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.

 

Really Simple Thought Exercise...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
It's really easy to get lost in at length discussions about how this was orchestrated and how that was orchestrated by the infamous secret cabal. So let's just assume timed explosives were planted in each of the towers, a missile was launched at the Pentagon and so forth.

Simple question being; why's it even necessary to plant explosives and aiming missiles anywhere? The goal here is to orchestrate an attack on the public to get the ball rolling on a counter attack of some sort with wide public support; Iraq, Afghanistan, pick your bad guys.

So again, what does it matter really if any of those buildings toppled? Would it have mattered really if the Pentagon was a target or not? Suppose just one plane had impacted one of the towers and it had remained intact (save for an unsightly hole and raging fire?) -- scores of people would still be victims here and millions more occupying cubicles or riding in taxi cabs in most metropolitan settings in fear of possible follow up attacks.

That's still an 'attack on America' and better yet, nobody has to go out of their way to orchestrate a big complex plot of launching missiles and planting chargers. Let's face it; a single plane could have been flown into the Brooklyn bridge, or even a 7-11 someplace and public support would have been just the same afterwards.

It's just a matter of keep it simple stupid. The plot involves nothing more than planting your extremists on an airliner (wether they're out of the loop or not as to who's really aiding them in their mission) -- hijacking the aircraft, and locating a couple who are competent enough to pick out a target on the landscape to fly into. It's not hard to locate some extremists who would jump at the chance, or a few that are competent enough to steer an aircraft into a bridge. Better yet, the chances of those pesky conspiracy buffs gaining steam at some date afterwards is at a minimum.

If 9/11 had been a complex and planned attack orchestrated by a 'cabal' within the government; why would they go to such measures as launching missiles at the Pentagon, or planting explosives in skyscrapers, when such unnecessary measures are sure to only open the door to criticism surrounding the entire ordeal down the road?

Obvious point being: it's not too hard to orchestrate an attack on your own population if that is your intended goal. No reason whatsoever to get this creative. Just simple logic really.




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:17 AM
link   
But then how would Larry Silverstein collect all that insurance money and fix his asbestos problem? There are numerous reasons why it happened the way it did. Bottom line, it's a big perp party. Everyone had fun (everyone but the victims of course).



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatinatifofotty
If 9/11 had been a complex and planned attack orchestrated by a 'cabal' within the government; why would they go to such measures as launching missiles at the Pentagon, or planting explosives in skyscrapers, when such unnecessary measures are sure to only open the door to criticism surrounding the entire ordeal down the road?

Obvious point being: it's not too hard to orchestrate an attack on your own population if that is your intended goal. No reason whatsoever to get this creative. Just simple logic really.

Hypothetically speaking as a 'cabal' member,

We used two specifically built airliners at Raytheon headquarters. (Do you think it’s possible that a normal jet would penetrate ALL the way through before exploding? Watch the nose cone exit the other side of the building in some of the videos). Those who built and designed the 2 remote control craft had the idea that these would only be used in training drills. We had to take them out because they knew too much so we wacked them and just put their names on the passenger list, easy.


We demolished 3 buildings in a very precise and controlled manner, how else can you explain it? Where did all that energy come from? Shock and Awe, people.

We collected the Insurance money and made billions upon trillions from that day and these whoring…I mean waring days ahead, we are the richest most powerful men in the world, money talks and bull# walks. You conform out of fear and you cannot stop us, in fact we know what is going to happen in the future and even WE cannot stop it but we are preparing and we don’t care about you and we will survive, not you.

Everything we do is a GAME to us because we know what is going to happen in the NEAR future. Sometimes I feel like I’m playing Command and Conquer but with you.

The Pentagon had a small ‘department’ that was monitoring EVERYTHING in the sky that day and on the ground, those people in the lower floors knew something was a miss but before they could get the information out they were hit.

The jet that fired the shot at the Pentagon was ‘destructed’ over Shanksville.

We control the media, if anyone talks about this stuff they will lose their jobs, their retirement fund, everything! Plus no one wants to be ridiculed so they walk the line and shut up, those who speak up are easily brought down with some lie that spreads like wild fire across the tube. Again, I state, you cannot win this war.


End of hypothetical.


In the end, life goes on, you know what’s right and wrong within your heart, no one should have to suffer.

Peace.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   
The more outrages the lie, the easier it is to believe. I forget where this comes from.

Basically you have to make sure the "there is no way our own people would do this" argument is really sound, you will notice this is what most people say first when they hear about 9/11 truthers comments.

Also There is the money issue as previous poster mentioned, and the destruction of records. I heard some SEC investigations were stopped by the collapse. I also heard that the pentagon section hit was the part looking into 2.3 trillion in missing money. It is possible the conspirators wanted to send a strong message to anyone wanting to do investigations on money issues.

To quote Donald Rumsfeld on 9/10/2001 speaking about the 2.3 trillion dollars missing "It is a matter of life and death." It is possible, and I stress I am only making a conjecture, that people got rid of many birds with the stone of 9/11



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by odzendz
The jet that fired the shot at the Pentagon was ‘destructed’ over Shanksville.

We control the media, if anyone talks about this stuff they will lose their jobs, their retirement fund, everything! Plus no one wants to be ridiculed so they walk the line and shut up, those who speak up are easily brought down with some lie that spreads like wild fire across the tube. Again, I state, you cannot win this war.


End of hypothetical.


In the end, life goes on, you know what’s right and wrong within your heart, no one should have to suffer.

Peace.


That was the best 1st post response Ive seen so far.....

-------------------------------------
Trimmed BIG quote

Please read ABOUT ATS: Warnings for one-line or short responses

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 30/9/07 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   
The Elite cabal have their power because we give it to them. It is the money that buys all the things they manipulate and control. If people stopped treating money above what is right, their power would end overnight.

The 'few' only have the power the 'many' give them because of the weakness of the many. If we ended our worship of the dollar, our weakness would disappear to be replaced with the strength of courage and power of faith. Then the tide would turn.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:17 AM
link   


But then how would Larry Silverstein collect all that insurance money and fix his asbestos problem? There are numerous reasons why it happened the way it did. Bottom line, it's a big perp party. Everyone had fun (everyone but the victims of course).


So you believe that a big motivation behind sending thousands of people to their deaths, was so that a real estate mogul could cash in on the insurance payment a result? After all, Silverstein really isn't some shadowy figure; he's on the property lease to this day, right at the center over what's going on with the upcoming rebuilding of the area in Manhattan. Plus, if you think about it, such a scenario would extend way beyond Larry Silverstein and a couple of 'yes men' sitting around at a table somewhere while concocting all of this up. Hundreds, if not thousands would have to go along with carrying out such a crime. All the way from Larry Silverstein (and everybody in between) -- all the way down to the blue collar engineers prepping two 110 story towers for demolition. Three, counting trade seven.

No easy feat really considering that we're talking millions of square feet divided up between multiple floors in one of the most heavily populated areas of lower Manhattan.

As for this other post, I guess I'll start here --




We used two specifically built airliners at Raytheon headquarters. (Do you think it’s possible that a normal jet would penetrate ALL the way through before exploding? Watch the nose cone exit the other side of the building in some of the videos).


Yes, as a matter of fact, I think it's entirely possible. Take two huge commuter aircraft covering the distance of two and a half football fields per second encountering a structure (that's some 500 mph.) You believe it isn't possible for that nose cone to be driven through to the opposite side of that building (a distance roughly of 208 feet) in a split instant?

I hate to break down your comments like this, but with such a lengthy reply covering so much ground, it's just unavoidable.




Those who built and designed the 2 remote control craft had the idea that these would only be used in training drills. We had to take them out because they knew too much so we wacked them and just put their names on the passenger list, easy.


So you're telling me that all of the victims of those two flights had some hand at developing these remote control airliners? That's a lot of people for the cabal to just 'wack' don't you believe? I mean, lets face it, an elderly gentleman wanders away from his car at the local mall and becomes lost/disoriented. Before you know it; there's immediate family on the local news demanding an inquiry into his whereabouts. So your scenario there is a bit of a stretch (no offense.)




We demolished 3 buildings in a very precise and controlled manner, how else can you explain it? Where did all that energy come from? Shock and Awe, people.


How else can you explain it? Not one but two huge airliners impacting a sky scraper at 500 mph isn't enough shock and awe in itself? Again, imagine the forces involved. That's a whole lotta energy and it's going to be transferred all throughout the immediate area. Similar to a small quake in itself. I guarantee you the people standing way down at street level not only heard, but felt it. Let alone when all of that mass started heading for the ground. Uncap the exhaust on any tired V8 Camaro, take your shoes off and stand within proximity when it slowly cruises by you on the street; you will literally feel the forces of that on the pavement beneath you. Again, imagine the forces involved at the impact site while all of this was unfolding. All in all, quite mind boggling when really attempting to consider it.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Had to break this into two separate parts. So, to conclude here --




The Pentagon had a small ‘department’ that was monitoring EVERYTHING in the sky that day and on the ground, those people in the lower floors knew something was a miss but before they could get the information out they were hit.


You know, all of conspirators point out how a plane was involved with shooting a missile point blank into the Pentagon. Chances are somebody would have seen such a thing, you suppose? Broad daylight and a missile is being launched; yeah, pretty good chance somebody might take notice to such an event. Furthermore, did this missile come equipped with it's own landing gear that looks identical to the landing gear of a 757 among scores of other debris?

As for the rest of it, just unfounded (border line) paranoia in the form that this secret group controls everything and everybody. You know, I live in this country, I've lived through September the eleventh. I don't feel like anybody is out to suppress me in what I say (or my freedoms really for that matter.)

Case in point, not only conspiracy sites, seminars, protests, even bonafide movements are free really to state their case on the matter without being suppressed whatsoever. Nobody is 'wacking' any of them. Including types like Jim Marr's who's profited off of the tragedy of that day just like those within the supposed 'cabal' itself. In fact, going at that rate; I'm sure Jim Marr's has made more up to this point, than your average 'rogue' engineer supposedly responsible for setting up the odd charge here and there in one of those buildings back in 2001.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redge777
The more outrages the lie, the easier it is to believe. I forget where this comes from.

Basically you have to make sure the "there is no way our own people would do this" argument is really sound, you will notice this is what most people say first when they hear about 9/11 truthers comments.


Hitler said it first, along with other things. He was a very smart man, but unfortunately with a very simplistic and ridiculous view of which people were valuable and which ones were not.

Making the lie this big is very effective, because the larger it is, the more unbelievable it is to the public. Also you just need to stamp people saying this happened as "conspiracy nuts" to ruin their credibility.

Its simple really. Most people go by credibility alone when we judge who to believe, and who is more credible than the government?

Thats why going by credibility is very dangerous, because thats the first thing that gets attacked when you challenge the story, for this very reason. So listen to the people with poor credibility as well, because thats where the truth will be.


[edit on 30-9-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 


I get your point, maybe we should look at what is said, and evaluate it with critical thought. Taking someones word is just handing over your critical thinking to that person.

Your comment on who could be more credible then the government is the common thought, but it flies in the face of history and the examples set by governments around the world. It is a testament to the propaganda machine that people can say. All politicians lie, then turn around and believe the reports they put out.

[edit on 30-9-2007 by Redge777]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Redge777
 


I agree, and thats why the government and "cia officials" (which are frequently quoted as the source for news about Iraq, Iran etc) are not trustworthy to me at all.

I read what they say, then I go and try to find out what really happened.


[edit on 30-9-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty
 

First of all illuminatinatifofotty congratulations on your ATS "handle". It ranks up there with CaptainObvious's avatar as one of the all time best.

Having said that, I would just like to add that the OP was wondering why, if 911 was a government conspiracy to attack America in a staged manner, was it so elaborate. Why not something simple and easy to "execute", (pardon the pun.) By way of illustration I mentioned Larry Silverstein and the issues that come up when one considers him and his involvement in 911.

I wasn't very clear in my first post, so let me elaborate. I wasn't suggesting that 911 was motivated by a desire to help Larry Silverstein out of his problems. I was suggesting that as a neocon insider, a way might have been found to include him and his concerns in the proceedings. His very existence and situation, and connections and sympathies make him an obvious choice. Things could be done in a way that would be profitable for him, so it wouldn't just be some dumb thing he was required to do by "the club."

Other aspects of the elaborate plan would have similar reasons for inclusion. The violation of US airspace by the evil Al Quaeda fiends was important because it appeared to catch the military off guard. It was thus more than costly vandalism or mass murder. It was a violation of the very forces and plans that America has so carefully put in place to protect it's innocent population from foreign agression.

Most of what happened that day happened for specific reasons. I'm not saying that accidents didn't happen. The efficiency of the fire department in the South Tower was one of those accidents. That's why the South Tower had to fall first, even though it was hit second and not even well hit. The bloody firemen were going to put the fire out and screw everything up for Larry and Haliburton and all the neocon plans.

This was an elaborate coup de theatre, a work of nefarious political art, with few loose ends.

If you want to know what motivated it, you have to become familiar with "peak oil". Read Mike Ruppert's book, Crossing the Rubicon or for a short primer see the video, Oil Smoke and Mirrors. Basically the world is running out of oil and the land of the free and the home of the brave has decided to steal what's left. America is enroute to becoming a looter nation, like Nazi Germany.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Just a few points --




Most of what happened that day happened for specific reasons. I'm not saying that accidents didn't happen. The efficiency of the fire department in the South Tower was one of those accidents. That's why the South Tower had to fall first, even though it was hit second and not even well hit. The bloody firemen were going to put the fire out and screw everything up for Larry and Haliburton and all the neocon plans.


But you see, it was hit 'well.' Those towers weren't built for those sort of impacts. Deliberate, throttle up kamikaze runs like that? The structures were 110 stories on top of it all. That's a tremendous impact thrown at them both. They caught those planes like a catchers mitt (I'm sure cracks formed in the concrete below due to that instantaneous force.) Steel wether it be a girder within a building, or tied into a rotating assembly (say a drive shaft on a car) doesn't take much to fail under extra ordinary circumstances. I've seen steel drive shafts twisted literally like taffy just from excessive torque load on some strip cars. The forces of both of those planes coming down on those two towers like that was sufficient enough to doom them both (even at an off angle.) More than likely compromising the immediate structures around them on top of it all.


I haven't seen one scientific report to date that goes into detail on why those two buildings should have withstood such horror as that, have you? ...And if not, why are you so convinced that they indeed should have held up to such incredible strain? You know, I really could care less about defending Silverstein or any key figure tied in with it all. But on the other hand, I don't see any concrete evidence to persuade me that the buildings had to be 'rigged' with explosives plus broad sided with jet airliners just in order to take them down. The buildings fell from the point of impact which as you point out yourself was almost hit or miss in one case. Anybody will tell you that you don't start pulling a structure from a point that far up in the structure itself; everybody would have been yelling demo blast as soon as those supposed charges went off.

To follow your line of thinking I would have to be labeling a lot of folks (Silverstein included) multiple murderers, scratch that -- mass murderers on a grand scale. I'm not ready to join that line of thinking until I see some concrete proof which should have surfaced long before now considering it all. I'm dead set against secret cabals within Government ranks, but I'm just as dead set against knee jerk reactions which aren't far off from snowballing into lynch mob type paranoia directed at people that become popular suspects after the fact.

Getting back to the missile being fired off at the Pentagon in broad daylight; why take such risks at that point in the first place? Just in order to destroy some file cabinets and documents in one of the wings of the building? After all, anybody in a huge radius could have witnessed such a thing at ground level. Worse yet; could have documented that occurring. Quite a gamble on the conspirators part considering such a thing coming to light would have exposed the entire operation. Was all of the shredded wreckage of the flight planted within the devastation of the building on top of it all?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty
 


No you are completly wrong, the twin towers were an american symbol. Do you remember when the other hijacked plane crashed in some neighborhood it was on the news for 2 days compared to the months 9.11 was on.

Rethink your views, this seems simple becuase you have not thought about it and are still a beginner.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by rhombus24
 


First of all, before you even attempt to use the word beginner on me, at least take the time to use capitalization when you type out the word 'American' in your sentences. Especially when it comes to this sort of subject. Also, since you're such an expert here, maybe you can explain away why each tower should have withstood those impacts. Or cite some great evidence here for a missile attack in Washington. When it comes to a lot of the recent 'expert' theories floating around, like Lear's latest hologram theory (who really would even have to attempt to discredit such nonsense?) -- I'm not really impressed with the 'experts' thought process whatsoever.

And what are you talking about? Manhattan received most of the attention because that is where the most loss of life occurred. It wasn't because of the loss of two concrete and steel towers; it was because of the great loss of life that occurred there. Upwards of approaching three thousand deaths as compared to 100 or so in the Pentagon, or on the fourth airliner. The Pentagon is even more of an icon as far as iconic structures go in North America. Perhaps you should think more on the order of lives lost and less on symbols when you do your critical thinking on the topic.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by illuminatinatifofotty
 

What part of hypothetical did you not understand? And not once within my hypothetical scenario did I mention the word 'missile'.

You seem so confident that you already know everything, it’s perplexing to me why you would even ask such questions? If you’re fine with everything then why even bother?



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by odzendz
 


I understand 'hypothetical' derived from 'hypothesis.' Or let's face it, you spun your best 'hypothetical' theory on me there and under simple scrutiny it's reads plain absurd. Typical 'conspiracy nut' type drama (don't take that as a personal insult please, but that's how it read to me when applying a tad of rational thought to it all after careful consideration.) Go figure, that's just me.

And correct, you never mentioned 'missile' per se. However, you did type off the following in that detailed 'hypothesis' of yours. Here's your quote again --




"The jet that fired the shot at the Pentagon was ‘destructed’ over Shanksville."


Some type of guided missile obviously is what I figured you were hinting at with that. Leave it to me to be the one jumping to conclusions here I guess. Then again, you didn't really elaborate. You might have meant a photon torpedo for all I know. You don't really elaborate too much when a lot of your theory is called into question as the case here in our simple message forum. I'm not going to get into weeding out the obvious multiple dilemmas that arise from your hypothetical theory (I've done that way up the page and have yet to see you counter any of it with any sort of logic whatsoever.)

So until you can at least defend your own personal hypothesis to some extent on a certain subject; don't expect too many to start clapping you on the back and readily accept it as some sound theory all of a sudden.

Plus I have to admit (I'm just dying to know at this point) -- If not a missile being deployed from that jet, what do you suppose was fired off at our defense headquarters resulting in that spectacular explosion?

...'Hypothetically' of course.

: )



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I think the same when you say little could have been done to "get the ball rolling" BUT...

It had to be something on a magnitude, or scale, of its own. It had to be "unmatched" in nature. If they used a car bombing or something small, it would have held little merrit to go to a war. It had to be of that scale to convince congress/general public to act on iraq/afgan/iran.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by 1337cshacker
 


Well, then again what diabolic plan seems more logical here to you?

9/11 plan a.)

Hijacking four commercial aircraft, secretly disposing of the passengers, pilots, co pilots, flight crew and so forth. Secretly disposing of the planes themselves. Fabricating civilian cell phone transmissions to voice recorders and in real time to relatives on the ground. Rigging buildings in pre determined floors with explosives to be perfectly timed to detonate after remote control aircraft are flown into them. Using an unmarked military jet to fire a missile into the Pentagon (hopefully sight unseen by the public at large.) Planting wreckage at the Pentagon, victim DNA at four separate locations and on and on....

Total casualties: upwards of three-thousand innocent Americans.
Total cost: Astronomical
Complexity: Unheard of


Okay, that's pretty much the basic outline for plan a right there. Now let's consider plan b --

Hijacking two commercial aircraft (no problem there.)
assemble a team of mid east fanatics and planting them in the cockpits (sounds good so far.)

Take a run at a packed Shea stadium with both planes.

Total Casualties: Tens of thousands easily.
Total cost: A couple commercial airliners. Plus a few nights on the town, rooming, accommodations, rental cars, box cutters, Zippo lighters and so forth for your team of fanatics.
Complexity: Simple

And the best part about this plan? No missiles, no rigging up explosives, no planting evidence, no expensive Bob Lazar element '13' hologram light show and so on.

Suppose plan b had been the game plan for 9/11 instead. You honestly believe that a couple jumbo jets into Shea stadium during the seventh inning stretch, killing tens of thousands of men, women and children wouldn't have given the cabal the sufficient public support they sought to go after anything in the middle east?

It would have been no different, in fact; it would have been even worse as far as loss of life goes. So your argument makes zero sense really.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I haven't been able to post to the thread for almost 24 hours due to pressure of work, family, the usual stuff, but in reading the posts since the last thread, I have the impression of returning to a more heated thread than I left a day ago. This is a subject that generates heat, no question.

I find that happens a lot when people are coming into a discussion from widely differing perspectives. In some cases the perspectives are so wide apart that there is almost no point in continuing the discussion. The situation would be somewhat similar to the one in which the three blind men give quite different descriptions of a large animal based on tactile impressions gathered from three different parts of the animal.

The three blind men have nothing upon which they agree to form a basis of discussion. (I'm using this analogy very loosely here, not attempting to relate it to any particular thing in anyone's posts.) It's just that I feel personally to carry on the discussion as it is currently vectored would require re-arguing the subject matter of numerous threads on this forum, which in itself would derail the thread from the point that the OP wanted to discuss.

There are numerous threads focusing on the collapse of the buildings themselves. Some of the discussion goes into minute detail in very technical terms used in engineering circles. At the end of the day you make your judgement according to your ability to judge. It's like an election, or a jury trial, not like a scientific experiment, or a math problem.

In response to the OP, I say that much of what happened on 911 happened for reasons known to the perps and which we can guess at. Could 911 have been accomplished another way? Maybe. However the main outline of the way it happened is the way the perps chose for it to happen, not the result of random chance.

You have to study it in detail and in breadth to become aware of so many jigsaw puzzle pieces coming together so neatly. After you've looked at it for some time, it starts to become obvious. However, in this question as in all others, some things never become obvious to some people. That's life.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join