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.

 

So, Who Did It?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
This is a break-off from the thread Full Video: Explosions Before Both WTC Collapses and before WTC7 Collapse - You Will Believe.

The idea is for us to try to come to some conclusion as to who had the ability and the motivation to demolish the WTC Towers.


Who could have done it?

-- Who had the means (construction drawings, explosives, security, workers, etc.), the motives, etc. to actually rig the buildings?

We can consider...

A) Factions of the US Government/Military, and/or Corporate Powers
B) Same, except Israeli
C) al Qaeda
D) Some combo of the above
E) Other


There's a lot to go into and consider, but personally, I think A and B would have the best chances, with C being a much longer shot, but maybe there are others that I'm not even taking into account; that's just me.

So where do we take it from here?




posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
It's my understanding--and I could well be wrong--that the blueprints were pretty much public domain before the attacks. If they weren't, I'm sure they wouldn't have been too difficult to obtain.

Aside from the accessibility, how necessary are the blueprints in performing a demolition? I mean, couldn't anyone with decent demolition experience take a reasonable guess as to where to put the charges? It may be a bit of a stretch as an example, but a hacker doesn't needs the source code to Windows to find a security flaw. It makes it much easier, but it's more than possible without the code. I would imagine it would be similar with performing a demolition.

That said, I would think any of those you mentioned--among many other groups with or without motive--could obtain the blueprints through legitimate (or not-so-legitimate) means.

Just for the record, I don't really subscribe to the demo theory, but this seems interesting enough.



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I can't comment specifically on who could do something like that (I am not even 100% certain that explosives were really used, but that's another matter). What I found intriguing was a Discovery channel program about demolition engineers (The Blasters, I believe it was called). I was shocked to find that most of the world's best demolition engineers have NO FORMAL TRAINING and not even a college degree. They said demolition engineering is the type of science that you have to "learn by experience". I wonder if anyone has persued this angle in regards to finding out the architects of 9/11. Instead of looking for pilot training, what about demolition training? Just a thought ...



posted on Feb, 13 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   
A) Factions of the US Government/Military, and/or Corporate Powers
B) Same, except Israeli
C) Same, except Britain

I'd say that British involvement is even GREATER than Israeli.

The thing is that these rogue factions span intelligence of all these three primary agencies but have allegience to none of them.

This is done in the interest of the international entities behind the military industrial complex and naturally globalization in general.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
My present opinion has several variations. Here are some of my favorite variations.

1. The U.S. planned the attack and tricked some radical muslims into piloting the jets.
2. The US and Israel co-planned the attack and tricked some radical muslims into piloting the jets.
3. My personal favorite: Israel planned the attack and tricked some radical muslims into piloting the jets, the U.S. found out about the attack in advance but didn't know Israel was behind it, and the US allowed it to go forward to use for political gain.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Ah, Jack! I forgot about the Brits. I always give the European nations too little credit -- their people may be a little more sensible in general but the governments themselves are no doubt corrupt as well.


The thing is that these rogue factions span intelligence of all these three primary agencies but have allegience to none of them.


Yeah, and with the Brit Intel especially, the US trades back and forth where gathering the info themselves would be illegal (ie, the whole NSA wiretapping thing). It's no problem at all to just have Brits spy on US citizens and give the info to the NSA. I don't even think that's illegal. And we probably do it back to their citizens similarly.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   


3. My personal favorite: Israel planned the attack and tricked some radical muslims into piloting the jets, the U.S. found out about the attack in advance but didn't know Israel was behind it, and the US allowed it to go forward to use for political gain.


I kind of like this one, but being Jewish I am slightly offended. Then
again I hate Israelis. They are pretty much all jerks, at least from my
experience.

However there is still the question as to why the Israelis warned the
US of the pending attacks.

Also I think the idea that some Muslim terrorists, who hardly knew how
to fly, hijacked planes, and without guidance from Air Traffic Controllers
or a flight plan, managed to fly pretty much straight to their destinations.
Doesn't logic dictate that they would have had to zig zag a little bit to
figure out where they were going? Perhaps there is something about
the process of flying airplanes that I don't know.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by count zero


3. My personal favorite: Israel planned the attack and tricked some radical muslims into piloting the jets, the U.S. found out about the attack in advance but didn't know Israel was behind it, and the US allowed it to go forward to use for political gain.


I kind of like this one, but being Jewish I am slightly offended. Then
again I hate Israelis. They are pretty much all jerks, at least from my
experience.


I have nothing against Jews, but I do think that Israel as a nation benefited from the attacks as it gave them major support against other middle-eastern nations.


However there is still the question as to why the Israelis warned the
US of the pending attacks.


That's a good question and I hadn't thought of it.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoganCale

Originally posted by count zero


3. My personal favorite: Israel planned the attack and tricked some radical muslims into piloting the jets, the U.S. found out about the attack in advance but didn't know Israel was behind it, and the US allowed it to go forward to use for political gain.


I kind of like this one, but being Jewish I am slightly offended. Then
again I hate Israelis. They are pretty much all jerks, at least from my
experience.


I have nothing against Jews, but I do think that Israel as a nation benefited from the attacks as it gave them major support against other middle-eastern nations.


However there is still the question as to why the Israelis warned the
US of the pending attacks.


That's a good question and I hadn't thought of it.

Well think about it!

Also, no one has benefited more from the attacks (economically)
than American Corporations.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I believe that the whole thing was set in action a while ago and it just took Bush getting elected to give the people a chance to do it.

Everyone else hit it on the head. Osama didnt benefit from attacking us. If he did plan and do everything why wouldnt he be singing it from the hills? American is the only one that has gained from 9-11. This administration uses it for justificaiton for any action we take regardless if it is genuinely in the context of fighting terrorism.

If this government has nothing to hide why do we hide so much ?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by plopunisher
I believe that the whole thing was set in action a while ago and it just took Bush getting elected to give the people a chance to do it.

Everyone else hit it on the head. Osama didnt benefit from attacking us. If he did plan and do everything why wouldnt he be singing it from the hills? American is the only one that has gained from 9-11. This administration uses it for justificaiton for any action we take regardless if it is genuinely in the context of fighting terrorism.

If this government has nothing to hide why do we hide so much ?

And if Osama (Usama) did it, why has he not done anything else here,
it is honestly easy as pie if here are so many "extremists" in this country.
Hell anyone can make a bomb with the right material and literature. Just
look at the "Anarchist's Cookbook". Why have we not seen bombings
here like in Jerusalem? Better yet, why haven't we see any bombings
here if their intent was to destroy us? Are we now to believe in the
compentency of the intelligence community that "failed us" on 9/11?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Oh, I'm 100% positive Osama bin Laden wasn't involved. He said it point blank and he used to take credit even for things he didn't do. And the only place where he claimed to have taken part in the planning was a tape of someone who vaguely resembled a fat version of bin Laden I like to call "Santa Claus bin Laden"... It wasn't bin Laden.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I dont know i dont have all the eveidence. But its highly unlikely a midde eastern terrorist group has the expertise and guidance to carry out huge attacks on America. So i really don't know? Was it Islamic Extremist I don't believe so, Islamic Radicals are more focused in areas under conflict like the Middle East and South East Asia. Until i have all the facts i can't make a decison. But also didn't the Taliban condemn the Attacks and say they were not involved like 2 hours after the planes hit?



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Oh, I think an islamic terrorist group could have possibly pulled it off. Maybe. The few things that make it iffy are their ability to find their targets so easily and why they didn't get fighter escorts until Flight 93. But the majority of the act involved planning, not great skill or money.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   
How about E) other

Nobody...

There were no explosives in the buildings...



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jedi_Master
There were no explosives in the buildings...


Yes, and it's so much easier to believe that structural damage and fires brought them down? Especially wtc7. How can you be so sure Jedi? Of all the evidence collected, they have still not conclusively come to the conclusion that there were not explosives (If you consider fuel lines, diesel fuel tanks, etc. as explosives, then yes there were explosives in the building). I'm still up in the air on demolitions but I have a very hard time with the official cover-up.

[edit on 15-2-2006 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Because noone has proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there were planted explosives in the buildings (I'm not talking fuel lines etc either)...

The only proof we have of what happened that day was 2 jets slamming into the sides of the buildings, and then they collapse, anything other that that is just opinion...



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Agreed Jedi.

Not a one liner.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Yes, and it's so much easier to believe that structural damage and fires brought them down? Especially wtc7. How can you be so sure Jedi? Of all the evidence collected, they have still not conclusively come to the conclusion that there were not explosives (If you consider fuel lines, diesel fuel tanks, etc. as explosives, then yes there were explosives in the building). I'm still up in the air on demolitions but I have a very hard time with the official cover-up.


You'll have a hard time getting a reasonable answer from him, too. He's too clever for that.

At least maybe we can agree that the US could pull it off if al Qaeda could, and if al Qaeda could, then so could Israel, and even the Brits (if they would have any reason to). Right? At least anyone who thinks to begin with should be able to agree with this.

I personally don't think that either al Qaeda or the Brits could/would do this alone. US factions certainly could, if anyone could, and maybe Israeli factions.

Really I'm losing interest in this thread, lol. Everyone that believes the US doesn't do such things will simply blame others if they even accept the conspiracy, while everyone else seems to agree that the US was at least involved in the attacks.

Should we look to the circumstantial stuff, or is there even a point? Because that's a lot of info.



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   
To be on thread topic, sorry bsbray, I'd have to say that anyone of the listed COULD have done it, with Al-CIAda as the least likely. Now, a combination of any and/or all listed would be very plausible. Al-CIAda couldn't have done it alone. Whether that involves just pure incompetence on the US's part or full fledged involvement is another story.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join