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.

 

The Logistics of 911 Inside Job

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Here's another way of looking at 911: the feasibility of its being a false-flag operation. ie how big a job would it be to 'set up' a show like this.


It would be an enormously complicated false-flag op. Needlessly so, in my opinion. If TPTB wanted to go to war and achieve other purported aims of this alleged operation, I think they could have generated an easier plan. This one would require a lot of people, and the more people know bits and pieces of the picture, the more potential whistle-blowers there are. And there was a hell of a lot which could have gone wrong, and thrown the whole thing off course.


But, as Hitler nearly said, the bigger the lie, the more people will believe. So who knows.


In any case, I want to look at some of the logistics which would be involved in putting this thing together. The reason being to put ourselves in the shoes of a person planning such a false-flag. And be shot to pieces, most likely, but that's the whole point. Hopefully some people on both sides of the aisle (so to speak) will have some input into some facets of this.

I'll start with the controlled demolition of the Towers, and ask some logistics-related questions concerning controlled demolition of same.


1: The Twin Towers

Controlled Demolition

Required:
Several Tons of Planted Explosives at strategic points, wired together for coordinated explosion, plus detonators.

Issues:
How to plant them?
How much?
Who to plant them? (Seals? Some covert SpecOps team?)
How long would it take? (a night? five nights?)
How to get them into the building? (I assume the building had security personnel, or were they in the know?)
How many men required to plant them?
How to coordinate explosions (ie run wires from stick-to-stick?)
What if the initial plane attack shakes some explosives free from detonators, or breaks firing regulation (for a chain of explosions) and some unexploded packages are found later amid debris?
What if the planes don't hit as planned (how to get the explosives out without detection?)
How far ahead of time would the explosions have to be placed? What chance of them being found by eg Maintenance Crew?

People Count (how many people are going to have to work on this project?)


Plane Attacks:
Required:
Direct hits on both Towers by passenger airliners. A dozen psychotic terrorists, or a dozen patsies.
Issues:
Where to get hijackers?
Will they be able to pull it off?
What if they don't pull it off and botch the whole thing?
What if the impact of the airliners knocks off large parts of the Towers ahead of scheduled demolition?
What to do with the people on planes (let them perish, or create ghost passenger-lists)?

People Count: How many people required for this job?


I think a false-flag on this scale is just way too complicated. TPTB behind such an op would surely look at alternates:
Alternate attacks to attribute to Al Quaida
[**deleted so that I don't look like a terrorist to FBI bots**]


The point is this: it's too hard. I mean, planes? With *Snip*at the wheel? And buildings rammed with explosives???
Sorry-- I just don't buy it. Too many people needed, too many unknown variables, too many things to go wrong, with little fail-safe.



Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 2-8-2009 by eniac]

[edit on 2-8-2009 by eniac]

[edit on 8/4/2009 by semperfortis]




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I'm not going to argue any of your points because I think that would be pointless. Here's why:


It's not up to the "truthers" to provide an explanation for how it was pulled off.

All they have to do is to demonstrate that the official explanation does not make sense.

And this has been done on so many levels, countless times.


Whether it was done with holographic planes, orbital beam weapons, mini nukes, drones or nano-thermite is really quite irrelevant and pointless to argue.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by eniac
 


I would have to agree. I have always avoided this type of thread because I know, there are more heated debates here than there would be on an abortion site!

But you bring up a point that has always bothered me.

Ben Franklin (?) once said "The only way to keep a secret between three people, is if two of them are dead."

I just don't see this.

IMHO



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
In the Bld. 7 collapse is the key, obviously excluded from the commission report.
As if Chris Angel made it disappear, along with all memmory of it.
Many have still never heard of the third collapse.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Ben Franklin (?) once said "The only way to keep a secret between three people, is if two of them are dead."

I just don't see this.


I'm not sure I follow you...

Who are the two metaphorical people that should be dead for the cover up to be a plausible theory??

As I see it we have no way of knowing who these people would be, which makes it a dead end.

All we can do is look at the factual & physical evidence & conclude that the official story doesn't hold water.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by MrVertigo
 


The point I was trying to make was that in order to successfully keep a secret of this magnitude, the fewer that know, the better.

Using a quote from Ben franklin, I thought, illustrated that.

I can't argue the specifics, I don't have the structural engineering background to even pretend. I'm just trying to look at it from a different perspective.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


You're right, of course, the fewer that know the better. That's why Lee Harvey Oswald was shot, and the guy who shot him killed etc.

But then the argument becomes: "It can't be a conspiracy, it would be too big."

And I just don't buy that.

Like Joseph Goebbels said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
So you basacly say that Al-queda are Smarter than the Cia and have more Resources than the Us Govt. to fund and set this up ?

Werent there a threade here not long ago, where the Worlds best Pilot said the even he would have trouble with hitting the towers in that way ?

So Al-queda have better pilots too ?? Even it is proven the so called 'pilot' of one of the planes had trouble with a small Sesna plane ??

!!



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

It's not up to the "truthers" to provide an explanation for how it was pulled off. All they have to do is to demonstrate that the official explanation does not make sense. And this has been done on so many levels, countless times.


This is so true. I agree with what the op is saying, and his questions are always the first ones brought up by the official conspiracy theory believers.
What is harder to believe though? The laws of physics changed? Or somehow TPTB pulled this off.
Also, your not just arguing with a bunch of nutcases.
Try 200+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials
700+ Engineers and Architects
200+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
400+ Professors Question 9/11
230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members
patriotsquestion911.com...

There are just too many holes in the official account and because of that i don't subscribe to it.
That's all. I don't know who pulled it off, or how it happened. All i know is that the government is lying, and why would they lie if they weren't guilty.





[edit on 2-8-2009 by dnaobs]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrVertigo
I'm not going to argue any of your points because I think that would be pointless. Here's why:


It's not up to the "truthers" to provide an explanation for how it was pulled off.

All they have to do is to demonstrate that the official explanation does not make sense.

And this has been done on so many levels, countless times.


Whether it was done with holographic planes, orbital beam weapons, mini nukes, drones or nano-thermite is really quite irrelevant and pointless to argue.


That's a valid stance to take imho, if that's as far as it goes.

But ...

A lot of people believe that the Towers were rigged with explosives for a controlled demolition., and regularly talk about this supposed fact on these boards.

For those people, I'd like to hear their theories on how the explosives got in there, and how they were set up to detonate after a massive crash, and what the back-up plan was should there be a problem etc.

Because the whole thing seems like such a ridiculously convoluted, complicated, high-risk scheme, that the sheer stupidity of such an operation mitigates against the credibility of the "controlled detonation" theory. By which I mean that if it was a false-flag, then the 'masterminds' behind it must have been some pretty dumb mothers.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by eniac
 


The problem is that you're asking for a comprehensive and bullet proof explanation of how it was pulled off and no one knows this because we don't have all the facts.

Sure I could go on explaining how there were reports of unusual maintenance, how the systems would have had fail safes, how the technology used was probably a lot more advanced than what is commercially available etc.

But that's pointless.

Actually, it's a trap.

See what would happen is that somebody would try to give a possible explanation.
Then you would find holes & inconsistencies in that explanation & use that as an argument for why the official story must be true since the alternative explanation is flawed.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MrVertigo
 


negative: not a trap.

I'm not a walking 911 encyclopedia, like some ppl on here. I wouldn't be able to pick holes in such theories.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Are you familiar with Operation Gladio?

Highly secretive subsections of almost every Western European power were running guerilla/terrorist networks in their own countries for the purpose of internal subversion, of changing the political landscape (and bumping off undesireables like Aldo Moro and Mino Pecorelli). This last from their inception in 1945 through to the 1990 European Parliament resolution following the official admission of Andreotti. That's nearly 50 years, in which hundreds of people were killed in dozens of attacks across Europe, and some of these state sponsored militants were being flown around to help out with, for example, the 1973 coup in Chile that brought in Pinochet.

If they can keep that secret then a couple of remote controlled planes/holograms and blowing up three skyscrapers is a walk in the park.

How do I think it was actually done? As above, 'truthers' don't need to explain what happened, but I'll take a punt anyway just for the sake of conversation.

The hijackers were 'genuine' Islamic militants, looking to hijack planes conventionally (land at airport, make demands) to try to free Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. This threat was detailed in the President Daily Briefing titled 'Bin Laden determined to attack in the US', and mentioned in numerous prior intelligence documents. It would explain the 'terror summit' in Malaysia, the number of miscellaneous Arab/Muslims in the US at flight schools, and why it was that the original cockpit tranmissions by Atta (allegedly) said 'we have a bomb, we're returning to the airport'.

However, this plot was heavily monitored and infiltrated, so the CIA and NORAD knew well beforehand that the planes were going to be hijacked. They thus prepared a large scale aerial-based wargame exercise (or several) involving false radar blips, at least on military scopes, live fly phoney hijacks to confuse the military response, and they took over the hijacked planes by remote.

Now, either those planes were then crashed into targets, which I think is untrue because I don't believe those are real planes hitting the WTC, or they were crashed somewhere, maybe out over the ocean because that might help explain why the originally scrambled fighters were sent in that direction. If they were crashed elsewhere (Flight 77 was reported down near the Ohio-Kentucky border by Jane Garvey, head of the FAA) they must have been replaced by something else, whether we're talking drones, missiles, holograms or whatever.

The WTC had seen a number of security drills, evacuations and power-downs in the weeks prior to 9/11, and these provided ample opportunity for either a small team of military explosives experts, or possibly a small band of robotic spiders, to place the explosives. You wouldn't need wiring, you can do it through wireless internet/radio/other.

As to what happened if things went wrong - what could go wrong? The explosives could fail to detonate, I suppose, but I think they over-egged the towers to cover themselves. They could have produced a much neater, more careful demolition but they had to be sure the thing would come down, regardless of how many explosions were heard/seen and no matter how much damage was done to surrounding buildings. There was no pragmatic reason to have massive bits of steel building thrown hundreds of feet into nearby buildings, indeed, this is something they obviously avoid in conventional demolitions. But like I say, they needed to be sure, so they put in more explosive/incendiary material than was necessary.

I think the whole operation could be done with less than 200 people, and less than 100 aware of the whole plot. Far more than 100 people worked on the Manhattan project and that didn't leak.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrVertigo
I'm not going to argue any of your points because I think that would be pointless. Here's why:


It's not up to the "truthers" to provide an explanation for how it was pulled off.

All they have to do is to demonstrate that the official explanation does not make sense.

And this has been done on so many levels, countless times.


Whether it was done with holographic planes, orbital beam weapons, mini nukes, drones or nano-thermite is really quite irrelevant and pointless to argue.



Very true indeed. Its not really up to us to speculate on how this was achieved. We could come up with some theories, but ultmately it is exactly what you said.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Vinciguerra
 

never heard of it. must look into it. Interesting stuff.

The comparison with the people involved with Manhatten isn't TOTALLY appropriate imo, because we're talking about the murder of over a thousand Americans.

I mean, if you were involved in this project to such a degree that you might put the pieces together, a normal person would be absolutely horrified by the carnage.

Which suggests that such people involved would have to be kinda fanatics, who believed from the start that we needed such an operation.

And/or have been warned, under pain of death, to keep their mouths shut, or indeed have been silenced. And/or victims of elaborate brainwashing techniques (I believe that various Govt. agencies worked on 'Manchurian Candidate'-type programs... maybe they did eventually crack the problem of effective brainwashing.)

So we're looking at maybe a hundred people, maybe more. Officials of various designations in one or various organisations, Operatives to plant explosives and set up the flights and so on. Fanatics and/or brainwashed operatives.

Not saying that's impossible, just sketching out the landscape here.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Supposedly one the Bush's had the contract for security which expired a day or two before the tragedy. True? I don't know.

I suppose it would be easy enough to pretend to be upgrading fire systems, etc. and instead plant exposives. Lease an office and have all the crap stored there until the job was done. Im sure packages are screened before being allowed into the building but that is probably easily eluded, especially if you are running security.

So it would be easy enough to do such a thing. Did they? I don't know. I'm pretty split on the issue.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I think some of the people involved were fanatics, in the true sense of the word. In Italy the Gladio operation involved over 620 'gladiators' over like I say, around a 45 year period.

One of them was Vincenzo Vinciguerra (where I got my screenname), a member of Avanguardia Nazionale and Ordine Nuovo, two neo-fascist groups. In a lengthy interview he did for Allen Francovich's film on Gladio (which the BBC showed back in '92) he said that Ordine Nuovo wasn't really ideological, that it was set up by Pino Rauti, a SID (Italian Military Intelligence) agent and asset.

However, Vinciguerra himself is a fascist. He said in the interview that he considered fascism a 'historical experience', i.e. a necessary stage in the political development of Italy. He said it is this that means he cannot repent his actions, which included blowing up a car and killing three carabinieri, because he believed what he was doing was right, and necessary.

We find a similar ideology in the Pinochet butcherers, the radical right wing Cuban exiles and to a certain extent the Mujahideen, though obviously they believe in an afterlife which is significant. Fanaticism is very useful to the intelligence services - why do you think we recruited so many Nazis after WW2?

So you wouldn't even need to brainwash people, I think there are enough mercenaries, fanatics and sociopaths available if you have the money, the connections and the will. All of which the CIA has in abundance. I say the CIA because of their history, but it could be some other part of the same structure.

Look at the 1993 WTC bombing as a comparison. The group responsible for that were ideologically led by Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheikh. He got into the US despite being the known leader of an Egyptian Islamic terrorist group because he was helping with the war against the Soviets, and then our Mujahideen-affiliated operations in the Balkans. The group were largely trained by Ali Mohamed, who got into the US despite being a known member of Zawahiri's Islamic Jihad. He also worked for the US Army as a supply sergeant at the Special Warfare Centre at Fort Bragg, and later worked as an informant for the FBI. The initial bomb was built by Emad Salem, an FBI informant charged with infiltrating and monitoring the group. In conversations he recorded with his FBI handlers he openly talks of building the original bomb and they don't contradict him. However, Salem seems to have fallen out with the FBI in late 1992, because the Blind Sheikh then called in Ramzi Yousef, a freelancing sociopathic terrorist with no ideological affiliations. He then built the bomb that was actually used to hit the WTC.

So, the ideological leader was likely protected by the CIA, the trainer was almost definitely protected by the CIA and worked for the US army, the original bomb maker worked for the FBI, and the second bomb maker was a lunatic hired for the job.

I would suggest that the same is broadly true of 9/11. Two of the alleged hijackers lived with an FBI informant, having been veterans of our operations in the Balkans. Several of the alleged hijackers apparently trained on US military bases, and according to Hopsicker's research may even have been training for drug smuggling missions rather than hijackings. The Able Danger program identified most of the alleged hijackers well prior to 9/11 but they were told they couldn't touch them.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 





In the Bld. 7 collapse is the key, obviously excluded from the commission report


So why not WTC 5 or 6? They dont seem to have any mention in the Commission report either...

As for most people dont realize it collapsed.....Most Americans cannot remember there are 50 states..I think I would find a stronger argument to use.....



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
thanks for writing all that



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


Reason these buildings were excluded was that WTC 7 (and WTC 5 & 6)
were not primary focus of attacks - they were "collateral damage"
caught when WTC 1 and 2 collapsed on them.

Also missing was Mariott Hotel (WTC 3) which was crushed when towers
collapsed on it - dont see anyone yelling about WTC 3 !



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join