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.

 

American pleads guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction in Times Squa

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:45 PM
link   
WMD? They say that a Camera is a gun and a Backpack is a WMD... NY is very *Snip* up.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/22/2010 by semperfortis]




posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 





Well, if it had gone off it would not have fizzled and it would have caused mass destruction.


NO!

First, it had no chance to go off. None at all. It was just bags of castrated fertilizer lying in a truck with some gas cans and gun powder. Had it gone off, it would have blown the windows out of the truck and hurt some peoples ears.

Now, had the guy bought the correct fertilizer, and had he mixed it appropriately to form an emulfive, and had he added an accelerant like McVey did, and had he had a higher impact cap to set it off instead of Gunpowder and Gas.......had he done all that correctly, for the size of this SUV he would have probably killed a handful of people on the sidewalk and blown windows out of the building. No Mass Destruction.

It should be important that the government or the press or somebody defines "mass destruction." To me, it should be something capable of doing more physical harm than our typical bunker busters, and/or something capable of causing more death than a conventional weapon. (I.e. Nukes, Chem warfare, biowarfare)



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Clisen33
 


There is no inconsistency. You're assuming they wanted the bomb to go off. That is YOUR assumption. An assumption that has no bearing on reality.

Lets take what you said though and spin it around. How would evil terrorists that were capable of orchestrating the WTC attacks completely fail in making a bomb that I could find out how to make in 5 minutes?

From the last three recent "attacks", we can see that these actions had a reason behind them after time. The shoe bomber was the quickest of which, as his failed attack brought about the new airport security scanners.

The one thing connecting these three "attacks" is the "new" Bin Laden, that American born Imam who is now "hiding" in Yemen. Does this sound familiar to you at all?

I'm not saying I know exactly what is going on, but lets observe these events for a minute.

Isn't possible that what is planned does not require the mass amount of death and damage caused by 9/11?

Isn't possible that these attacks were orchestrated only to carry on the facade that "America is under attack" to justify the current wars and the inevitable wars in the future?

If you can't smell the amount of bull# coming from these actions, well, you need a new nose.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Isn't possible that these attacks were orchestrated only to carry on the facade that "America is under attack" to justify the current wars and the inevitable wars in the future?

If you can't smell the amount of bull# coming from these actions, well, you need a new nose.



I don't believe that they would try to scare people and do the job half way. If the US was responsible for 9-11, then why spare a handful of people in Time Square or on a plane? People barely even remember these incidents.

With the US policy over the years and the recent wars we know that people will attempt to kill Americans. Knowing that people have a motive to attack the US, the only logic in arguing that they wouldn't would be to say they are not capable. They wouldn't be capable due to our security measures.

In short, the government doesn't need to set people up. The most they would ever need to do is to allow something to happen.

type error

[edit on 22-6-2010 by Styki]




top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join