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 do they manage to keep the agents quiet?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
I've heard of a way you could pull the whole thing off with just 19 people, but no one here seems to think that is possible.


Pulling it off was probably the easy part.

Covering it all up afterwards is much more complex, because many honest uninvolved individuals in all these government organizations (and the media) will start asking embarrassing questions.

So you need people in high places all over the place to apply pressure to silence anyone that starts raising concerns. There are probably far more than a thousand people as accessories after the fact, covering it up and tying up loose ends.




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


deleted. Forgot I addressed this already


[edit on 14-4-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Prouty theorized that there is an agency within the agency. Something that seems plausible to me.

Leon Panetta was appointed Director despite having no expertise in intelligence. Why is that? Could he have been useful in some way? My questioning these things is not slander. That is simply a shield to stop people from asking.

Edit: I notice you left out Porter Goss, the man who was involved with Operation 40. This group included some very nasty characters, committing assassinations and coups. I am quite sure Goss learned a trick or two along the way.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
This is how 9/11 was acheived -

The Hijackers were allowed into the US via Saudi Arabia - this is well documented. They were trained and were CIA assets. They thought and believed that when they boarded the planes they were performing a hijacking and not flying the planes into the WTC / Pentagon.

The planes were then flown remotely into the wtc and controlled remotely - perhaps from building 7. Building 7 was then demolished - it could only be demolished if the attacks were successful - and if they were successful HAD to be demolished.

The hijackers were patsies.

This explains the white van, building 7, the pentagon, the ability of the pilots, the Norad exercises, the behavior of the pilots - it explains everything.

All that would have been required is to rig the planes - that's it. No one else would have ever needed to know - easily achievable.

\



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Someone with experience with military planning, just try to explain how complex it would be just to fake the terrorists going through the airport security measures, monitors, and fake only the known radio transmissions.

These factors alone would require hundreds of people in position to control these aspects of the 9-11 story. That is before you think about destroying the Twin Towers, the attack on the Perntagon, the loss of Flight 93, and the control of all of the aspects involving this historical event.

It is like saying the moon landings were faked, and there was no Holocaust. After all, the Iran-Contra Affair was much less complicated than would be needed to recreate the 9-11 attack, and that certainly was able to be kept quiet, right?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Thanks for your interesting replies!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
[I've heard of a way you could pull the whole thing off with just 19 people, but no one here seems to think that is possible.


Is that 19 foreign, domestic or both?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by AllIsOne
 



I'm still curious to hear a figure on the amount of people it would take to pull off operation 9/11.


I've heard of a way you could pull the whole thing off with just 19 people, but no one here seems to think that is possible. So back to the controlled demoltions, faked crashed sites, cruise missiles that look like passenger planes, morphed phone calls, thermite encrusted elevator shafts....


Do you mean the 19 "official" terrorists?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
When I say "GROUND ZERO" does that mean anything to any body?
the term was first used in New Mexico.... ? still nothing, ok - they labeled WTC as Ground ZERO, they also use the term to describe the count down for a nuclear device set to explode at ground level.
www.youtube.com...

I dont have a clue if they used these Nuclear device but that clearly is not within the reach of a cave dewelling cia asset. and if it were then he would need alot more resources than he had in Afganistan.

anyway this russian makes a good case - they dont waste words enjoy or cry depending on if your for or against America.

*how many main members are there to the CFR, Trilateral Commision are there. oh, skull and bones participated, CIA, FBI they were all in on it,. it would appear. so, what ever they told the Government folks was a good lie. they still believe it~! -- but Anti-Evil is waking them up, one American at a time... I'm well over 10,000 - and I love it when a law enforcement type takes me up on the challenge - before they leave they are really pissed. not at me - but at what they were told and did - I would image.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Anti-Evil]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by audas

This explains the white van, building 7, the pentagon, the ability of the pilots, the Norad exercises, the behavior of the pilots - it explains everything.


Remote controlled airplanes doesn't explain the collapse of the WTC towers in the least. It would still require hordes of secret agents sneaking in and planting tons of explosives all over the place, as well as hordes of insiders within the Port Authority to allow them in, as well as the hordes to the tenth power necessary to cover up all the evidence of explosives.

...unless you're saying the remote controlled planes and the subsequent fires actually DID cause enough damage that it caused a domino effect of structural failures, in which case this "remote controlled planes" bit is entirely redundant to the story and you're simply adding these conspiracies entirely for conspiracy's sake.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Well Dave, they did exactly what your saying didnt happen,. they powered down the t0wers, the shut down the systems and they pulled to bomb sniffing dogs out of the towers a week or so before 911. it would appear some of the Computer Farms in WTC have Night Staff that were off during the attack. please read their testimony. a couple are actually on video.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
Prouty theorized that there is an agency within the agency. Something that seems plausible to me.


Would that be Nada Nadim Prouty? The only information I can find on her is that she pled guilty to hiring someone to pose as her husband to gain US citizenship, and she pled guilty to rifling through th FBI's counterterrorism files to find out how much the FBI knew about her family's involvement in Hezbollah. The only thing that smells in all of this is Prouty's true motives for what she was doing.


Leon Panetta was appointed Director despite having no expertise in intelligence. Why is that? Could he have been useful in some way? My questioning these things is not slander. That is simply a shield to stop people from asking.


Unqualified people advancing through political patronage only proves cronyism. You still have a long, LONG way to go to prove some secret conspiracy to blow up buildings and killing US citizens.


Edit: I notice you left out Porter Goss, the man who was involved with Operation 40. This group included some very nasty characters, committing assassinations and coups. I am quite sure Goss learned a trick or two along the way.


What the heck does the Bay of Pigs have anything to do with this secret plot to blow up the WTC? You really are stretching with your innuendo manufacturing, here.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
If 9/11 was an inside job, it would require a lot of people to keep quiet. A LOT. Because an operation that size is too big for just a few people to accomplish it. Its not like an assassination, its a major non-conventional military operation. So you'd have to whack a lot of people or risk exposure.

You know the claims that there was a training operation going on that day, right? Well, could it be that the "training operation" that was occurring was being run by the very personnel that were killed by whatever hit the Pentagon. Think about it. An operational command center is common in all real & training ops. All command & control would've been in one place at one time. These folks might have thought they were running a training exercise, but when it started happening for real, they would've blown some whistles. So get rid of them while the operation is happening. Boom. Solves hundreds of potential leaks. As for the operatives, they could've been taken out after the operation and then just added to the list of pentagon dead.

As for people that maybe rigged the towers with explosives. Getting rid of them is easy. Double cross them. They would be operatives that would need to hide out for a while after they accomplished their mission, right? So they'd be given travel arrangements, right? So give them plane tickets to one of the 4 flights that went down that day. More leak problems solved.

I'm not saying 9/11 was an inside job. I'm just saying how I would clean it up.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by josheboyxiii
 


The official story is that 19 guys pulled it off. Generally intelligence budgets are not disclosed, but the 2007 budget was. $47.5 billion was allocated for intelligence, and that is just what we know about. An intelligence community with billions of dollars or 19 guys working out of caves; which sounds more likely?

edit: this should not have been directed at Josh. my bad

[edit on 15-4-2010 by InvisibleAlbatross]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Evil
Well Dave, they did exactly what your saying didnt happen,. they powered down the t0wers, the shut down the systems and they pulled to bomb sniffing dogs out of the towers a week or so before 911. it would appear some of the Computer Farms in WTC have Night Staff that were off during the attack. please read their testimony. a couple are actually on video.


A) they powered down only one half of one building, and even then there's only one person in the universe who seems to remember they powered down 1/2 of one building. There's nothing outside of innuendo that this was anything but legitimate maintenance.

B) they only withdrew the EXTRA bomb dogs becuase they were on loan from the NYPD due to a bomb scare. The NYPA always had their own bomb dogs and one of them (called, "Sirius") was killed in the collapse.

C) the attack occured before 9:00am, the start of the work day, so there were a LOT of people who were "suspiciously missing from the building" at the time of the attack. There are a lot of people "suspiciously missing from the building" in EVERY business, before 9:00.

D) When I say these conspiracy stories are 100% the product of these damned fool conspiracy web sites putting out rubbish to deliberately get people all paranoid over shadows, you're not exactly proving me wrong here.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
The notion floated here that the Pentagon strike could have been a way of "cleaning up" some of the conspirators doesn't really stand up when you think about it.

How would they be absolutely certain everybody would be there, and not off sick or late for work? Or just in the bathroom? Statistically speaking it's so unlikely that you'd manage to kill everybody. And the ones you didn't get would move pretty fast and would have a huge motivation to blow the whistle on the whole thing, because they'd presumably be safer with teh story out in the open.

It might work in a movie, but not in real life.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join