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: 5
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Easy....

Manhatten Project
1941-1946 when the project was under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and directed by General Leslie R. Groves. Created as a response to the fear that Nazi Germany was developing nuclear weapons, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 200,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion

(Left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing in Black Operations) I can tell you now congress knew nothing of that 2 billion either. As Rumsfeld said...We cant account for it

cacpeaceday.wikispaces.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">COMPARTMENTALIZATION LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING MAP




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Zomar
Ever hear of the Manhattan project? That required far more people than 9-11 would have and it was kept a secret.


No it was not, the Soviets knew all about it due to people like Klaus Fuchs!



posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by superluminal11
 


The Manhattan Project wasn't in densely populated New York though.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
The 911 attack was NOT an inside job and this kind of thinking makes me sick to my stomach and I find it so offensive....

It was al-Qaida...

These inside job theories have no evidence whatsoever....




edit on 24-9-2010 by OceanStone because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by OceanStone
 


then why on earth did you attack iraq after saddam tried to give you 2million $ in aid after the towers went down that your president refused to take,

or better yet why did you go into afganistan after the taleban regime when they stopped all poppy cultivation

could be you where sarcastic, who knows



posted on Sep, 27 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


(1) Saddam refused to let weapon inspectors into his country even though US intelligence sources were saying he had weapons of mass destruction (he did have dirty bombs and anthrax, and he probably removed those weapons to Iran before we got to them). (2) Our intelligence sources determined that Saddam was harboring terrorists in his country.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by quantum_flux
It would take hundreds of people to set up the plan to "launch missiles into the Pentagon and WTC buildings killing businessmen and federal employees, fabricate fake videos of airplanes flying into buildings to cover up those missiles and force all news media to broadcast them, set demolition devices and thermite bombs to demolish the buildings with innocent people and rescue crews inside, kill all the passengers on those flights and dispose of the bodies, fake videos of Osama Bin Laden bragging about it, and then convince the majority that Islamic terrorists did it".

That is a lot of extraordinary claims (not an exhaustive list by any means) that truthers make that I am skeptical of, and frankly I believe somebody would have fessed up due to a guilty conscience by now.


It takes a lot of people to build an airplane/car/tank, and how many of them know what the other one's job is--just do your job, get paid and go home without a second thought...... until one day you are on the "must destroy list".



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by quantum_flux
 


You are quite correct in those instances, but what baffles me about "anti-truth" posters is, they always address only the most absurd conspiracy theories, pretending that they make up the whole of the truth movement. There were no missiles, directed energy weapons, bombs, etc., but there was a conspiracy on the part of the American government, and likely others, to allow the 9/11 attacks to take place as a precursor to 2 illegal wars.



I couldn't agree more, it's almost as if each group has there own part to play, each play the part perfectly. Truthers, doing their best to question the events and try to make sense of it, some of the less knowledgeable believing and parroting some very ridiculous theories. Then you have the Debunkers, always there to oppose the Truthers, always attributing the most ridiculous theories to the whole of the truth movement, and never questioning the official story.

I guess it's a ying and yang thing.

One more thing I'd like to add to your comment IA, I also agree there was with out question a cover up orchestrated from the highest places in our government, the main one being who was actually behind the attacks, who provided material and financial support, and who really trained them.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Follow the money...




posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Ah that crazy ol Norman Mineta. Bringing up his testimony is irrelevant. 50 miles out, 10 miles out?? What? That conversation never even happened. The 9/11 Commission Report tells us that Cheney went to the PEOC but didn't go in. He was outside in the tunnel when the Pentagon was hit. Cheney wasn't even in the room. Mineta must have just imagined all these things happening. Just because his story is detailed and descriptive doesn't make it true. Just because he had no reason and had nothing to gain from telling this story doesn't mean he didn't just make it up. You just have to ask yourself who do you believe more: The 9/11 Commision and Cheney or Norman Mineta? We know The Commission Report and Cheney wouldn't lie. If you choose to believe crazy ol Norman Mineta and his descriptive detailed unbiased testimony, then you are saying the 9/11 Commission Report is incorrect. And besides that, the Report even tells us that Mineta's testimony ..... oh wait, they left it out. See, he just made it up.

That was sarcasm. The real question isn't what were the orders or stand down. The question is why don't these timelines match. I think everyone in the Pentagon knows where they were when it got it hit. Mineta says he was with Cheney in the PEOC observing conversations and faces. Cheney says he wasn't even in there. One of these is wrong. Which do you believe?



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by quantum_flux
 


whilst i am unsure about 9/11, and usually leave the subject alone, the hundreds would have to be involved argument dos'nt work.

there have been many secrets kept by hundreds of people before, also the only way the general public would find out is if it was reported in the media.

so what you mean is, the media has not reported anything, either because they are helping to hide something or there is nothing to hide.

imagine if they never reported on the watergate scandal. who would know other than a few hundred people and maybe a few other hundred who found out? if the media ignored the few out of those trying to brake the story what could they do about it? they would be labeled conspiracy theorists.

the media control 'if' people will find out or not, rather than it being kept a secret overall.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by quantum_flux
 


The same thing can be said about lying to start a war, eh?.. "it would take this number of people to do things and say stuff in order to hide the truth"

The Vietnam war killed something like 70,000 US troops. and was based on an inflated lie infamously known as the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Fiction perpetuated by the MSM, US govt officials, politicians et al.. into a horrific war.
www.fair.org...

..plus dozens of other Google offerings on the subject. Side note: US goes to war against nation that didn't attack USS Maddox , then ignores nation that tries to slaughter crew of USS Liberty..lol welcome to how honest the US govt is..

What about all the known lies the govt inflated about Iraq/Saddam?.. yellow cake, WMDs, mushroom clouds, cartoons depicting evil.. 770,000, if not several times that, Iraqis are now dead.

If wars can be lied into being and officially supported... why can't a war on terror be lied into being and officially supported?
edit on 19-10-2010 by govtflu because: addition


edit add: oh yeah.. people who questioned the govts Gulf of Tonkin story were probably called conspiracy theorists, "no way, it would take hundreds of people in govt and media to cover this up", and "no way the US govt would kill our troops based on lies". Same with the USS Liberty "no way our govt would allow US servicemen to be mercilessly strafed for hours and summarily killed"
edit on 19-10-2010 by govtflu because: add to add



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by canadiansenior70


It takes a lot of people to build an airplane/car/tank, and how many of them know what the other one's job is--just do your job, get paid and go home without a second thought...... until one day you are on the "must destroy list".


Except, when someone asks you what you do for a living, you still know you build cars.

Likewise it would be pretty obvious after the fact that those voice recordings you made, or the bombs you wired into the wtc, were used for a specific purpose.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by govtflu


What about all the known lies the govt inflated about Iraq/Saddam?.. yellow cake, WMDs, mushroom clouds, cartoons depicting evil.. 770,000, if not several times that, Iraqis are now dead.


They didn't do a very good job of covering it up! I personally can't reconcile a government that is that useless with one that is organised and clever enough to cover up 9/11.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Except, when someone asks you what you do for a living, you still know you build cars.

Likewise it would be pretty obvious after the fact that those voice recordings you made, or the bombs you wired into the wtc, were used for a specific purpose.


What do you do for a living? I'm a ________ with the US Government. (the voice recordings were a one time thing.

What do you do for a living? I work for a demolition company (which is likely the truth and 9-11 was some side work.)

and no one is lying, only by ommission.

What do I do for a living? I am a bookkeeper, write cheques, make bank deposits and balancce at month-end. (but I'm not going to tell you to whom I write the cheques, or how much I deposit in the bank)



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   


how come with all the toys you guys get from tax money none of them where used in propper fasion or intended usage


You have oven mitts but the occasional burn still happens.
You have traffic lights and brakes but wrecks still occur.

If we knew the exact mission and destination of each plane we could have done something. But just suppose the Pennsylvania plane was truly experiencing mechanical problems and we shot it down in the hysteria?


Change that light bulb the day before it burns out.
Skip that trip that results in the fender bender.
Pass on that one night stand that shares the STD.

Hindsight is 20/20.



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by canadiansenior70

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Except, when someone asks you what you do for a living, you still know you build cars.

Likewise it would be pretty obvious after the fact that those voice recordings you made, or the bombs you wired into the wtc, were used for a specific purpose.


What do you do for a living? I'm a ________ with the US Government. (the voice recordings were a one time thing.

What do you do for a living? I work for a demolition company (which is likely the truth and 9-11 was some side work.)

and no one is lying, only by ommission.

What do I do for a living? I am a bookkeeper, write cheques, make bank deposits and balancce at month-end. (but I'm not going to tell you to whom I write the cheques, or how much I deposit in the bank)


You've missed the point.



posted on Oct, 22 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 



But just suppose the Pennsylvania plane was truly experiencing mechanical problems and we shot it down in the hysteria?


NO, the facts don't support that attempted "explanation". The FDR (Flight Data Recorder) AND the CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) eliminate any chance of "mechanical difficulty" as a possibility.

In any case, WHEN an airplane encounters such a situation, while the professional pilots are in control, they would NOT HESITATE to notify ATC. There is ample redundancy in the electrical system to account for THAT (if one were to suppose an electrical failure to affect the radios)....even IF the entire main electrics are catastrophically inoperative, the BATTERIES are still there, and very minimal instruments, and one radio transceiver, plus the #1 transponder and VOR and ILS remain powered from that source.

Additionally, depending on the factory-installed options, some 757s, if destined for long over-water operations, are equipped with an HDG (Hydraulic Driven Generator) that provides a great deal more electrics than just the batteries. Not sure about the United 93 airplane specifically, can research it.....



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join