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 for an Inside 9/11 Job

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by quantum_flux
 


So let me get this straight.....you think it would be too complicated and require too many people to plan an Inside Job on 9/11, however, you think it is perfectly reasonable that Osama Bin Laden, residing in a cave some where thousands of miles away in a Middle Eastern country could have managed it just fine? Keep in mind that when journalist Jim Marrs asked a spokesperson for the FBI why 9/11 was NOT listed on Osama Bin Ladens MOST WANTED poster for why they wanted to (supposedly) catch him, the response was that there was not any evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks! Meanwhile we had (President) Bush & Company telling us daily and nightly on mainstream Media that Bin Laden was responsible. Meanwhile, a month after the 9/11 attacks, Bin Laden was in a U.S. Hospital in Guam being treated for a kidney infection, and a CIA official visited him at the hospital! Why wasn't Bin Laden arrested at that time? Also, his family came to visit him, but meanwhile, we had (President) Bush telling everyone that Bin Laden "was estranged from his family".




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SusanForKucinich
 


Indeed so, according to the official story there was a lack of communication happening between the CIA and the FBI due to internal beaurocracies. I don't think it's too far fetched that such an inefficiency was probably the reason why a lot of foriegn activity was going undiscovered such as spy rings, money laundering schemes, drug cartels, terrorist activities, and probably a whole bunch of other criminal activities taking place between foriegn and domestic groups. I think that was why congress and the house almost unanimously voted for the Patriot Act.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Second off, if they're intelligent enough to do it, they'd be intelligent enough to know what would happen and they'd say, "[censored] you".

Presumably they would also be intelligent to know what would happen if they said "[censored] you." If we accept the initial premise that there are people willing to kill thousands of innocent civilians, I see no reason to expect them to have a problem killing operatives who refused the job.



I understand your desire to believe the
towers were brought down by CD is overpowering

What desire? You may be confusing me with others in the thread. I got involved because somebody apparently thought it would be impractical to orchestrate such an event. I think that's terribly naive. If you want to say it didn't happen...ok, maybe it didn't. I wasn't there. But to say that it couldn't happen, because it would just be too difficult to pull off...that's silly.



they're not going to go to a sniper expert or insertion teams
for this. They're going to go to someone who a) has experience
with rigging buildings with controlled demolitions

...are you seriously suggesting that there are no special forces with experience in controlled demolition? The US Army Corps of Engineers has been around for 200 years and has 34,000 personell. But none of them know how to demolish a building?

Why don't we ask the audience on this one? Surely some ATS members reading this thread are in the military.

"Hey, guys! If a general wanted a building demolished...would anybody in the military know how to do that?"

But on the offchance that nobody responds to that, here's what I get when I type "demolition" into the search box at usace.army.mil.



b) has preexisting contacts within building security so that he can enter without being challanged

I already addressed that. Plant your people as construction or maintenance workers. No previous contact required. Something like this would have been planned well in advance and there would have been plenty of time for a front company to bribe its way into the needed contracts. And note that the CIA and DoD were both tenants of WTC7, so it's not like any special insertion efforts would have been needed.




c) has an expert understanding of the building so that he's know where to plant them to demolish the building AS WELL AS planting the demolitions where noone will notice them,

This is trivial. The people planting devices would not need to be the same people deciding where those devices would need to be planted. And with no particular time constraints, it would be easy enough to find out anything you needed to know and run drills for six months if you wanted to.



d) is a blithering idiot who won't realize he's going to kill thousands of innocent Americans
e) is not enough of a blithering idiot so that he won't leave clues behind or accidentally spill the beans during a drinking binge.

Or...

a) a psycopath who likes the idea
b) a manchurian candidate who obeys orders and forgets them
c) a foreign recruit with no particular allegiance to america
d) a heartless mercenary who'd shoot his own mother if you paid him enough
e) a mindless automaton who blindly follows orders
f) someone with something to lose who can be blackmailed and then killed

Take your pick.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
riddle me this

why did your vice president give the stand down order several times ?


Riddle me this- why do you supposed "truthers" have an overwhelming need to manipulate and misrepresent the evidence to your liking? You are deliberately quoting this out of context to give the false impression you want to give, but when we look at the full quote, an entirely different story than the one being artfully presented emerges:

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that.

And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.


...so the stand down order was for commercial aircraft and there was a specific order to shoot down the hijacked aircraft. Mineta even said he first believed the plane that crashed in Shanksville had been shot down.

Those damned fool conspiracy web sites you get this drivel from never told you this, did they?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
It's easy to compartmentalise a major operation so that many people doing their bit will have no idea what they're working on. Star-wars technology was worked on that way, along with a lot of other American military stuff, sending bits out to various companies around the world for their top people to work on.

Many people, you might have noticed, were killed on 9/11.

It could have been arranged so one group involved were inserted into a co-operative firm located above where the planes hit the twin towers. That would take care of them. I remember the boss of one firm located in a top area being interviewed on TV later. He was talking about all of his workers being killed and smiling, preening for the camera. Most bosses will get to know, and start caring about, at least some of their staff.

Another group may have been given plane tickets for the planes that were to be hijacked ... they won't talk now either. Perhaps they made recordings to be used as the fake phone calls first.

Some may have been Mossad agents, who hightailed back to Israel where they could be kept an eye on.

The top managers could easily have the lower level managers arrange these eliminations, and then arrange eliminations for those suckers. Not knowing who these people were, how would we know if there'd been some extra faked suicides and accidents?

Moral, don't work for the bad guys.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by quantum_flux
 


Your right it was to big for them to do thus they F-ed it up so bad we know it is a lie.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


You just made a lot more bold speculations, this time having to do with getting Isreal involved in carrying out the plans whereby the motive would be to frame Islamic terrorists, perhaps even making 9/11 Isreal's idea to begin with. The absurdity is that the United States would ever allow it's allies to bomb it's innocent civilians and high government buildings for a purpose in which the US would rather stay out of altogether, much less letting it happen by an enemy, or allowing it to happen at all. That would be diplomatic suicide, definantly not the way to improve relations between the US and Isreal. I see no good motive for any friendly allie to the US to participate in the 9/11 attacks, or in any act of war that can be construed as hostile against any long time allies.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket

Second off, if they're intelligent enough to do it, they'd be intelligent enough to know what would happen and they'd say, "[censored] you".

Presumably they would also be intelligent to know what would happen if they said "[censored] you." If we accept the initial premise that there are people willing to kill thousands of innocent civilians, I see no reason to expect them to have a problem killing operatives who refused the job.


Are you genuinely saying that someone would ever threaten an elite spec-ops soldier who could kill a man with his little pinky, particularly one who could move through society undetected and was an expert at planting secret explosives? You can't be serious.



What desire? You may be confusing me with others in the thread. I got involved because somebody apparently thought it would be impractical to orchestrate such an event. I think that's terribly naive. If you want to say it didn't happen...ok, maybe it didn't. I wasn't there. But to say that it couldn't happen, because it would just be too difficult to pull off...that's silly.


I'm not saying that the WTC could never have been brought down by controlled demolitions. I'm saying it's impossible in the way you people describe it was done. The towers were *occupied* buildings and it's impossible to rig an occupied building with controlled demolitions without the occupants noticing. It's like saying a herd of elephants could stampede through your living room and you'd never know they were there.



...are you seriously suggesting that there are no special forces with experience in controlled demolition? The US Army Corps of Engineers has been around for 200 years and has 34,000 personell. But none of them know how to demolish a building?


This is deliberate bait and switch. The US army has extensive experience in blowing things up to smithereens. They have no experience in carefully demolishing buildings to come down in their own footprint, as witnessed to the fact that the gov't goes to CDI to do that (I.E. that radio tower in Alaska), not the Army Corps of Engineers, and they have zero experience in sneaking in anfd planting concealed demolitions.

Realistically, if this WAS a gov't op, they wouldn't [censored] around with these silly hidden controlled demolitions coordinated with hijacked aircraft schemes. They'd just blow it to smithereens and blame it on the terrorists. Aren't YOU one of the people who insist the FBI blew up the ATF building in OKC?



I already addressed that. Plant your people as construction or maintenance workers. No previous contact required. Something like this would have been planned well in advance and there would have been plenty of time for a front company to bribe its way into the needed contracts.


I really think you need to read up on how the WTC actually worked before you risk making stuff up off the top of yoru head like this. The NYPA had their own full time staff of maintenance personnel (I.E. William Rdriguez) so a bunch of new people coming in out of nowhere would stand out like Paris Hilton at sunday morning mass.


And note that the CIA and DoD were both tenants of WTC7, so it's not like any special insertion efforts would have been needed.


I've talked to people who worked in the building. The CIA and DOD were treated like every other tenant in the building was, meaning they coouldn't have the run of the building any more than anyone else could. They're not the SS.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by quantum_flux
You just made a lot more bold speculations, this time having to do with getting Isreal involved in carrying out the plans whereby the motive would be to frame Islamic terrorists, perhaps even making 9/11 Isreal's idea to begin with. The absurdity is that the United States would ever allow it's allies to bomb it's innocent civilians and high government buildings for a purpose in which the US would rather stay out of altogether, much less letting it happen by an enemy, or allowing it to happen at all. That would be diplomatic suicide, definantly not the way to improve relations between the US and Isreal. I see no good motive for any friendly allie to the US to participate in the 9/11 attacks, or in any act of war that can be construed as hostile against any long time allies.

I'm surprised you pick that as your sticking point.
Have you never heard of the USS. Liberty?


ON JUNE 8, 1967, while patrolling in international waters in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was savagely attacked without warning or justification by air and naval forces of the state of Israel. Of a crew of 294 officers and men (including three civilians), the ship suffered thirty four (34) killed in action and one hundred seventy three (173) wounded in action. The ship itself, a Forty Million ($40,000,000) Dollar state of the art signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform, was so badly damaged that it never sailed on an operational mission again and was sold in 1970 for $101,666.66 as scrap.

At 1400 hours, while approximately about 17 nautical miles off the northern Sinai coast and about 25 nautical miles northwest of El Arish, USS Liberty’s crew observed three surface radar contacts closing with their position at high speed. A few moments later, the bridge radar crew observed high speed aircraft passing over the surface returns on the same heading. Within a few short moments, and without any warning, Israeli fighter aircraft launched a rocket attack on USS Liberty. The aircraft made repeated firing passes, attacking USS Liberty with rockets and their internal cannons. After the first flight of fighter aircraft had exhausted their ordnance, subsequent flights of Israeli fighter aircraft continued to prosecute the attack with rockets, cannon fire, and napalm.

During the air attack, USS Liberty’s crew had difficulty contacting Sixth Fleet to request assistance due to intense communications jamming The initial targets on the ship were the command bridge, communications antennas, and the four .50 caliber machine guns, placed on the ship to repel boarders. After the Israeli fighter aircraft completed their attacks, three Israeli torpedo boats arrived and began a surface attack about 35 minutes after the start of the air attack. The torpedo boats launched a total of five torpedoes, one of which struck the side of USS Liberty, opposite the ship’s research spaces. Twenty-five Americans, in addition to the nine who had been killed in the earlier air attacks, were killed as a result of this explosion.
www.usslibertyveterans.org...


As for America not wanting this war, it suited the plans of some perfectly.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by quantum_flux
 


I don't think it would've taken that many especially if this was in the making for some time.
I think the NORAD drills were planned. That only takes a person or two to decide and execute that.

I think the missiles (yes, all four of them) probably took a small army of men to launch. Maybe they used brainwashed MK Ultra-type men.

And as far as fooling the public with fabricated video footage, we're really only talking about one event. The second plane (missile) into WTC south. The first plane was filmed by only one person and that's iffy at best too.

The Pentagon missile footage is a joke.
And the Shanksville "hole in the ground" is even more of a joke.


FEMA was already in place on Sept 10th (not hard to orchestrate that so they didn't know)
Demolition (in my opinion) were pre-built into the buildings back when they were being constructed. Someone always had the ability to take them down. Again, not talking about too many people here.

And planning for four planes, leaving roughly the same time, going roughly to the same destination and roughly leaving the same general vicinity is, simple!

As far as the people on board? That's questionable at best. Not even sure they were real.

19 hijackers? Bogus. Made up.

What else is there? I know I'm making it sound a lot simpler than it was but, I don't think it took a lot of people. Just a lot of planning, that's all.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Nothing like a Solidworks presentation synched up with security camera evidence and the detailed photos of the wreckage to demonstrate that the official story that Boeing 757 Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon as opposed to being a missile or a small plane.



I did a blog post on the Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon - 9/11 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by NorEaster
 


" The entire project involving prepping the towers for the drop has already been established and there are two extremely credible witnesses - on record - who detailed that the final prep for the drops was performed on the weekend before the attacks. "


I would be interested in reading more about this . Could you please provide a source ?


I found the 2nd one to come out in public about this right in this forum.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's a reference to the 1st guy who tried to get his statement added to the /11 Commission Report.

I don't hang out in this forum generally, so U2U me if you have any other questions. Thanks.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by quantum_flux
 


To each his own and it's okay.

You Trusters trust your own gut instincts while we Truthers go after the truth.

Just for the record, it would be SO much easier believing the official story. Do you think this is enjoyable? Do you think there are any perks to taking this side? No! None! Not a one! This totally sucks.

But it's like me trying to believe Superman actually flew. Yes, I keep watching all the clips showing that he appears to be flying and everyone is even applauding! But I am the one not enjoying the show because there was no disclaimer stating it was a fake.

My point is, it would be so much more enjoyable being amongst the audience and just believing because it's so much easier than making a stink over it.

But I feel, I need to expose the truth and once I do, if people choose to believe he's still flying (opposed to being strung by a harness then.....) that's okay by me. At least I know.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Well, you confidentally make a lot of bold claims about the 9/11 conspiracy though, calling the official story a "joke" and such. I don't think there is anything funny about the official story, what I think is absolutely ridiculous is that people repeatedly make the claims that the US government planned and carried out a large scale attack on itself and then attempts to cover it up (albeit there is no end to the contradictory claims that truthers are making to support their viewpoint).



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by quantum_flux
 


Wow, that is an absolute fantastic presentation. Unfortunately I doubt any truthers will actually watch it. Thanks for posting it.

I'm sure it will be brought up s how come they never released any other footage? If it even exists.

Well in my opinion I think it may be because the footage probably reveals the defensive strengths and weaknesses of the Pentagon, the most important military building in the country.


edit on 21-9-2010 by drock905 because: clarification



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I'm afraid the OP, like many anti-truthers, just does't get the context in which 9/11 took place.

If you really waht to use historical perspectives and learn from them, try learning, for example, about what the Federal Reserve really is. The Federal Reserve is a private bank cartel, it is NOT federal in any sense. It was set up by zionist bankers who duped/bribed those members of congress who were not part of the plot.

As a result, it has held the American public to ransom since its inception. The Federal Reserve, this cartel of PRIVATE bankers, print money 'out of thin air'. Only they have the right to print money. This money belongs to them. They then lend this money to the US Government, at a high rate of interest. As a result, all the tax paid by the American people goes only to pay off the interest on the loan made to the US by the Federal Reserve.

This is extremely well documented, so I'll let you do your own research.

These Federal Reserve bankers and their cronies are the ones who pull all the strings. The Federal Reserve Coup was in fact a Coup d'Etat. Unimaginable, but true. It happened and this crime still goes on today.

Hoover and JFK were two presidents who wanted to reverse this. They wanted to restore the right of the US Government to print its own money. They were killed.

The groups who carried out this huge deception and crime, are the same groups who for decades, if not centuries, have been carrying out the most unimaginable horrendous crimes on an unimaginable scale.

These people form the apex of a 'shadow government' in the US which controls everything. They have many thousands who work for them, in every conceivable part of societiy, and they have committed many, many heinous crimes. These people lie, deceive, kill, steal - all part of their normal life. They will do ANYTHING to protect their power and further it.

It would be incredibly easy to find a few hundred of these henchmen to carry out 9/11, even a couple of thousand, incredibly easy. If you still believe that the US is run by honest, upright citizens I can only believe either you haven't read outside the pre=packaged mainstream history books, or you are in denial. I can think of no other explanation.

Basically, the US is run by a huge, hugely powerful mafia. The members of this mafia number hundreds of thousands. They are in all Government organisations, including the military. Nothing could be easier than to find a few hundred of them to organise and carry out 9/11. Where resistance is met, bribery and blackmail and murder usually work.

To them 3'000 deaths is really nothing. I guess, however, the logistics gave them a bit of a headache, and as a result, they made some serious mistakes, which is why the OS is so unbelievable.




.


edit on 21-9-2010 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Ever hear of the Manhattan project? That required far more people than 9-11 would have and it was kept a secret.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


I wonder if the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place in the modern internet age if everybody would be questioning the official Enola Gay story. Maybe Japan nuked itself and blamed it on the USA, for instance, or perhaps it was aliens or something else.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by quantum_flux
reply to post by The_Zomar
 


I wonder if the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place in the modern internet age if everybody would be questioning the official Enola Gay story. Maybe Japan nuked itself and blamed it on the USA, for instance, or perhaps it was aliens or something else.


I'm wondering what real points you are making, and how you think this post contributes to a reasoned discussion of the topic?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by quantum_flux
reply to post by Human_Alien
 


Well, you confidentally make a lot of bold claims about the 9/11 conspiracy though, calling the official story a "joke" and such. I don't think there is anything funny about the official story, what I think is absolutely ridiculous is that people repeatedly make the claims that the US government planned and carried out a large scale attack on itself and then attempts to cover it up (albeit there is no end to the contradictory claims that truthers are making to support their viewpoint).



You ripping apart my word (joke) is a desperate attempt to make your point look good. But there again, you may NOT have understood my connotation therefore.......... you may not be the sharpest tool in the proverbial drawer after all.


There is absolutely nothing remotely funny about ANYTHING regarding that day.

I think people such as yourself, posts these threads (knowing how many of us feel) so you can let off steam and go toe-to-toe with us because you're just a combative person in general.

You have your views on that day whilst I have mine. But I am not making threads calling you out. I don't care what people think about that day. So why do you? What's it matter to you? Your life still goes on tomorrow so.....I just don't get it.

If I can recommend anything at all, please allow me to turn you onto Operation Northwoods. Perhaps I may be responsible in bursting your trust-bubble a bit but, someone has to do it.




new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join