It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Simple and Elegant Plan (9/11)

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by infinityoreilly

A good plan in this particular set of dealings is like dominos.
And like I said allowing yourself to be rushed spells disaster in such dealings.
And as for Iraq. I'd say that particular situation worked fine for them as well. Sure Bush Jr. had to take a fall (but will still retire in the lap of luxery) but he got what he wanted meaning Daddy Bush.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:00 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

Or do you believe that foreign operatives knocked down the towers as reported, and that the rest of what happened on 9/11 was carried out by domestic operatives of various specialties including psychological warfare (media)?

That one.
But with the following factors.
1) Kept STRICTLY on a need to know basis. And the operatives only needed to know what they were supposed to do. And probly disguised as perfectly legit things. No planting of demolition charges and other such things.
2) Minimal use of US operatives and even then done in such a way they couldn't put the big picture together. I am sure to bet if planned right the ones to this day don't know their complacency in the plot.

It is, after all, how I would do it. And the former director of the CIA would probly have advanced knowledge on the nuts and bolts of how to do it.
And some things like the scarcity of pictures/evidence available of the Shanksville crash and the pentagon can be easily arranged without operatives.
And order like "Keep those reporters away." assures you that one will try to sneak in and get you some not very good photos for folks to base their theories on.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:10 PM
reply to post by WraothAscendant

Well, theoretically speaking, only one person really had to know if it was a missile that hit the Pentagon and another that farted in a ditch in Shanksville. That would be the person who flew the guided missile to target, or programmed the coordinates. Even those who launched it never had to know the target destination.

And again, WTC 7 may have just been a NY conspiracy, not a national one. Of course it only helped make the disaster bigger in the public's eye anyway, so no one at the top was about to come down on Guliani and Silverstein.

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

And WC7 in the end helped confuse the issue into the current morass we have.
Shanksville was a crash site I think. Just beautifully manipulated so that people could if so inclined doubt it.
Same with the Pentagon.
There would be the trouble of a missing cruise missle.
Not to forget it is nowhere near a test range. Someone would most likely have noted it that was not friendly to "the cause".

[edit on 28-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:13 PM
Dag burn double post AGAIN.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:23 PM
You are against Bush now. How many of you voted for him, twice? Can you keep saying to yourself, "I didn't know". Huh? Like Jerry Corsi. Hmm. --------------------------PC

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:29 PM
reply to post by pc is here

I personally have NEVER trusted Bush.
I personally have thought Bush Jr was a puppet for a while now.
Daddy Bush seems to me to be a master manipulator.

And I would like to add.
I don't see where your going with this beyond attack so please explain?

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:37 PM
reply to post by WraothAscendant

Glad to respond. Help is available. To Noory, " through faith the future is revealed". You are not alone. Bush, and like garbage should mean nothing . My father served in WW2 and Korea, for what? Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice ( the gang of four)? They make me sick and ashamed. ---------------PC

posted on Jan, 28 2008 @ 10:43 PM
reply to post by pc is here

I think Bush Sr is the brains of the outfit.
Seeing as to how his son doesn't really seem to have any.

And whaaaaaa? *manages to look greatly confusified*

[edit on 28-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

posted on Jan, 29 2008 @ 08:37 PM

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
CD people.
As I have said multiple times I do not will not think CD is a viable option.

[edit on 28-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 28-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

You seem pretty close minded, and "sure" of your opinion, and will not sway, talking like this.

So let me ask you, Why in the F', do you bring up these cleverly disguised discussion threads, where even if God himself (or whatever you believe in, Dubya himself?) came down and told you it was a CD, you still wouldn't believe him?

Your wasteing space, and peoples time and energy. Starting threads under the guise that you don't have any opinion, when you not only do have an opinion, but you have one that Will not, Never, Ever, be changed. That's misleading everyone who partook in this thread up until this post.

You really should have a more open mind, the above statement makes you sound very ignorant. Like you know it all.

So no evidence will change your mind yes? There was no CD in your opinion, and nothing will change that yes?

Please just stop makeing threads under the guise that you have no opinion, when you have one of the strongest I've seen, in the quote above.

Sorry, I just don't like close-minded people, who will never admit, hey maybe I could be wrong.

Or hey I never seen this evidence before, hmm, maybe I should rethink my whole stance on the subject.

They have a word for this when it comes to police detective work. "Tunnel Vision". When you come up with your theory, and anything that doesn't match it, gets thrown out, and anything that supports your theory stays in. It's a very poor way to study evidence.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by Nola213]

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:04 AM
reply to post by Nola213

I think that the OP was actually quite clear in what he had set out to try to prove (or disprove) with this thread. He does have an opinion, and has stated it.

I for one, am not trying to "sway" him. He has presented a valid and logical scenario to be discussed based on a single premise. That premise being the simplest means of perpetrating the 9/11 conspiracy.

I am still undecided regarding "Controlled Demolition" myself. I think the CD theory is actually quite possible in fact. But not necessarily part of the conspiracy.

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:22 AM
reply to post by Nola213

Nola. Firstly lay off the ad hominem.

Secondly. I state what this thread is about and as I have stated MULTIPLE times. . This theory was put together based on:
A) What I would do if I had the position and means to put such a plan into play.
B) Based on what I know about planning the best plans are often the simplest
with the fewest variables. Which is also just incidently a part of the reason I reject CD.

I am not convinced of CD. Nothing I have seen convinces me for reasons I will state for the millionith time.
A) Is too messy as I said before, too many fingers in the pot ruins the soup.
B) And more importantly ALL the evidence I have seen that people claim
supports it can be interpted a different way from what I have seen.
I can't make theories based on ONE DAY seeing evidence that MIGHT
be out of the normal can-be-differently-interepted stuff I normally see.
Especially since from what I see CD is not reality.
I could attempt to cater to CD, but then I would be lying.
C) I honestly don't think someone in government who would instigate such
a plan would be such a piss poor planner. CD leaves WAY too many
variables. It also stands to common sense to me at least. Anyone
who has gotten this far in government as they obviously HAVE wouldn't
have such piss poor planning skills that such a TRANSPARENT plan as stated
by CD infers. CD is an insult to the intelligence of all people if it is real. And NOT a
very good plan. Specially not by such people that brought us black ops
and etc.
D) And last but not least it WAY undereestimates the sneakiness.

You can attack me and attempt to derail what I am saying or you can think about it.
The choice is yours.
But do it in silence.
And here is ANOTHER thought.
Could it be that people do not disagree with you based on THEIR faults and the world is out to get you?
Could it be they are rational thinking people THAT SEE IT DIFFERENTLY even what you claim to be evidence?
Ask yourself that as well.
But once again, do it in silence.

Or AT LEAST learn to be civil.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:43 AM
reply to post by WraothAscendant

I like your refreshingly human reasoning, silver metal alien (??) No seriously, there's some interesting possible scenarios along this line with varying degrees of al Qaeda independence, US/AQ symbiosis of goals, false flag aspects, taking false credit, etc... I'm getting sick of using the L word vs. M word - if they made it happen they'd need to also let it happen, and if they just let it happen, well, someone had to MAKE that letting actually happen. As you point out, the KISS aspect to me HAS always meant as few machinations and as little messiness as possible. RC airliners with a few fake calls makes some sense, rigging for demolitions/thermite, etc. at least is within the realm of reason, but otherwise we haave plane parts being buried at Shanksville, people stashing light poles and smashing trailers before a sea of planted actors at the Pentagon, manipulation of live video feeds in real time, holograms, lasers... it's a bottomless pit.

It's actually a sad testament to the Truth movement that an idea like this - as well-reasoned as it is - comes across as revolutionary in its simplicity. It's along the lines of what I suspected from minute one, a line that has been curiously buried beneath a growing pile of increasingly absurd cartoonish distractions.

Again, thanks for taking the time to lay out your thoughts, and just for having them.

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 03:01 AM
reply to post by Caustic Logic

No thank you for your input.
And I like positive.

But I do respect constructive criticism too.
Just not of the "Your a close minded evil stupid sheeple because you don't agree with my theories and your theories reflect that." type.

On another note this was said in another thread and thought it interesting enough to post here. Hope the person that posted it don't mind. Something to think about.

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by WraothAscendant

I just read it. It was interesting and certainly plausible theory.

It just crossed my thoughts, but didn't the guy that hacked pentagon 2000 - 2001 said that it was blank password to admin account there in pentagon. If I regard that as a fact, I can't help myself thinking that the door was purposely left open to someone's to learn about defenses, practices and other crucial info about america?

This is just speculation of course, but I regard it as a possibility. That would nicely fit your scenario also.

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 09:42 AM
Ok. I am just curious.
Could anyone out there explain to me how CD is NOT too messy within the constraints of what I was talking about above?
Another reason I said is too messy if multiple groups did it that would mean ENTIRELY too many people within government knew something was in the wind.
It shows almost an inherently badly planned cluster f***.
Meaning that it would have filtered its way into those outside government that are "in the know".
Toooooooo messy. But feel free to try to explain it to me. But be respectfully warned I will critiique it, as critique any information someone feeds me as fact.

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by WraothAscendant

I am not an outright supporter of CD, but I do leave open the possibility.

It would have only taken a small squad of operatives to plant the explosives in key locations, with effective camouflaging of their activities and the explosives themselves. I have a hunch that this part of the operation was carried out by Mossad. They caught wind of the impending al-Qaeda attack, and decided to "help" so that America would be more agressive on their response to terrorism.

The best evidence I have found so far to support CD, is the fact that al-Qaeda themselves did not expect the towers to fall, as revealed by CIA interrogator John Kiriakou. Please visit my thread "They didn't think the buildings would collapse..."

Furthermore, my first instinct, which is what they say you should always go by, was that the towers had been imploded in a controlled fashion. The damage to the surrounding city-scape was certainly quite restricted as compared to what might have happened if the Towers had not come down straight into their own footprint.

Having said all of that, I am not an engineer. A NYState engineer had me convinced at one point that the design of the towers explained the "pancake" effect. I don't remember his full argument, nor do I see this person anymore to refresh, but I was convinced by him at the time when I was an outright supporter of the CD theory.

EDIT to add: If it was indeed a foreign group such as Mossad who carried out the demolition, this would explain why no one has come forward. It remins counter to their interest for the truth to be revealed. We would hope that an American would decide to "come clean" with secret information, not being able to bear it any longer that America has been lied to all along, but no foreigner would feel this weight bearing down on them.

[edit on 2/1/0808 by jackinthebox]

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 11:49 AM
reply to post by jackinthebox

You do make some good points. If one leaves CD as an open option.
Not saying thats a bad thing. BTW.
The Mossad connection thing is very plausable and I would agree if I thought CD held any water what-so-ever. But that also brings in there will always be some sort of trail left to be discovered no matter how much you try to cover it.

And I really don't think this is just a case of me being stubborn.
I can and have honestly admitted before when I was being stubborn and like to think my efforts to be consistant are paying off.
Based on my knowledge of physics (I tend to be somewhat of a idiot savant in this subject), construction, and intereptations of the evidence (though I CAN see the how people arrive at the CD idea) Controlled Demolition just doesn't seem very plausable.
I mean like I said before I CAN see where they are coming from. But I don't dismiss the other possiblities I see. And I did watch the towers coming down MULTIPLE TIMES. And all the stuff that people point to and say Controlled Demolition I can see other more plausable (to me) reasons.

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 12:13 PM
reply to post by WraothAscendant

A lot of things that people point to as evidence of CD, doesn't really convince me. The latest "squib" footage for example, could also simply be overpressure.

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

That and other factors that I see is what leads me to dismiss Controlled Demolition.

But I thank you for agreeing to disagree and not turn this into just another infantile flame session as some are inclined to do. Your words thus far bespeak of a person who is actually rational rather than just trying to claim a title they make empty by their actions.

Such sessions are antithesis to ever actually getting to the bottom of anything, anyway.
And again I am I admittingly guilty of it as well though I wish to the gods I could say I wasn't.

Heres to you being a better man than I.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by WraothAscendant]

posted on Feb, 1 2008 @ 05:28 PM
The possibility you envisioned could obviously coexist with the two main questions that I had since ths happended:

Why Osama has never said Al Qaida did not do it?

Why USA has not managed to find him?

And it is also supported by Giuliani's famous sentence "... are gonna collpapse..."

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in