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 realistic is it that there was NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of the 9/11 attacks?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   
In another thread I raised the issue of cases throughout history in which the REAL cause of US involvement was concealed or hidden for many years, even decades, before the REAL truth was revealed. It got me thinking about the ‘official story’ surrounding 9/11, and how completely unrealistic it was that there was NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of the attacks by the US Government.

So I started this thread to begin a collection of international wars or incidents in which the real reason for US involvement was faked or concealed, and later PROVED as such.

The ‘official story’ claims that the US was off by itself playing GI Joe ‘war games’, and whilst their back was turned, some nasty middle-eastern types hijacked 4 planes WITHOUT ANY PRIOR WARNING OR KNOWLEDGE of the US Government. Indeed, they were caught completely unawares.

Given how often throughout history the world has been lied to about US involvement in foreign wars and incidents, I find it incredible that there was no prior knowledge, and therefore COMPLICITY, by the US Government.

The hypothesis of this thread: that the sheer number of events in which US involvement was the result of a staged event, or one which was allowed to go ahead with the US Government’s prior knowledge, makes the idea that the 9/11 attacks could have happened with NO prior knowledge of the US Government completely unrealistic.


PLEASE NOTE: This thread is not intended to be an ‘anti-US rant’, as I have been accused of before for bringing this up. This thread is also not intended to produce endless debating about conspiracies regarding these events. I am looking for genuine examples of previous events in which US involvement was the result of a staged event, or one which was allowed to go ahead with the US Government’s prior knowledge. I would appreciate the moderators’ help in keeping the thread on track as such.

Some examples to start off with:


Spanish American War

The Spanish American War began in 1898 as a direct result of an incident that occurred in Havana harbor. On February 15, 1898, an explosion occurred on the USS Maine that caused the deaths of over 250 American sailors. Even though later investigations have shown that the explosion was an accident in the boiler room of the ship, public furor arose and pushed the country to war because of what was believed at the time to be Spanish sabotage. "Remember the Maine!" was a popular cry.


Sinking of the Lusitania – beginning of involvement in WWI

The Lusitania, a passenger ship which under normal circumstances was barred from carrying any armaments, had been loaded with both heavy and light armaments and ammunition, within sight of many New York dockworker’s of German origin.

As planned the loading of weaponry was then reported back to Germany’s US embassy, which then informed the German government, which in response placed advertisements in newspapers across the U.S.A. warning that any ships carrying weapons, would be classed as warships.


Bay of Pigs

Planning for the invasion began in 1960, before diplomatic ties with Cuba had been broken. The situation was delicate, since the plan was to overthrow a government with which the United States was not at war. Various aspects, including propaganda and military strategies, were included in the plan, along with the directive that the U.S. should not appear to be involved.

On April 12, 1961, Kennedy told a press conference that the United States unequivocally had no intention of intervening in Cuban affairs. Five days later, the invasion took place.

[continued...]




posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   
[more...]

Operation Northwoods

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban migrants, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."


First World Trade Centre bombing

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an FBI supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.


Pearl Harbour – beginning of involvement in WWII

"...everything that the Japanese were planning to do was known to the United States..." ARMY BOARD, 1944

President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders. FDR needed the attack to sucker Hitler to declare war, since the public and Congress were overwhelmingly against entering the war in Europe. It was his backdoor to war.


USS Liberty

The USS Liberty was an electronic intelligence-gathering ship that was cruising international waters off the Egyptian coast on June 8, 1967. Israeli planes and torpedo boats opened fire on the Liberty in the midst of what became known as the Israeli-Arab Six-Day War. In addition to the 34 Americans killed, more than 170 were wounded.

Israel has long maintained that the attack was a case of mistaken identity, an explanation that the Johnson administration did not formally challenge. Israel claimed its forces thought the ship was an Egyptian vessel and apologized to the United States.

Although the US did not have prior warning in this case, it DID CONCEAL the real cause of the event, which was an attempt by Israel to build US aggression towards Egypt.


Gulf of Tonkin – beginning of involvement in Vietnam

On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf - a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.

But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened.

Prior to the U.S. air strikes, top officials in Washington had reason to doubt that any Aug. 4 attack by North Vietnam had occurred. One of the Navy pilots flying overhead that night said "I had the best seat in the house to watch that event, and our destroyers were just shooting at phantom targets - there were no PT boats there.... There was nothing there but black water and American fire power."



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
You're kind of splitting hairs between the MIHOP and LIHOP theories with respect to 911, when you're considering the history of USA flase flag events.

Either way, when you have people like Condiliar Rice stating that they could never have imagined planes being used as weapons... it's pretty damn obvious that the truth is being suppressed.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
There is fact of knowledge of previouse intelligence that attacks what we're going to epress within ourselfs, no matter what. This has been previously hidden throughabout the council of the freemasons' discussions, Lie;s. ">...




[edit on 6-7-2009 by born2BWild]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
This is a rough toppic apprenlty i"m being suppressed



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   
The WAR on DRUGS is just such a thing.Lies,false stories of imaginary people,propaganda and what's worse,bring in TONS of narcotics themselves.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   
What are you talking about? No prior knowledge? It has been proven that the government only claimed there was no prior knowledge to begin with.

But the contrary was true, they had not only imagined it prior to 911, but had conducted exercises involving the scenario of a plane striking a building.

So I think the whole premise is flawed, considering its common knowledge that there definitely was prior knowledge, and it reiterates the point that you can never trust what they say. It's best upon any information from the government to begin by believing the exact opposite, if you follow that practice you will turn out knowing more truth.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
But the contrary was true, they had not only imagined it prior to 911, but had conducted exercises involving the scenario of a plane striking a building.


I'm not talking about 'imagining a scenario of a plane striking a building', or 'thinking up the concept that a hijacked plane could be used for this or that'...

I'm talking about THE ACTUAL EVENT. The ACTUAL 9/11 event. Did they have prior knowledge of that?

Let's face it - for years no-one thought any government would sacrifice its own citizens to look like they were being attacked, but the Lusitania proved that it happens, Operation Northwood proved that it could happen, Pearl Harbour proved that it happens...

So... what are the odds that they let it happen again? If track record is anything to go by, AND we know there were plans to re-invade Iraq before 9/11 anyway, I'd say the chances that they'd let it happen again are pretty good...

Rewey



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
AND we know there were plans to re-invade Iraq before 9/11 anyway, I'd say the chances that they'd let it happen again are pretty good...

Rewey


Another example of ignorance regarding military planning.

Do you think, just perhaps, we have plans to invade any one of a dozen or more countries around the world? Its called "contingency planning". The fact there was a "plan" to re-invade Iraq comes as no surprise to anyone who is a serious scholar of history, the same way we had plans to invade Britain in the late 1930's and the same way we had plans to invade eastern Europe in the late 60's and 70's and we very likely have plans to invade Iran or Pakistan or Egypt or the Baltic states or Turkey or anywhere vital interests may lie.

Serious people understand these sorts of requirements and acknowledge that after the fact is not the time to develop the deployment plans for something that might have to be done.

Serious people understand that simply having these contingency plans does not mean they will be carried out and executed.

Serious people.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Serious people.

Serious warmongers if you ask me...

Do they ever plan for peace? No. Peace isn't as profitable as war is. There's always an excuse for war, even if they have to make it up themselves.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


The Defense Department is not in the business of planning for peace. I am not sure where the idea that the military is supposed to wage peace comes from.

As for the OP. On the night of 9/11, quite a few of the members of my reserve unit were making phone calls, checking on the status of friends, checking on call ups etc... Pretty much the consensus was that scattered among a few dozen desks, across the US, would be the answers. That if all those clues were on the same desk, someone would have known for sure what was coming. Unfortunately, due to several laws and layers of bureaucracy, those pieces couldnt be shared with other agencies. No one person had the complete picture...or even half of it. And the pieces that people did have, were pushed off with the idea that, there is just no way a bunch of [SNIP] could do something like this...to US. Which, that last statement should seem real familiar to the truthers on the board......

 

Mod Edit: Removed racist slur

[edit on 6-7-2009 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
The Defense Department is not in the business of planning for peace. I am not sure where the idea that the military is supposed to wage peace comes from.

Yes, yes, Swampfox... warmongers never really understand the oxymoron that is the 'Defense Department'.

If they wanted to defend their country, then they shouldn't be planning to attack other countries. It's a typical guise, to use the word 'defense', when in fact they should be called the 'Offense Department'.

Currently, we're seeing the US Offense Department playing wargames against local Afghans trying to defend themselves, while also trying to wind up a war with Iraqis defending their land from US Offensive forces.

All kicked along with the spur of 9/11, so Joe Public waves the flag for the troops.

I've got no problems with people defending themselves, in the true sense of the word, but you're making up stories if you think that the USA is currently defending the homeland by deploying troops in the Middle East. Someone is making a huge profit from all of this... that's why it's still continuing.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451
Do you think, just perhaps, we have plans to invade any one of a dozen or more countries around the world? Its called "contingency planning".


But you know as well as I do that there was a history with Iraq that hadn't been finished. That was more than just contingency planning...

I'll have to find the doco, but there's a great interview with an ex-CIA agent. He was called the morning after 9/11 and told to "find a way to pin this on Iraq".

I think it was 'The World According To Bush', but don't quote me on that. I'll try to find it...

Rewey

[edit on 6-7-2009 by Rewey]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


The best defense, is a good offense. We spent the first half of the last century, NOT planning for war and it cost us dearly. France prepared the Maginot Line to defend against Hitler. Yeah that worked. Stalin made a pact with Hitler to help defend Russia, that worked. Hitler planned for the defense of Europe..see how well that worked. We spent the best part of thirty years pretending that terrorism wasnt a threat...and see how well that worked. Say what you want. But waiting till the fight is on your front lawn is suicide, no thanks.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
We spent the best part of thirty years pretending that terrorism wasnt a threat

That's a lie. What, the false flag terror of Oklahoma City and WTC 1993 wasn't enough of a threat? You and other ill-informed like you, spent the better part of the last 30 years pretending terrorism wasn't a threat. Don't forget Operation Northwoods where our own military wanted to stage terrorist attacks to go to war with another country.

You are only lead to believe we weren't ready by your gullibleness or ill-informedness. Our military is the most advanced in the world and trains for everything imaginable. So, never think for a second that our military is not ready for whatever this world has to throw at it.



Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
But waiting till the fight is on your front lawn is suicide, no thanks.

Sorry, but that's just BS fear mongering right there.

"We better hurry up and go over there and kill them before they come over here to our houses and kill our families and rape our children...".

It gets really old to hear deniers and fear mongerers say such things.


Back on topic, don't forget about the insider trading days before 9/11 that would indicate foreknowledge:

911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 6-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 





You and other ill-informed like you, spent the better part of the last 30 years pretending terrorism wasn't a threat.


Talk about ill-informed. Unlike you, I havent been pretending anything. While you've been fiddling away or whatever it is that you do, I've been helping kill terrorists since 1987. More often than not, the candy ass*s in our State Department has worked to prevent that from happening. But believe what you want.




You are only lead to believe we weren't ready by your gullibleness or ill-informedness. Our military is the most advanced in the world and trains for everything imaginable. So, never think for a second that our military is not ready for whatever this world has to throw at it.


I wouldnt think that for a second. Because I KNOW we werent prepared for what we saw on 9/11. Worse yet, right now, should someone hijack an airliner, they would have a better than even chance of flying it into another building before we could respond...we have gone back to the pre-9/11 mentality, relying on security screening at airports to prevent another attack. And in even in the days immeadiately after 9/11, we STILL did not prepare for everything, and we never will. But thank you for once again, demonstrating the arrogance (ignorance) to believe we are invincible.




Sorry, but that's just BS fear mongering right there


Call it BS fear mongering if you want. History is on my side.




Back on topic, don't forget about the insider trading days before 9/11 that would indicate foreknowledge:


Ah yes, more ignorance of the facts.

After studying the facts, you would see there wasnt anything suspicious about the put options. Both airlines had spikes in put options several times in 2001. For United, the highest spikes were in March and April.

www.911myths.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by trebor451
Serious people.

Serious warmongers if you ask me...

Do they ever plan for peace? No. Peace isn't as profitable as war is. There's always an excuse for war, even if they have to make it up themselves.


At the expense of falling into the oft-laid trap of "off-topic discussion", I'll make this one comment.

While Swampfox is correct in that the primary job of the Department of Defense is not necessarily to "wage" peace (to put it bluntly - and this will no doubt shock some of the more gentle of the ATS loyal - their job is to kill people and break things), it is indeed involved in many peaceful operations around the globe.

Take note of the Partnership for Peace program with former Soviet client states, Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW) programs, the current Peace and Stability Operations going on in many Iraqi provinces and towns. I personally have been involved in peaceful humanitarian exercises and operations at times in the past. When the Indonesian tsunami (as an Aussie, you should know this) the US sent an aircraft carrier to Djakarta - not to "wage war" but to act as a base for rescue and humanitarian operations (to wit it is something with its own inexhaustible power supply in a land where there was no power, it is something that can produce 900,000 gallons of fresh water a day from sea water in a land with no fresh water, it is something with its own airfield in a land so it can distribute that fresh water and search for survivors and bring them back, if needed, to the 4 hospitals and lots of open space for emergency supplies it has and it is something with a global communications facility to make the coordination of disaster relief in the region easier).

So yes, there is actually much planning for peace that goes on in the US and other militaries. I know you don't like it, but them's the facts.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
The best defense, is a good offense. We spent the first half of the last century, NOT planning for war and it cost us dearly.

Hilarious. Typed with the mindset of a true warmonger!

Let me get this right... you did not plan for war and it cost you dearly.

So, the opposite position would be that when you do plan for war, you profit dearly...

War = profit.

It's got nothing to do with patriotism, honour, heroes, glory, sacrifice, courage, freedom... Present day wars are all about profit.

Thanks for confirming that! War is big business.



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Call it BS fear mongering if you want. History is on my side.

Do you realise the nature of the thread that you're currently typing in, Swampfox?

Yes, I agree - history is on your side!!!

The USA has a history of staging false flag events to propel itself into profitable wars!!!

I almost feel like starring your post deliberately, rather than accidently. You got it right this time.

[edit on 6-7-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Rewey
 


It is absolutely unrealistic! I had three friends who were in the military at the time (didn't know each other) who each told me that they were told to stay out of NYC during the month of September. No reason was given to them, but it became crystal clear after 9/11. I don't subscribe to the 'inside job' theory, but I absolutely believe... strike that, know that the Bush Administration had prior knowledge of the attacks, and allowed them to happen to further their own agenda. It worked like a charm! Regretfully, I fear that they will also get away with it and never be brought to justice!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join