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.

 

How many people need to be involved in a conspiracy?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
For all the people that are promoting any kind of CT about 9-11, that is my question.

The Al-Qaeda conspiracy need it about 19 or 20 to carry the attacks, one masterminder and a couple of higher ups in the know.

IMO the less people involved in a conspiracy the higher the chances it will succed.

Now to bring down the WTC by CD, how many people we talking about to place the explosive charges need it to do the job? How many people to fake the videos(live and recorded) and pics? How many people to create false flight data, cockpit recorders, phone calls made by the passengers, so cell phone companies had to be on it too? How many people from different agenicies? Let's see FBI, NTSB, local law agencies in NY, NIST, Military, FAA and give or take a couple more. How many people had to be on it?

Please explain




posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
I answered that question here:

"Why there are no whistleblowers?"



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Sorry but I have to disagree with your opening post on that thread.

Compartmentalized information yes, that is an occurance especially in federal government agencies, still that is no excuse for the lack of whistle blowers.

People with courage to tell the truth are found everywhere, in Katrina you had whistle blowers, in the private sector you have whistle blowers, in the military you found whistle blowers (Abu-Gharib anyone?). I'm in the military, I'm not a EOD guy, but if someone tells me : "hey go drill holes in that public building and put some explosive and thermite" I can ask what for and I can refuse that order. And I'm pretty sure that if an EOD guy was task to rig the WTC with explosive, it wouldnt take long for him to realize that the building is going to be exploded.

But that's not even the issue that I'm discussing in this thread, I just want someone to explain me how many people they think need it to be involved in this. Like 10, 20, 100, 1000?

Edit to add: just to put in perspective, before I joined the military I used to work as a roadie and stage hand for various artist, the biggest work that I had to do I could sadly said was the Backstreet Boys, if I can estimate how many people was involved in pulling one show, between stagehands, sound people, lights, fireworks, production, power generation, security, artist, musicians, dancers, I will say close to a thousand people.

Many CT's have describe the official story as just an spectacle for the masses, so my question in given all the angle necessary to pull this spectacle off, how many people you think had to be on it?

[edit on 7-1-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 7-1-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 7-1-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Well, considering how much we know about what happened that day... I'll say... 2?

This is considering a typical LIHOP scenario, one to find out about it, and a superior to make sure it goes nowhere else. Maybe add another superior to that, to confirm a path of "no action taken", so 3 maximum.

Without knowing the details, it's impossible to guess at numbers. Maybe some specialist demo tools were used that required far, far less manpower to setup and initiate. Maybe a majority of those "in" on the conspiracy had no clue they in fact were "in" on anything.

The fact you bring up 19 or 20 Arabs can pull off 9/11 makes me come to the realization that it would not take much more than this, if more, to do this from the inside. The speculation about "faked" footage, and similar, is just that, speculation. At face value, it would be easier to pull off 9/11 if you were "inside", rather than "outside" as AQ obviously was.

One interesting note about your comment on "orders" in the military - I wonder what you would be willing to do if you had been treated favourably over a serious misconduct charge, or similar?

My personal guess, considering an "averaging" of all possible scenarios, falls in the 5-30 range. As I said before, without knowing what happened (or without knowing what group is playing in your roadie scenario), you cannot estimate complicit numbers with much accuracy.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 



Only the people at the top need to be in on it. This is a topic that has been hashed through many times in this forum. With having experience in the intelligence world I know for a fact that only a 'few' people at the top need to be in on something for it to happen. People in key positions that TELL their people that something is happening. No details. They allow them to believe that they are doing good when in fact they are not.

As for the CD of the towers. IF indeed this is what happened then it is not too difficult to bring in large crews of people posing as maintenance. The problem does come down to how to keep them quiet though. Some people just can't help themselves and want to seek out some fame. Or, they get that moral shove to do what is right and leak the information.

If you do your research you will find MANY big names and people that used to occupy pretty high positions in the government claiming that there is a cover up here. It's tough trying to answer your question because you already seem to have your mind set up. I just hope that one day there will be a TRUE investigation of the facts instead of a bunch of deflection and misdirection.

I know, most believers in the 'official story' want to believe because they can't really begin to fathom that human beings would be so corrupt as to do that to their own. Well, history has shown over and over and over and over and over and over that it is not only possible but that it happens, well, over and over. It's about furthering agendas. Sure, IF it is a conspiracy these people may honestly think that the SACRIFICE is well worth the end goal. They may believe that it will create a more secure future for this country.

And THAT is how it is pretty easy to get people to keep their mouths shut at the top. They honestly believe it was for the good of the country.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
Well, considering how much we know about what happened that day... I'll say... 2?


Really?


This is considering a typical LIHOP scenario, one to find out about it, and a superior to make sure it goes nowhere else. Maybe add another superior to that, to confirm a path of "no action taken", so 3 maximum.


Can you show me any proof of where an operation so complicated as this one can be perform by only 3 people?


Without knowing the details, it's impossible to guess at numbers.

But you habe details, they are plenty of details of 9-11.


Maybe some specialist demo tools were used that required far, far less manpower to setup and initiate. Maybe a majority of those "in" on the conspiracy had no clue they in fact were "in" on anything.


No idea? So im an EOD personnel for the military or any other Federal agency, my boss tells me : "Hey we going to send you to work during nights at the WTC so you can drill some hole an put some explosives with thermite", you think that woudnt raise any questions before or after the events?


The fact you bring up 19 or 20 Arabs can pull off 9/11 makes me come to the realization that it would not take much more than this, if more, to do this from the inside.

How then? Please explain.
Who is going to fake the people that died? Whos made those phone calls to their family? What happen to the planes? Where is the people? Who fake the flight data, the cockpit recorders? Who are those that we here in those transmissions? How long it took to place the explosives? Where those planes really hitting or what? I mean there is many questions, so many angles, that after I analize, is just hits me in the face the sheer amount of people and resources need it to pull it of any other way. But hey thats just me.


The speculation about "faked" footage, and similar, is just that, speculation.

So are the video fake, legit or they dont exist?


At face value, it would be easier to pull off 9/11 if you were "inside", rather than "outside" as AQ obviously was.?

How then?Please explain.


One interesting note about your comment on "orders" in the military - I wonder what you would be willing to do if you had been treated favourably over a serious misconduct charge, or similar?


Now you are speculating, I thought that was not acceptable. What are the probabilities of finding 5 to 10 guys that need a clean record and orders them to put explosive charges in the WTC? Would you trust a convicted military or federals employee with that task? Knowing hes a risk already?


My personal guess, considering an "averaging" of all possible scenarios, falls in the 5-30 range.


So first it was 2, then 3, now 5 to 30. Keep looking hard and you will see those numbers grow so exponentially that would make them impossible to stand on its own. Especially if you have any idea of how the federal goverment and military operates.


As I said before, without knowing what happened

You know what happened, either if you believe a conspiracy or the offical story you got to have an idea.


(or without knowing what group is playing in your roadie scenario), you cannot estimate complicit numbers with much accuracy.


For any operation you know at least the basic of what is it going to take to get done, an estimate, at least the basic, thats what im asking for an estimate.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 09:35 AM
link   
"How many people need to be involved in a conspiracy?"

is this like a question like how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark_Ace
is this like a question like how many people does it take to screw in a light bulb?


Huh?

I think my question is a very valid one. As valid as all the conspiracies that are being out forth.

Listen I'm open to hear conspiracies as I think they are part somewhat of what takes place daily in our world. People conspire all the time for a variety of purposes.

But what I fail to see in many 9-11 conspiracies is structure. How was it done? How you get from the official story to no planes without with at least some basic sense of structure? What about CD? How was it done, manpower, resources, money? Analyze all the angles of this event and put forth a theory of how was all accomplished within the realm of your theory.
I don't think that's to much to ask.

I think those are very valid questions
.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
If 9/11 was a false-flag operation, and here I use the "if" rhetorically, not that many need to know what is really going down. The principle is pretty simple--set the exercises and war games in motion and a few dedicated teams switch the safety switches off and it becomes real. All the infrastructure is running on the assumption it's a normal exercise, they don't need to know to be a part of the attacks. Look into the London subway bombings for a less-complicated example of this. Turns out this is exactly what happened; a private security expert was part of a team gaming exactly these attacks with the gov't when they occurred, and he's gone before the BBC to recount it. Think about that for a moment, the probability of the exercise and the reality happening at the same time--for the exact same subways and buses. Please.

For example, if you assume the jets were RC--a fair assumption, given the available tech, the E-4 over DC, the Pentagon and WTC acrobatics, etc--you need only a handful of people to run the show--the "roadies" do all the grunt work and are none the wiser about what they prepped--just an exercise. Heck, even the AQ patsies think they've actually hijacked the things, I'm sure--until they started flying themselves.

As for CDing the WTC, check out this thread: Hi-tech, fool-proof CD exists, and here's the patent. What you'll learn is that it was entirely possible to wire the WTC towers with fibre-optic lines by a bunch of joes who would have thought it was just another layer of communications cabling in a complex choking with the stuff, and small teams could have come in later to place the charges. Maybe all you need is 6 to do the deed, over a weekend--perhaps when there is a power down in the towers, for example.

So yes, thousands involved, but 98% or more don't know what they're actually doing. This is called "need to know." Basic military black ops/special ops stuff. Kind of like real life, too.

What's the surprise here?


[edit on 8-1-2008 by gottago]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


Thanks for your response.

The problem that I see with your explanation is that it still leaves a lot of loose ends.

What happen to the planes, to the people? How do you explain the phone calls made to the family members and flight crews while the even was unfolding? How do you fake flight data, cockpit recorders, recorded communication between controllers, military, the hijackers broadcast communication, live video fees, other recorded videos of the event?

I mean we are not talking about buildings coming down here, while it is the most debated aspect debated here, there is a lot more angle to this event that was happening in the background of the towers coming down, how those come into play in these theories? Or should we just outright discard them.?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
The Al-Qaeda conspiracy need it about 19 or 20 to carry the attacks, one masterminder and a couple of higher ups in the know.


If this didn't actually happen, then it doesn't matter how many people it supposedly took.


How many people to fake the videos(live and recorded) and pics? How many people to create false flight data, cockpit recorders, phone calls made by the passengers, so cell phone companies had to be on it too?


If look more into these questions they would answer themselves. In fact, there were contradictory impact times reported by several different agencies/groups (LDEO, FAA, NTSB, NORAD, 9/11 Commission, etc.). Who's asking why these numbers are different when they should all have clocks sync'd to the atomic clock that NIST itself regulates in Utah? You probably don't even know anything about this (no offense, just most people don't). There are as much as 10 second or more discrepancies. But nobody asks. It suggests to me that all these people are blindly coming to different conclusions because NONE of them were "in on it," or really understood that they were really measuring different things. And no one higher-up bothered to ask the agencies to cooperate. Quite the opposite, all the studies were unrelated (compartmentalized). It doesn't really matter though because most people are ignorant and apathetic, and wouldn't even look that up to confirm it, let alone do something about 9/11 being an inside job.

NORAD, the Air Force, FEMA, and the NRO HQ also had several wargames/exercises going on, on the morning of 9/11 or immediately around the date, that reflected real-life events that actually unfolded. Someone clever might realize that this is an excellent opportunity to catch the military confused and off-guard, by doing the things in real life that they only think they're simulating as part of the day's games. Not many people would have to be "in on it" for NORAD to just to be confused and unable to react quickly.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Personally I think jets hit everything but the Pentagon, and there I'm not exactly sure what it was, but that whole part of 9/11 stinks to high heaven. There's high strangeness all over the flights, and I doubt we will ever know the truth of the matter. Looking at the Northwoods proposal though, and knowing the absolute ruthlessness of our secret agencies--the alphabet soup of CIA NRO OSO NRA etc--you must assume that disinformation and confusion are an essential part of the mix.

These people are not patriots and they keep their secrets damn well. Check out the latest revelations from Sybil Edmonds re: Pakistan's ISI, Mossad and the Turkish secret services stealing/buying our nuclear secrets for a song and shopping them to the highest bidders, with the collusion of high USG officials who quashed later FBI probes--and you'll start to see just how corrupt and dangerous these people are, and how little they value God Flag and Country.

So, they keep us guessing, a hall of mirrors. Makes perfect sense. These people have no souls. Not a shadow of a soul.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Bunch.. Let go.. There's no side to fight with me, re-read my post without thinking it's something that is challenging you, you asked how many people need to be involved in a conspiracy and I gave you my opinion.

You are still clinging to various things you cannot prove. I hoped my post would highlight some of the unknowns from that day, meaning it's impossible to speculate on numbers, yet you jump all over it as if I'm trying to make out that's the way it was?

What if some top level intelligence agent paid for these attacks under a top secret order known only by 1 or 2 people? I'm not saying they did but we don't know any hard details about the conspiracy, and that scenario has less men in the conspiracy than if it was planned and funded by Al Qaeda.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
reply to post by Bunch
 


Bunch.. Let go.. There's no side to fight with me, re-read my post without thinking it's something that is challenging you, you asked how many people need to be involved in a conspiracy and I gave you my opinion.


No fight here, just asking some questions. Thanks for your opinion.


You are still clinging to various things you cannot prove.?


So all the conspiracies have been proven to be factual? All I have mention are the things that has been presented, that IMO exist.


What if some top level intelligence agent paid for these attacks under a top secret order known only by 1 or 2 people? I'm not saying they did but we don't know any hard details about the conspiracy, and that scenario has less men in the conspiracy than if it was planned and funded by Al Qaeda.


That of course is pure speculation from your part.

Look I have nothing against you and I hope you dont take this as an attack, Im just trying to find out how all this conspiracies that are put forth could fit into a scenario of planes hitting the WTC, the Pentagon and Pa., which I really think that happen that day. Because I believe there is evidence that at least prove that those events indeed happen.

Im open to discuss the who knew what?, when did they knew it? and why whats nothing done to stop it? side of it, that where I think are some serious questions need it to be answered.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by gottago
 


Thanks for your response.

The problem that I see with your explanation is that it still leaves a lot of loose ends.

What happen to the planes, to the people? How do you explain the phone calls made to the family members and flight crews while the even was unfolding? How do you fake flight data, cockpit recorders, recorded communication between controllers, military, the hijackers broadcast communication, live video fees, other recorded videos of the event?

I mean we are not talking about buildings coming down here, while it is the most debated aspect debated here, there is a lot more angle to this event that was happening in the background of the towers coming down, how those come into play in these theories? Or should we just outright discard them.?


Sure there are a lot of loose ends in the CT-realm, but what about the official story?
The loose ends in that story are clear indicators of it being false, while the loose ends in the CT's are mostly things that are open to debate, that don't directly prove the CT to be wrong.

And I agree with what most posters said. A few high placed people that know the deal, a few trustees/agents in the know, and a bigger group of people on a need- to- know basis.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
The loose ends in that story are clear indicators of it being false, while the loose ends in the CT's are mostly things that are open to debate, that don't directly prove the CT to be wrong.


I disagree with you enigmania. I think that loose ends in both CTs and the official story are simply things that are open to debate.

Both sides will attempt to color in those gray areas with opinionated rhetoric but, in the end, "clear indicators of it being false" shouldn't really be considered "loose ends" should they?


And I agree with what most posters said. A few high placed people that know the deal, a few trustees/agents in the know, and a bigger group of people on a need- to- know basis.


Again, I kind of need to call you out here and point out that all three separate levels of people you just listed above...you just said that they're all "in the know." You just rephrased it three times in a row.

That's kind of telling, in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by enigmania
 


I dont think that many people here have an idea how the federal government agencies and military works, and therefore make wild claims about secret groups or how they see or understand the "need to know".

And yes there is a lot of debatable aspects of the official story, that doesnt make it totally wrong IMO.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
That of course is pure speculation from your part.


Yes it is! But that is what anything but the official story really is. Even parts of the official story are speculation. So to argue that it would take a lot of people, when the conspiracy might only be that an infiltrated and planted agent ordered and paid for the attacks, is logically wrong. We don't have a clue what really happened so it can be proven neither false or true.


Originally posted by BunchLook I have nothing against you and I hope you dont take this as an attack, Im just trying to find out how all this conspiracies that are put forth could fit into a scenario of planes hitting the WTC, the Pentagon and Pa., which I really think that happen that day. Because I believe there is evidence that at least prove that those events indeed happen.


Yeah that's cool, you seemed to take my post wrong though and I know how easy it is given the issues talked about on here. But we agree here, except I don't buy the Pentagon plane hit, maybe there was a plane but I don't think it hit the Pentagon like the WTC planes did. Regardless, I think it's highly likely there were planes, and Arabs, but who knows for sure who was behind the Arabs? I can't credit them with the power and intelligence to pull it off so cleanly, and I also refuse to point the finger of blame at anybody in particular, but I think it's obvious somebody else helped out here.


Originally posted by BunchIm open to discuss the who knew what?, when did they knew it? and why whats nothing done to stop it? side of it, that where I think are some serious questions need it to be answered.


So true. I don't feel we can get all these answers, no matter how hard we want them. Maybe once everybody figures out we're all on the same side, for now there are too many opposing factions, which should all be under the same banner but aren't!



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjay
So true. I don't feel we can get all these answers, no matter how hard we want them. Maybe once everybody figures out we're all on the same side, for now there are too many opposing factions, which should all be under the same banner but aren't!


And that what makes me so MAD in this forum and others, I want to know the truth as much as the other guy here but so many people try to put forth nonsensical theories with no structure, instead of using some simple level of understanding and target those "facts" about the official story that are really questionable.

IMO, is completely plausible that those planes were allowed to hit the buildings and the pentagon. If people spend more time in questioning the real inconsistencies of the story instead of indulging in wild theories I think the truth movement would had accomplish more by now.

I apologize for any misunderstandings, is that sometimes the nonsense here is beyond belief.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by enigmania
The loose ends in that story are clear indicators of it being false, while the loose ends in the CT's are mostly things that are open to debate, that don't directly prove the CT to be wrong.


I disagree with you enigmania. I think that loose ends in both CTs and the official story are simply things that are open to debate.

Both sides will attempt to color in those gray areas with opinionated rhetoric but, in the end, "clear indicators of it being false" shouldn't really be considered "loose ends" should they?


And I agree with what most posters said. A few high placed people that know the deal, a few trustees/agents in the know, and a bigger group of people on a need- to- know basis.


Again, I kind of need to call you out here and point out that all three separate levels of people you just listed above...you just said that they're all "in the know." You just rephrased it three times in a row.

That's kind of telling, in my opinion.



That might be telling in your opinion, but I just think you didn't understand me.
I'm talking about high placed people that know the whole deal, lower placed agents/trustees that know the whole deal, and then the larger group of people on a need-to-know basis, wich means they do NOT know the whole deal.
So, I didn't say the same thing 3 times, the fact that you didn't get that, is mmm, telling IMO.
And, yes the "loose ends" in the official story do directly prove it was an inside job, buildins just don't collapse in their own footprints, after being hit by a plane, or not hit at all(building 7), not without explosives.
Don't you think that the fact that the official story is open for debate, is a nice indicator that there is something wrong?
A conspiracy theory does need proof, but if proof is presented, it's not a theory anymore.
The nature of a conspiracy is that it is hard to prove.
An official story should be proven to be true, beyond any doubt, because if it is the truth, it would be easily provable.
Sofar I have seen no proof of the offical story being true.




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join