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: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Q: How many people need to be involved in a conspiracy?

A: All of them.




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch

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.


I think a good number of people on this site have a clear understanding of how these agencies and the military works. They are large bureaucracies that are rigidly hierachical and highly compartmentalized. The guy stowing the bomb doesn't know and will not be told where it will be dropped. The lieutenant is not making strategic decisions, he is executing orders. But they're not the ones you should be focusing on.

The flipside of these huge organizations are the black ops and secret agencies. Since 1947, we no longer live in a constitutional republic but a national security state. They have no official budget and veil themselves in secrecy. Until rather recently hardly anyone even knew the NSA existed, and the old joke was it stood for "No Such Agency." Yet these organizations are very real and extremely powerful. Senator Daniel Inouye over 20 years ago called just one part of this hidden web ''a secret government, accountable to not a single elected official, including apparently the President himself; a shadowy government with its own air force, its own navy, its own fund-raising mechanism and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national interest, free from all checks and balances and the free from the law itself"; Ike simply called them the MIC, and predicted they'd progressively destroy our freedoms, and he was right of course; though he unburdened his soul, his warning went unheeded and it's all come to pass.

Black ops funding is incredibly murky but estimates are that the "official" black budget that passes through congress is around 1/5 of the Pentagon's--about $80 billion a year. Now add to this the huge over-inflation of all the material ordered through the Pentagon--those infamous $1000 toilets, $500 hammers, etc--which goes to contractors who are an integral part of the MIC, as well as the massive drug money that keeps the CIA in business, and Rumsfeld's admission (on 9/10/01, no less) that $2.4 trillion was missing from the Pentagon's budget in a 10-year period, and you begin to see the scale of the funding of these agencies.

Now these guys are into everything--advanced aerospace and weaponry, obviously, R&D from mind control to weather control, moles in the media (about 400 CIA current estimate), electronic eavesdropping on a scale you can't believe, undermining other governments--you name it, they're doing it.

So, now that you get the vague outlines of the rabbit hole, 9/11--with all its inconsistencies, physical impossibilities, cover-ups, withheld and destroyed evidence--has black fingerprints all over it. They aren't the army, air force, navy or marines. They aren't the FAA or FBI or FEMA. And these guys just don't talk.



[edit on 8-1-2008 by gottago]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I really don't understand what's so hard to understand about compartmentalization...


What of the hijackers that were investigated with leads dropped or purposely ignored? Perfect example of compartmentalization. CIA gets the lead, passes it up the ranks, and is told not to share the information and drop the investigation.

They didn't know at the time why (and still don't probably) but that's what happened. Nor did his superior who told him to drop the investigation, but moreover probably would have received a memo or an order.

That's cuts tons of people that "would have known about 9/11 " from the list.

And just to preempt this response:

No, that doesn't prove a conspiracy. It just allows for it.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


And of those who needed their record cleared, they'd all need to be demo experts, so let's see- 30 demo experts that are currently in trouble, and are also treasonous. His story gets pretty weak going down that road.
Military demo experts get pretty thorough background checks, before ever recieving training, and every single one is registered with the FBI. This tends to weed out folks with major character flaws. For the CT stories to work, you would need highly skilled people, that were either all treasonous, or all idiot savants not knowing that putting explosives in the WTC was in someway out of the ordinary. You'd need to recruit quite a number of intel/military/police/fire & rescue/engineers, etc.. all treasonous or idiot savants as well, and then hope every single one keeps their mouth shut. It just keeps getting better, the more complex the CT gets, or we can suspend disbelief that 2 or 3 people were in on it, and got everyone else to do all manners of treachery completely unwittingly.
Or the more likely story- there was mass ineptitude within multiple federal agencies, and they got caught with their pants down, by poor analysis, poor communication, slow reaction time, no SOPs in place. For anyone that's spent much time around federal employees, and their petty beaurocracies, it's not awfully hard to imagine inept behavior, that would be embarassing. Not to mention the revalation of vulnerabilities in the defenses within the CONUS. That's a much more plausible set of circumstances, than a conspiracy of this size going off perfectly, without anyone spilling the beans.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


6 demo guys to wire both WTC1 and 2 over a weekend? 100 demo guys couldn't accomplish that task.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Please ake some time to read the OP linked; the point was that the "wiring" could have been done over a period of months if need be, by people who thought they are laying fibre optic communications lines. The actual planting of charges could be carried out very quickly.

This is not difficult to understand.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
That might be telling in your opinion, but I just think you didn't understand me.


Impossible. I never misunderstand anything. Ever.



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 the first two groups "know the whole deal"...so I didn't misunderstand you there.

So the "need to know" group only receives specific but non-telling instructions like "plant these explosives in the WTC1, 2, and 7" or "place this complex radio control mechanism in this airliner" or "remove this damning evidence from ground zero" or "place a bunch of put options on American Airlines"...you know...things that wouldn't make anyone suspect foul play.



So, I didn't say the same thing 3 times, the fact that you didn't get that, is mmm, telling IMO.


I'm standing by my initial statement. Which, for the record, is telling.



And, yes the "loose ends" in the official story do directly prove it was an inside job...


No. If the "loose ends" of the official story did directly prove that 9/11 was an inside job then they would no longer be called "loose ends." They would be provided descriptive names like "Exhibit A" or "Exhibit B" and be proudly displayed in a court of law.

I will give you credit where credit is due. You have identified the ONLY legitimate lead that the Truth Movement has to go on, and that is the unique collapse of all three buildings. Once an explanation has been provided for that, the Truth Movement is dead because playing in the kiddie pool with "Pull It", holograms, and Bill Clinton curse-outs just won't be enough to keep it on the national radar.



Don't you think that the fact that the official story is open for debate, is a nice indicator that there is something wrong?


No. Bush actually attempting to impose martial law on September 12th. That would have been a nice indicator.

Come on now enigmania, I could start a forum on ATS titled "The Sky is Blue" and someone will debate it with me. That's hardly a reliable indicator of validity.



A conspiracy theory does need proof, but if proof is presented, it's not a theory anymore.


Agreed. Which is why 9/11 conspiracies are still referred to universally as "theories."

You know what I call that?
Telling.



An official story should be proven to be true, beyond any doubt, because if it is the truth, it would be easily provable.


Unless the entire story is based on facts that make the storyteller look unprepared, unorganized, and uneducated...and culpable individuals would rather people threw around "theories" that make them look omnipotent, omniscient, and utterly untouchable.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Essedarius
 


Whatever dude, if you don't want to admit you didn't understand what I said, when it's there for everyone to read, that's your prerogative.

The people placing the explosives, would be part of the 2nd group I described, the trustees/agents, that know the whole deal.

The "exhibit A and B" you talk about, would've been there if the gov. wouldn't have been in such a hurry to get rid of the evidence, if the gov. would release the Pentagon footage, if the media would give the scientists and witnesses that support the truth movement some airtime.
You know there will never be such a courtcase, there wasn't even a courtcase to support the official story, so that's pretty easy for you to say.

Why do you think an explanation will be found for the collapses, other than explosives being used?
You admit the official story is lacking there, yourself. Why isn't there an official explanation being given by the gov, that you find satisfactory?

The way you end your post, is just a cop-out. If it happened like they said it, they should prove it, beyond reasonable doubt.

Btw, Bush couldn't have declared Martial Law on sept. 12. They needed 911 to change the laws, to be able to declare Martial Law when they want. Pariot Act.

I'm getting tired of arguing. What is proof to me, will never be proof to you, in the end it is all about perspective.

[edit on 9/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania
Whatever dude, if you don't want to admit you didn't understand what I said, when it's there for everyone to read, that's your prerogative.


Indeed. Thanks for your blessing.



The people placing the explosives, would be part of the 2nd group I described, the trustees/agents, that know the whole deal.


Ahhh good. Or they could be a part of the 1st group you described which also knows the whole deal. Or, for that matter, the part of the 3rd group that knows most of the deal. Let's call them group 3a.

Group 3b knows nothing about anything. I'm not sure who's in that group but they're a waste of the taxpayers money, I'll tell you that much.


The "exhibit A and B" you talk about, would've been there if the gov. wouldn't have been in such a hurry to get rid of the evidence, if the gov. would release the Pentagon footage...


So this "solid proof" you're talking about that supports the Truth Movement is actually internet forum speculation regarding what MAY have been there.

Do you see how flimsy that is?
And you think I'M deluding myself?



Why do you think an explanation will be found for the collapses, other than explosives being used?


Because, in my total layman's opinion, the controlled demolition of a building has a very distinctive sound to it, and the collapses on 9/11 just didn't sound like that.

And before you come at me with thermite and mini-nukes and DEWs...let me remind you that I believe the collapse to be the strongest link in the CT chain. The only link really...the supporting logistics that would have had to be in place for a full on MIHOP controlled demolition conspiracy are absurdly unrealistic.



You admit the official story is lacking there, yourself. Why isn't there an official explanation being given by the gov, that you find satisfactory?


Because the engineers just haven't worked it out yet. That's what I believe and that's about as good as I can argue it.



Bush couldn't have declared Martial Law on sept. 12. They needed 911 to change the laws, to be able to declare Martial Law when they want. Pariot Act.


So he couldn't have pulled off martial law with a 90% approval rating, so he's going to wait until his approval dips below 10% to make his move?

Come on now.


The way you end your post, is just a cop-out.


False. A cop-out would be if I said something like I was tired of arguing and that what's proof to me will never be proof to you and that it's all about perspective or something.



I'm getting tired of arguing. What is proof to me, will never be proof to you, in the end it is all about perspective.


If you're tired after two posts then, if you don't mind me saying, you don't have a prayer at toppling the neocon cabal that engineered 9/11.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I have a question for all the CT'S out there, why if the US government would perform an attck like this, why not a nuclear bomb in the middle of a big city? I mean more casualties, more damage, more outrage by the people, more chance for the Government to get away with whatever they want.

I mean it would make more sense than a complicated operation with many many more angle and more chance of getting caught like 9-11.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Because such a big measure wasn't needed, their plans are going along pretty well, if you ask me. it would have been too much of a disruptance at that point.
Now that the Patriot Act has been established after 911, and the public readiness to go to war with Iran, and other counties has weakened, the attack you talk of would fit their program nicely, at this point.

Can you please respond to the shanksville footage I posted/. Thank you.

[edit on 9/1/08 by enigmania]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Watch out for answered prayers there. Just listen to the media reports, the drumbeat of the msm on this subject. Just like OBL was ratcheted up until we had 9/11, so the specter of a loose nuke going off in a US city is now pretty much seen as an inevitability.

You had a question in the Democratic debates which went to the effect of, "What would you do once one has gone off?" Not even a pretense that it can be avoided. So we are being prepped for it.

And why 9/11 and not a simple nuke? 9/11 was orchestrated to make several points at once and advance several overlapping agendas at once. That's why it is so multifaceted--it was a hydra-headed monster. There was not the wish for greater destruction, but rather maximal terror, to recoup its benefits--control.

Well now that the 9/11 drug is wearing off, do expect a bigger, cruder shock to the system--this has been foreseen, predicted, discussed for years now by a huge variety of people.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
I mean it would make more sense than a complicated operation with many many more angle and more chance of getting caught like 9-11.



Order through Terror.

Where is the order in wiping out economic powerhouses and large chunks of population on your own side?

That's chaos, the opposite of what they're trying to achieve. Come on man, think.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Where is the order in wiping out economic powerhouses and large chunks of population on your own side?


Are you serious? Didn't you just describe exactly what happened on 9/11.

Talk about drawing ad hoc lines to fit your own agenda.

I think Bunch's point is right on the money. The extravagant complexity of a 9/11 conspiracy does not reconcile with what was supposedly “gained” by the perpetrators. That is to say, there is a huge inconsistency between the staggering intelligence it would have taken to execute the plan, and the absolute idiocy that would be involved to undertake such a high risk, low reward, plan in the first place.

The two just don’t fit together. You need to decide if THEY are brilliant, or idiots.

A small nuke, or a bomb in an elementary school, or snipers in malls…these all would have rewarded a conspirator with the exact same “rewards” that 9/11 did…with approximately 1/jillionth of the risk.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
Are you serious? Didn't you just describe exactly what happened on 9/11.


No. Explain what large chunks of population and economic powerhouses were destroyed on 9/11. Be relative to national figures, please.


I think the point went over your head.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Explain what large chunks of population and economic powerhouses were destroyed on 9/11. Be relative to national figures, please.


Population

Approximately 2,974 dead.

I consider that a large chunk of our population. You can argue that point, but I would guess that popular opinion falls on my side.


Economic

Thirty percent of Lower Manhattan office space was destroyed...that area being the third largest center for business in the nation. (1)

The NYSE and NASDAQ did not operate for a week...the longest closure since a small problem known as the Great Depression in '29. Upon reopening the Dow set two records: largest single day drop, followed by the largest one week drop. (1)

The insurance industry was left to reimburse between $40 billion and $70 billion. (2)

Insurance premiums for companies left in the MAJOR ECONOMIC HUB of Manhattan went from rising 7% and 10% for Business Interruption and Property Damage coverage respectively, to increasing 52% and 74%. (3)

All that aside...

It was the WORLD TRADE CENTER.

Seriously, are you going to posit that attacking 13 million square feet of office space in the middle of New York's financial district was not an attack on an "economic powerhouse?"

That's absurd. Absurdly absurd.



I think the point went over your head.


I wouldn't pretend to keep track of what part of the ozone your point flew into.



(1) Source
(2) Source
(3) Source



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
Approximately 2,974 dead.

I consider that a large chunk of our population. You can argue that point, but I would guess that popular opinion falls on my side.


I'm not trying to be morbid, and it certainly was a tragedy, but Manhattan's population is estimated around 1,537,000. That's just Manhattan, the relatively small but densely-packed island where the WTC was.

2,974 / 1,537,000 = 0.19%, and you know everyone that worked at the WTC wasn't from Manhattan.

Throw in only New York City on top of that: 8.2 million residents.

2,974 / (1,537,000 + 8,200,000) = 0.0003%


Like I said, I'm not trying to be morbid, but many more people could have died on 9/11 if eradication of the maximum number of people possible was the goal. More people die on a monthly basis from car crashes. (I actually looked it up to make sure, about 60,000 a year.
)

[edit on 10-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Absolutely correct bsbray, and I would like to add, that yes, an "economic powerhouse" was hit on 911, but it was "just a few buildings", it didn't destroy the infrastucture, communication, and probably all living conditions, of the "economic powerhouse", that is, for instance the city of New York.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
OH COME ON PEOPLE!!
Really?? We’re down to arguing this? REALLY!?!!


Originally posted by bsbray
I'm not trying to be morbid, and it certainly was a tragedy, but Manhattan's population is estimated around 1,537,000. That's just Manhattan, the relatively small but densely-packed island where the WTC was.


Fine, I will concede that 3,000 people, statistically, is not a lot.

However, I would ask you to concede that 3,000 people being aggressively murdered while going about their day is, in fact, a lot. Enough to make the front page of the paper in most cities…on a slow news day, of course.

And in response to this:


Originally posted by enigmania
… I would like to add, that yes, an "economic powerhouse" was hit on 911, but it was "just a few buildings", it didn't destroy the infrastucture, communication, and probably all living conditions, of the "economic powerhouse", that is, for instance the city of New York.


I will concede that 9/11 did not level our entire country into a spacious parking lot, leaving us to trade and barter large pieces of concrete and glass for goods and services.

However, I would ask you to concede that the economic impact of 9/11 was one of the most significant financial interruptions we’ve seen in this country since the Great Depression.


In the end (…and I admit that this has become a purely semantic argument that has wandered a bit) I still believe that it is an absurd statement to say that the 9/11 attacks did not kill a significant amount of people, and they were not aimed at the economic center of our country.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius
Fine, I will concede that 3,000 people, statistically, is not a lot.


What took you so long to admit it?



Originally posted by Essedarius
I still believe that it is an absurd statement to say that the 9/11 attacks did not kill a significant amount of people, and they were not aimed at the economic center of our country.


Let's rewind a bit and I'll help you to comprehend the posts here.

Bunch posted:


why if the US government would perform an attck like this, why not a nuclear bomb in the middle of a big city? I mean more casualties, more damage, more outrage by the people, more chance for the Government to get away with whatever they want.


I replied:


Order through Terror. Where is the order in wiping out economic powerhouses and large chunks of population on your own side? That's chaos, the opposite of what they're trying to achieve.


Bunch is wondering why if 9/11 was a government conspiracy weren't more people wiped out? Why not level New York and kill millions in the blast and fallout over New England? Better yet, why not detonate a nuclear weapon in every US city simultaneously? Why not blast the entire North American continent underwater?

This is the type of naive and unsophisticated thinking that prohibits your understanding of Sept 11.

The object is to create a persistant fear that permeates through american's daily lives.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join