seeing as how some of the suspects came forward alive. And the tapes of 'Bin Laden' admitting responsibility were allegedly found in a bombed-out village in Afghanistan, being a 'home movie' of sorts and not aired on al Jazeera, didn't even match with known photographs of Bin Laden. When you compare this sort of evidence with the circumstantial evidence against key government officials, it becomes apparent that the stronger case is against the government officials, at least circumstantially. The smoking gun seems to be the WTC collapses.

Those are some of my thoughts, anyway. Or a lot of rambling. Pretty much, saying al Qaeda did it does not explain a lot of problems with the official story, and with an event like 9/11, it'd be nice to know the truth.




top topics
 
0

log in

join