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: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
What took you so long to admit it?


As with most of my visits to the 9/11 forum, there was a prolonged period of dumbfounded shock that the conversation was actually occuring in the first place.

Please accept my apologies for holding up the runaway train of progress that is the Truth Movement.



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?


I'm not sure that you are translating Bunch's intents very well, but I may be wrong. I'll let Bunch address that.



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


Lucky for all of us, naive and unsophisticated thinking stands out in 9/11 conspiracies like a sore thumb and is quickly removed.

Now where were we...oh yes...you were explaining how the government killed juuuust the right amount of people to establish psychological control over the rest of the country so we could go (back) into Iraq and establish martial law (which I'm sure is on the "to do" list for '08).



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


Like, for example, the Cold War. Ahhh those were the days, weren't they? When a government could psychologically influence people and not even have to engineer a multifarious murder conspiracy to do it.




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by gottago
 


No, the actual laying of charges couldn't be done very quickly, and there's no way it could've been done without leaving evidence of it having been done. Have you ever watched any shows on the demolition of buildings?
There's an awful lot involved- and it's not inconspicuous when a building has been rigged with demo. Secondly, there's nobody that installs fiber optics or LAN wiring that would confuse it with Det Cord. Additionally, the conduits where they'd be putting this wiring is nowhere near where it'd need to be if it were indeed Det Cord, to be hooked up to demo charges. This rules out compartmentalization with regards to dupes laying explosive Det Cord unwittingly. The folks putting in the demo charges sure as hell would know what they themselves were up to. Furthermore, you couldn't place the demo charges where they needed to be without tearing out walls and insulation, to get the charges precisely(and yes they need to be put in precise locations), where they needed to be on the steel structure. I can guarantee those 300+ firemen would recognize a building rigged with demo, as would any employee seeing all the mess. There simply is no surruptitious way to rig a building with demo charges that is still occupied.

Here's some examples-

www.popularmechanics.com...

Thom Doud, blaster-in-charge for Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI), heads up a small slope toward the hospital's main entrance and ducks under a gap in the chain-link fence. In moments he is inside the building, where the walls are gone--battered down and hauled out weeks ago--and the ceilings and floors are naked concrete. A staircase descending from the second floor ends in midair, its base sawed off. Everywhere, tangles of red and yellow cords snake across the floor and wind their way up the load-bearing columns.

"The most important thing you gotta do is watch your step," he tells me, as he lopes nimbly over the surface. "It is a maze of spider webs in here. If you step on, pull on, tug on anything, let me know."

science.howstuffworks.com...

science.howstuffworks.com...

static.howstuffworks.com...

The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse.



[edit on 11-1-2008 by BlueRaja]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

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?


Just to clarify, that was not my point at all when I posted the question.

There is two points behind my question, and they are: MOTIVE and OPSEC. Every conspiracy needs to have a motive.

So if we were to make a consensus of the motived cited in all the CT related to 9-11, we could agree and feel free to correct me that is government control. I have heard others but that is mainly the predominant one.

A nuclear bomb doesn't necessarily has to cause mass casualties (depending of the yield, location and other factors)but it would seriously cripple our society psyche, thus giving the government a way to employ more strict measures that IMO would make the Patriot Act look like the Constitution.

The other point, operation security, this would be a key element to consider for any military or black ops mission. How we get in, do it, get out and cover our tracks with MINIMAL CHANCE of something getting in the way of the mission or getting exposed. The success of such operation depends on secrecy and is just but plain naïve to think that the 9-11 attack with such a degree of complexity with all the resources need it, personnel, task need it to be accomplished before, during and after the attacks if in indeed was a inside job had any chance of being succesful. Just ask any guy that is involved in SpecOps.

Let's imagine the NWO or PNAC trying to develop a plan to create chaos in the US. With all the smart people and critical thinkers that they have. The leader of the group ask the members: We need to do something to show the American people our way is the right way! Any ideas?

Guy1: A nuclear bomb, not a big one, a small one, just one guy go to [insert place here] blow it up, blame it on Al-Qaeda and we can get away with stuff.

Guy2: I have a better idea, let's make a scenario were 19 hijackers get on planes and they crash them in the Pentagon, Capitol Hill, and the WTC, then we place CD charges in the WTC so it can go down, no plane for the Pentagon just a missile would do but we still have to play the plane crash card, and no plane in Capital Hill we just explode a missile and say it was a plane too that crash in Pa.

You see what I'm getting at?

Or you guys think that missions are put forth with only one way to go about it! That's is as naïve as it gets IMO.



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


I don't think this was necessary, but hopefully you now understand that the angles that in trying to analyze here.





[edit on 11-1-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Very few need be directly involved, and the balance of people have to be willing to accept the impossible, while rationalizing their way through it. There are some people refusing to allow anyone else to do their thinking for them, or look the other way for any material price. There are far more valuable assets in life than materialism. One is respecting and maintaining one's own integrity.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
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.


How come? If the building fell on its own - as you believe - then it shouldn't have taken that much in the way of explosives eh?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Can you reconcile the two? I mean you either have one or the other, if not how the demo people would have known the exact amount of explosives need it? And I ask because that goes back to my point of accomplishing the mission. There is or should not be a space for failure if indeed was a conspiracy.

I saw the Mark Roberts video were the CD expert says that they sometimes use 30% above what they think is required just to make sure the job gets done. So they are the expert and they dont even know.

So what was it a large amount of explosives, or just enough to get the ball rolling and let the laws of phisics do the rest? I dont think anyways they would have taken that risk, what about if the building didnt came down, they would have been exposed.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


You're missing my point. Everyone talks about how much in explosives it would take. Yet they believe the buildings fell on their own. I'm not saying they wouldn't have packed it full of explosives/thermate/whatever, but to say it wouldn't have been possible is hypocrtical.

According to these people, a strong breeze could have brought these towers down while they burned, yet alone some explosives.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunch
 


Excellent response to Sublime620. No buildings the size the WTC had been brought down with a controlled demolition, so there'd be a lot of guesswork and things left to chance. If one thing went wrong, the conspiracy would immediately be exposed. Additionally as was mentioned earlier, it would be impossible for the occupants to not see the det cord, and other signs of tampering.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Thanks for your clarification, sometimes with all the turns and twists here I loose my sense of direction.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
There is two points behind my question, and they are: MOTIVE and OPSEC. Every conspiracy needs to have a motive.


So what is the MOTIVE and OPSEC behind the official 9/11 story conspiracy ?

Do you really even know what OPSEC is ? Becasue i do, its part of my job.


Originally posted by GT100FV
Excellent response to Sublime620. No buildings the size the WTC had been brought down with a controlled demolition, so there'd be a lot of guesswork and things left to chance.



Also no steel buildings have ever collasped from fire and structural damage before.

Even buildings that had bigger and longer lasting fires, and had as much or more structural damage as the towers.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
reply to post by Bunch
 


Excellent response to Sublime620. No buildings the size the WTC had been brought down with a controlled demolition, so there'd be a lot of guesswork and things left to chance. If one thing went wrong, the conspiracy would immediately be exposed. Additionally as was mentioned earlier, it would be impossible for the occupants to not see the det cord, and other signs of t ampering.



Why would there be guesswork? The guys that designed the buildings know exactly how much force is being put on every part of the structure, they designed it within the safety maesures.
Don't you think they can calculate the amount of explosives needed to bring down the critical points of the structure?



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Originally posted by ULTIMA1

So what is the MOTIVE and OPSEC behind the official 9/11 story conspiracy ?


Motive of the 9/11 story if you are referring the the oficcial story, was to explain the events that happen that day, and recommendations on how to fix the country security gaps.


Do you really even know what OPSEC is ? Becasue i do, its part of my job.


Trust me I know, it gets drill to my head on a daily basis in the Air Force. OPSEC, COMMSEC,INFOSEC, and everthing else that could possibly end in SEC

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by enigmania

Why would there be guesswork? The guys that designed the buildings know exactly how much force is being put on every part of the structure, they designed it within the safety maesures.


You have me at a lost here, are implying that the designers of the building are "in on it"?


Don't you think they can calculate the amount of explosives needed to bring down the critical points of the structure?


Yes they can calculate, but in order to make sure that the job gets done they are going to go over those calculations IMO, leaving no room for failure in the mission.

Does anyone has an estimate of how much explosives would have been need it to bring the towers down?

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Bunch]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
Does anyone has an estimate of how much explosives would have been need it to bring the towers down?


I know that an ATSer named Damocles mentioned at one point that he was going to work that up (he's the resident demo expert)...not sure if he ever got around to it.

My layman's guess is this: plenty.

Or at least enough that a covert wiring of the buildings would be a laughable impossibility.

But hey, what do I know?



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Ok, this time I'll answer in English


Det cord is history, dude!

Check out the link from my earlier post--it's fibre optics now!

No mess, no fuss, looks just like all the rest of the cabling in the towers did.

Read the patent I linked to, already.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join