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.

 

Does This Scenario Explain Everything??

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
There are a lot of arguments for the official story, and a lot of arguments for a government conspiracy. I think this scenario ties everything together:

1) al-Qaeda, possibly with some "inside" help, orchestrated and carried out the attacks of 9/11.

2) The U.S was caught both embarrassingly unprepared, and possibly with their defense/intelligence compromised by people working with al-Qaeda.

3) In addition to the 4 planes, al-Qaeda planted bombs inside WTC7 to attack and destroy the FBI and CIA headquarters in NY. This would not only embarrass the U.S even more, but it would serve a practical purpose as well -taking out the U.S. anti-terrorism forces in NY.

4) The Flight 93 hijackers did in fact have a bomb on board. Rather than crash the plane the hijackers detonated the bomb in mid-air.

5) In order to minimize that panic that was already pretty high because of the attacks, the U.S. government could not afford to let the public know that WTC7 was taken down with terrorists' bombs, or that Flight 93 was blown up with terrorists' bombs. Therefore, the U.S. had to cover-up what really happened with both WTC7 and Flight 93. Note that there may be a precedent for covering up an in-flight bombing in the TWA Flight 800 case.

6) In order to help the cover-up of their own incompetence, the U.S. clevelrly dropped hints of a shoot down of Flight 93, and even hints that the whole attack could have been an inside job. Better for the public to believe that the government was incredibly sophisticated than to believe the government was incredibly inept.

7) The government has purposely fanned the flames of the CT movement to distract what really happened, especially in relation the the Pentagon attack. While CTers all over the world obsessed over the Pentagon, or whether Flight 93 was shot down, nobody asked if the terrorists blew up Flight 93 themselves, or whether al-Qaeda was able to rig WTC7 with explosives.

Imo, from what I can tell, the facts of 9/11 fit this theory better than a complete government conspiracy or the official story.

Do most of the known facts fit into this theory? Or is there something that this theory still cannot explain?




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   
So lets make a up a theory far more improbable than the obvious, as long as it doesn't implicate an inside job by the government.

I thought it was too difficult for explosives to have been planted by our own government, yet the terrorists managed to do it?

Yeah good one


Edit to add: You know I think you assume everyone who questions the official story can't do their own research and have to go by what they are told by others? You know kinda like the non-truthers do...

So anyway how would the gov be able to effect what we have found through our own research? That's just stupid.

[edit on 28/2/2007 by ANOK]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
So lets make a up a theory far more improbable than the obvious, as long as it doesn't implicate an inside job by the government.


This theory *does* include the possibility of an inside job by at least members of the government.



I thought it was too difficult for explosives to have been planted by our own government, yet the terrorists managed to do it?


I never said it would be difficult for our government to plant the explosives. Obviously the FBI and CIA occupied WTC7. They could have spent 2 years rigging explosives. However, in my opinion if this did happen, it's more likely it was done by a small group of conspirators than to have been a comprehensive plan from the top down.



Edit to add: You know I think you assume everyone who questions the official story can't do their own research and have to go by what they are told by others?


Why would you think this? How do you know what I think? Have you even read any of my other posts?



So anyway how would the gov be able to effect what we have found through our own research? That's just stupid.


I'm not sure I understand your question. What research are you referring to, and what do you think is stupid?

You think it's impossible that al-Qaeda, with the help of the FBI, could have planted bombs in WTC7?



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261
1) al-Qaeda, possibly with some "inside" help, orchestrated and carried out the attacks of 9/11.


Seems plausible enough. (see end)


2) The U.S was caught both embarrassingly unprepared, and possibly with their defense/intelligence compromised by people working with al-Qaeda.



3) In addition to the 4 planes, al-Qaeda planted bombs inside WTC7 to attack and destroy the FBI and CIA headquarters in NY. This would not only embarrass the U.S even more, but it would serve a practical purpose as well -taking out the U.S. anti-terrorism forces in NY.


Mmm... i don't see it. It's possible, but you'd think they woulda taken advantage of anit-terrorism dept. loss to pull off more attacks, which they didn't. Once the towers were hit, their work in NY was likely done, no need for add'l damage to counter-terrorism.


4) The Flight 93 hijackers did in fact have a bomb on board. Rather than crash the plane the hijackers detonated the bomb in mid-air.


This one is fairly likely - the bomb reports are well-known, but also I think reported on the other planes. It is also odd that th one where they blew up the bomb was also the one late enough for a shoot-down even by the sloppy defense standards of the morning. Either way, I doubt it crashed as the official story says. Even the 9/11 Comm. admits the heroics are exaggerated, but we're still not allowed to hear for ourselves the possibly faked recording.


5) In order to minimize that panic that was already pretty high because of the attacks, the U.S. government could not afford to let the public know that WTC7 was taken down with terrorists' bombs, or that Flight 93 was blown up with terrorists' bombs. Therefore, the U.S. had to cover-up what really happened with both WTC7 and Flight 93. Note that there may be a precedent for covering up an in-flight bombing in the TWA Flight 800 case.


IF the above scenarios are true, this is the obv. conclusion. If not, we need to look at different reasons.


6) In order to help the cover-up of their own incompetence, the U.S. clevelrly dropped hints of a shoot down of Flight 93, and even hints that the whole attack could have been an inside job. Better for the public to believe that the government was incredibly sophisticated than to believe the government was incredibly inept.


This argument seems a tired trick of the "debunkers," but in fact has some merits. Certain people, like Bush sr and Cheney esp., I feel create an aura of sinisteria about themselves, the constant conspirators who can have anyone killed in a fake plane crash. Might as well actually do these things too, for the full benefit, but I thin there's a certain "don't mess with ME" attitude underlying this. I am LOCO man!
And I believe they were not just imept. in fact quite adept - just lookat how well they scuttled the defenses while making it look possibly accidental. I thought you knew better!


7) The government has purposely fanned the flames of the CT movement to distract what really happened, especially in relation the the Pentagon attack. While CTers all over the world obsessed over the Pentagon, or whether Flight 93 was shot down, nobody asked if the terrorists blew up Flight 93 themselves, or whether al-Qaeda was able to rig WTC7 with explosives.


What exactky they're distractin us from is another issue, but you know where I stand on disinfo - it's the one constant in the "truth" movement from day one, and the gov - from FBI to Rumsfeld to maybe the NTSB recently have encouraged and sposnsored mush of the speculation.


Imo, from what I can tell, the facts of 9/11 fit this theory better than a complete government conspiracy or the official story.

Do most of the known facts fit into this theory? Or is there something that this theory still cannot explain?


Most everything fits except for example the towers'collpase - was that just jet fuel or another Qaeda demo or something entirely from within? I agree the ultimate scenario is likely some hybrid. The either-or nature of the debate thus far is evidence of that. The tricky part is in deciding who exactly was responsible for what. Uncertainty is the constant companion of the skeptic. I think you're onto something here in the big picture sense, but feel your chances of proving an exact case aren't too high.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
oops

[edit on 1-3-2007 by Caustic Logic]



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
So lets make a up a theory far more improbable than the obvious, as long as it doesn't implicate an inside job by the government.

I thought it was too difficult for explosives to have been planted by our own government, yet the terrorists managed to do it?

Yeah good one


Edit to add: You know I think you assume everyone who questions the official story can't do their own research and have to go by what they are told by others? You know kinda like the non-truthers do...

So anyway how would the gov be able to effect what we have found through our own research? That's just stupid.

[edit on 28/2/2007 by ANOK]


I undsertand your doubts here - some of the notions seem silly to me too, but the line of questioning is valid. Nick is a great researcher with an open mind, and not a "debunker" - not in the usual sense anyway. He's trying to help sort all this out, and seems a bridge-builder, which we need.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Yeah sry nick I was a little harsh on ya, but as Caustic pointed out this is a common tactic/theory used by debunker's.

I can see you are not a debunker though, so I apologise for the harsh post.

I still don't buy your theory. Mostly because I believe the terrorists are not the big threat we are being lead to believe. Governments use fear to control, and terrorism, even though real, is blown out of proportion to put fear in the population.

If you look at history most people who were once called terrorist, by the governments who were threatened by them, turn out to be just people fighting back against what they see as a threat to their lifestyle, religion, country, whatever.

Not try to justify terrorism, just that I see no difference between terrorists and governments who use the same tactics. Terrorists learn their tactics from the system they are forced to live in. A system that uses fear, oppression and violence to control. We are taught, through example by the state, that violence is the answer to problems, so violence is usually used. It's highly hypocritical of the state, who use violence themselves, to demonise others for the same thing.

If only the terrorists could learn from people like Gandhi. He overthrew British rule using none-violent means.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Terrosism is the poor man's warfare.

Fake terrorism is the rich man's psych-warfare.

What we're up against in the world today: both, and I'm far more worried about the latter.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Hi Nick, Who are the Terrorists? where is the proof? how could Blair publicly announce within hours of the 9/11 event that Al Qaeda was resposible and spoke of the WOT, how could he make that statement when in the US the security services knew nothing.

The evidence of the Terrorists amounts to one photo at an airport which could of been anyone anywhere, Two massive buildings pulverised to dust but an intact Terrorist passport survives, how convenient, calls from a plane that could not have been made and allegedly some evidence found in a car. On that Evidence the US has gone to war with a country that was not involved in 9/11 as the alleged terrorists were Saudis, 3k plus troops dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's dead, the US in a mess it cannot get out of with the death rate going up every day and all this on the above evidence.

The US was prepared, it was because those who were invovled made sure that what should have happened did not. These planes flew around for some conciderable time and nothing was done. How come in the past when something has gone wrong or a plane deviates from its cource jets are scrambled to check the plane out? Nothing was done that day other than a pile of excuses. 3k plus dead murdered by fellow Americans and Israel's, Wako, Oklahoma, all dry runs for the big event.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caustic Logic

Most everything fits except for example the towers'collpase - was that just jet fuel or another Qaeda demo or something entirely from within?


I've gone back and forth on the towers. On one hand it doesn't seem reasonable to think that the towers simply unzipped themselves all the way down in a matter of 10 seconds or so, but one the other hand, how the hell would I know what these giant buildings would do??? There really isn't much data to decide that it HAD to be a CD.

Of course if 9/11 was in any way an inside job involving our friendly tennants of WTC7, then rigging WTC1 and WTC2 would have been doable.




I agree the ultimate scenario is likely some hybrid. The either-or nature of the debate thus far is evidence of that. The tricky part is in deciding who exactly was responsible for what. Uncertainty is the constant companion of the skeptic. I think you're onto something here in the big picture sense,


If anything comes out of all this research, I think it's the likelihood that there is some sort of hybrid scenario involving a) arab terrorists, b) key people or units within the government to help LIH, c) key people to help MIH, and d) cover-their-ass politicos to make sure the politcal fallout from the attacks doesn't hit anybody, especially Bush and Clinton.



but feel your chances of proving an exact case aren't too high.


lol.... no kidding! I have trouble finding my car keys and my cell phone everyday!

However, I do think with enough documented evidence (not speculation based on physics, etc.) we can put together something that will show beyond all doubt a conspiracy to cover up the truth of what happened re 9/11.

Then maybe somebody else with access to more data will leak documents, etc., that will give more insight into the exact nature of the plan. It took 50 years for the McCollum memo to become public. Let's hope this doesn't take so long!



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   
How did al qaeda plant bombs in the WTC?

Flight 93 was headed for world trade center 7. Something happened, either a military fighter pilot disobeyed direct orders and shot it down, or the passengers took control and it was shot down to prevent them from talking.

They already had the bombs planted. They had to 'pull it'.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Yeah sry nick I was a little harsh on ya, but as Caustic pointed out this is a common tactic/theory used by debunker's.

I can see you are not a debunker though, so I apologise for the harsh post.



No worries, mate! I know where you're coming from. I probably didn't express my point as well as I should have to begin with.





I still don't buy your theory.


I just want to clarify why I came up with the theory. I just wanted to see if I could create a scenario that would account for all of the evidence on both sides of the argument.

Looking at it from the opposite view, any scenario that can be nullified by a single piece of evidence must be thrown out. Therefore, if you can find a scenario that can't be nullified by known evidence, you at least have a starting point from where you can refine the details.

And those are good points you made re terrorists. One of the most perplexing things that you have to believe in order to buy into the official story is that these blood-thirsty sub-human terrorists goof off for years at a time and then strike random targets that have more PR value than practical value.

Something just doesn't make sense about that. Imo, it's just as likely that the CIA funds the terror groups covertly just to have them handly when they need another "incident" to impact policy or to get funding.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by sp00n1
How did al qaeda plant bombs in the WTC?


If al-Qaeda has the help of FBI or CIA insiders with offices at WTC7, it would have been relatively simple to get access to WTC1 and WTC2 during off hours in which bombs could have been rigged.

What makes this scenario more interesting is that Bush's brother sat on the board of the company that provided the security for the WTCs. No wonder. This company also had to provide security for the CIA and FBI at WTC7. It's not a far leap of reasoning to assume that the people in charge of security were very closely tied in with the FBI.

If a few bad apples in the FBI had access to security passes, etc., it would have been easy enough to make sure al-Qaeda ops had access.




Flight 93 was headed for world trade center 7. Something happened, either a military fighter pilot disobeyed direct orders and shot it down, or the passengers took control and it was shot down to prevent them from talking.


Or there was a bomb on the plane and somebody detonated it. What got me even thinking in this direction was the apparent cover-up of what happened with TWA Flight 800. The cover story was the engine blew up, and the rumor that spread and still exists is that Flight 800 was shot down by a shoulder missile. However, according to sources I've been researching, the actual evidence pointed more to a bomb being smuggled onto the plane.

The parallel to Flight 93 is that the official story is that the passengers were heroes and crashed the plane, and the widespread rumor is that the airforce shot the plane down. However, there were also reports of a bomb on board that the FAA covered up, as well as the cell phone call from the passenger reporting smoke already in the plane.

The "crater" looked like no jet crash in the history of aviation, and there was never an investigation done or report filed by the NTSB as far as I know.



They already had the bombs planted. They had to 'pull it'.


I don't doubt this at all.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Thing is I think if a bunch of middle easterners were suddenly getting access to the buildings someone would have noticed, and after the fact made that connection. The gov would have been all over it as the answer to the collapses.

If it was just a bunch of Westerners, looking like maintenance ppl maybe, it would be less likely someone would make that connection. In fact there are claims of construction work in the towers in the weeks prior to 9-11.

The fact that the Gov is covering up, and lying about the events of 9-11, says to me that they were directly involved and have no other alibis to cover their asses.



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
but feel your chances of proving an exact case aren't too high.


lol.... no kidding! I have trouble finding my car keys and my cell phone everyday!



Should've said "our chances."



posted on Mar, 1 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by sp00n1
How did al qaeda plant bombs in the WTC?


If al-Qaeda has the help of FBI or CIA insiders with offices at WTC7, it would have been relatively simple to get access to WTC1 and WTC2 during off hours in which bombs could have been rigged.

What makes this scenario more interesting is that Bush's brother sat on the board of the company that provided the security for the WTCs. No wonder. This company also had to provide security for the CIA and FBI at WTC7. It's not a far leap of reasoning to assume that the people in charge of security were very closely tied in with the FBI.

If a few bad apples in the FBI had access to security passes, etc., it would have been easy enough to make sure al-Qaeda ops had access.


That as my toher point i forgot. How? amd FYI Securacom/Stratesec was in charge of access control, not overall security. they installed the magnetic badge system that let people in - coupled w/power-down,, this still leaves interesting possibilities, but it feels too obvious. Then again, the whole thing does.

Re; flight 93 into WTC 7 - isn't it a little squat compared to the twin towers to try something like that? the planners shoulda guessed "damage from the towers/diesel fire" would be reason enough (as it was) and slated the 4th plane for DC.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join