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.

 

Too many people involved to be a conspiracy? No.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   
I’ve read in numerous posts and on countless websites that the events surrounding 9/11 require far too many people to be involved (and keep absolute secrecy) for it to be realistically considered a ‘Government conspiracy’.

But I was reading some stuff on an unrelated matter when out jumped a line which I though was remarkably pertinent, and was definitely food for thought. Here’s the line, and afterwards I’ll put it into some context…



“Starting from the fact that you were lied to about the deaths of John and Robert Kennedy, take a moment to think back at just how many people had to sign onto those lies. Newscasters, police officers, investigators, and government officials, all had to take part, all DID take part.

That is an important lesson to keep in mind, that a lie to the public demands, and has little trouble obtaining, a vast number of people to help it along.”


It was from this page about the death of JFK Jnr.:

whatreallyhappened.com...


The page does not necessarily imply that JFK was murdered, but simply that sometimes we CAN’T simply accept the ‘official story’. Importantly, it points out that sometimes a ‘small lie’ can be escalated in its importance, and be easily perpetuated by any number of sources WITHOUT THOSE SOURCES NECESSARILY BEING PART OF THE CONSPIRACY. [I'm thinking that in particular, companies who rely on 'scoops', exclusives and sensationalism to survive - such as media outlets - would be particularly vulnerable to this sort of thing... especially when trying to beat other outlets by seconds, which often jeopardises time spent on proper research]


A further quote from the site:

Rather than risk exposure of a far worse scandal, Nixon resigned, turning over the White House to Gerald Ford, the Warren Commission member who last year admitted last year to altering the official location of JFK's back wound.


In Ford’s words:


By MIKE FEINSILBER
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (July 2) - Thirty-three years ago, Gerald R. Ford took pen in hand and changed - ever so slightly - the Warren Commission's key sentence on the place where a bullet entered John F. Kennedy's body when he was killed in Dallas.

The effect of Ford's change was to strengthen the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and severely wounded Texas Gov. John Connally - a crucial element in its finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.

A small change, said Ford on Wednesday when it came to light, one intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.

''My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory,'' he said in a telephone interview from Beaver Creek, Colo. ''My changes were only an attempt to be more precise.'' [Photos of the shirt show it is NOT an attempt to be more precise...]

''This is the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission report,'' said Robert D. Morningstar, a computer systems specialist in New York City who said he has studied the assassination since it occurred and written an Internet book about it.

The effect of Ford's editing, Morningstar said, was to suggest that a bullet struck Kennedy in the neck, ''raising the wound two or three inches. Without that alteration, they could never have hoodwinked the public as to the true number of assassins.''

whatreallyhappened.com...


I’m certainly not here to suggest ANYTHING in relation to the death of JFK or JFK Jnr., nor do I want this thread to head off down that tangent. I merely put it up here as food for thought.

Would 9/11 being a ‘Government conspiracy’ REALLY require the involvement or knowledge of that many people? Is it POSSIBLE that ‘small, white lies’ or ‘guesses’ were carried and perpetuated throughout the media WITHOUT them being involved or complicit in some way? Is it possible that this was made so easy because an entire nation was in shock and wanting SOMETHING to help make sense of what was happening?

Food for thought...

Rewey




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Comparing the JFK assasination to the 9/11 attack is really poor logic. For one thing, all it would need to kill Kennedy is one really good marksman in a really good location. For the 9/11 attack, not only do you have to deliver and set up tons of explosives in two huge skyscrapers, you'd have to infiltrate the NYPA security to avoid detection. THEN, you'd need agents within the airline industry to coordinate and control four aircraft, THEN you'd need a small army of machinists, etc to manufacture all that fake wreckage they planted all over the place, PLUS the large army of fake eyewitnesses, journalists, engineers, etc to confirm the fake story they're trying to put out. That's not counting all the OTHER people within the FAA, NORAD, NATO, NYFD, NYPD, and I don't know who else who'd actively have to go along with the "official story" and not ask questions.

At a minimum it would take at *least* 5,000 people and even then it would be a horrid low estimate. This, from a gov't that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels. Yeah, the classic knee jerk response is that all the components were compartmentalized, but you'd have to be as dense as a bag of hammers not to understand that planting controlled demolitions in an occupied building is gonna get people killed, compartmentalization or no.

There simply couldn't be any gov't conspiracy behind the 9/11 attack, or at least, not the way the conspiracy people are insisting it went down.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


There were many more than that involved in the mahattan project and they didnt get exposed till after the fact.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
For the 9/11 attack, not only do you have to deliver and set up tons of explosives in two huge skyscrapers, you'd have to infiltrate the NYPA security to avoid detection. THEN, you'd need agents within the airline industry to coordinate and control four aircraft, THEN you'd need a small army of machinists, etc to manufacture all that fake wreckage they planted all over the place, PLUS the large army of fake eyewitnesses, journalists, engineers, etc to confirm the fake story they're trying to put out. That's not counting all the OTHER people within the FAA, NORAD, NATO, NYFD, NYPD, and I don't know who else who'd actively have to go along with the "official story" and not ask questions.


I think that what you've demonstrated is NOT that it could not be a 'conspiracy', but that the SCALE of it might not just be what some people claim - or more importantly - what some people BUILD out of lots of separate conspiracy ideas.

I, for one, don't necessarily believe in controlled demolition, or radio-controlled planes, or ludicrous no-plane holograms and CGI. Removing these from the equation takes away thousands of the 'conspirators' that would be required.

But it might be something as simple as not wanting to admit a small portion of complicity - perhaps shooting down F93, or deliberately ignoring multiple warnings, or even recruiting martyrs themselves...

I've always said - the truth may be a little closer to the 'official story' than some people are comfortable with. The closer you get to the 'official story', the fewer people are required to be involved...

Rewey



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Conspiracy or not, all I know for sure is that the people on Flight 93 gave their lives to save the workers down at the Capitol Building, so I would hope they have a little bit of respect and continue living their own with a heart to all of them.

Same goes to ANYONE who gave their life for another...firefighters, workers, etc.

To many people involved to be a conspiracy? Well, is something a conspiracy if everyone thinks it to be true, even if false?

Might still be a conspiracy, but the actions taken afterwards sure do change.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by FritosBBQTwist]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   
To add to the OP...

A further example worthy of including here is Ted Olsen's (the US Justice Department's Solicitor General) belief that there are many situations in which "government officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false information out."


"It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information," the Solicitor-General, Theodore Olson, told the court on Monday.

"It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests."


From here: home.austarnet.com.au..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">web.archive.org...://home.austarnet.com.au/mickdenley/anarchy/articles/liars.htm

Are both TWA 800 and Flight 93 such examples of when the Powers That Be might deem it appropriate to "legitimately give out false information"?

Rewey




top topics
 
0

log in

join