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.

 

Officials confirm 'credible but unconfirmed' 9/11 threat

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 





They are "suggesting" this information may have come from intelligence gathered at the Bin Laden compound...


Hahaha! Wow....they're gonna squeeze every bit of juice they can out of that lime, aren't they?




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by gwydionblack
 



I do find it interesting that a new user posted in introductions before this happened saying it would happen. The post was removed but I wonder... where did his/her intel come from?


It doesn't take a genius.

There are two ways you can, logically, predict that this will happen, depending upon your frame of mind. A) You're a fairly intelligent individual and realize that there are people out there who like to piss on other people's parades and solemn moments (Westboro 'Baptist' Church, for example... AKA the "God Hates Fags" group). Some of them are a little excitable and like to use explosives in their pissing upon said event.

Thus - any memorable event that draws a crowd or national interest is a target for people who like to piss on such things. Hence, we see Westboro set up to picket at the 9/11 Memorial on the 10th anniversary. It is only logical to expect people with a desire to flip us the bird and kill people to, also, attend the event - and for National Security Intel to be aware of some plots to do so.

B) - you're not very bright, but can still apply functional logic. Since terrorism (or the threat of) has been warned about on -previous- anniversaries of 9/11 and other major events. It only makes sense that the threat be perceived, yet again, because people like to have something to be afraid of.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignant
psychological terrorism?

thats nothing??


Fair enough...



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by NightGypsy
 


U.S. officials have been saying for days that there is no known credible threat related to the anniversary. But when asked Thursday by reporters whether that’s still the case, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano seemed to at first hesitate.


"It is still the case that we don't have something that would reach that standard, but we still have lots of chatter out there. And we take every bit of that seriously and track it down. ... The date is important because it's 9/11. But as I said, in the intel world there's lots of chatter and we're taking it all seriously. Should there be something that rises to the level where I have to issue a threat advisory, we will issue a threat advisory."


They then go on to say that the "threat" originates from overseas and that there were documents in Bin Laden's compound that suggest aspirations to attack on the anniversary date... FoxNews



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
If congress wants to see a real and credible threat to the US national security, they should all stand in front of a mirror.

Outside of that, everything is peachy, for now.




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by CitizenNum287119327
 
"OK guys, PATRIOT Act obviously wasn't enough.

It's time to implement operation MATRIX. Break out the wetwork and AI systems...by god, we'll keep everyone safe even if it means living more of a lie than they already were. God bless America."



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I can't very well link a TV broadcast but within a minute of the speech, Fox reported a "Specific, credible and reliable" threat to New York City 9/11 events and it relates to a car bomb. The level of detail has taken a couple references in the time before Bill 'O started, but it doesn't sound vague. In fact, that's as much detail as I've ever heard on one of these things, if Fox was reporting the information accurately.

They did say it hadn't been confirmed...and made a point of repeating that point.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Thanks LadySkadi for posting this.


I was going to write a larger reply but I see many have already beaten me in using all the Standard Canned catch phrases.

"bogey man, Tinfoil hats, sheeple, fear, paranoia and farce" etc.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
most likely it'll be a truck bomb.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
most likely it'll be a truck bomb.


Hopefully parked in Washington DC with a nuke.

And spare me your flaming, we all know when the White house was blown up in Independence Day movie everybody cheered.


edit on 8-9-2011 by Anonymouth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Pakistan Taliban seem to be the focus... Link


Sources told CBS News that the threat specifically has come from Pakistan, which is home to terror groups, including the Pakistani Taliban, the organization behind the failed Times Square bombing attempt.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


You forgot "false flag". That is what I expect. Another 9/11 to reinforce the fear of the reichstag, I mean twin towers attack.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadySkadi
Pakistan Taliban seem to be the focus... Link


Sources told CBS News that the threat specifically has come from Pakistan, which is home to terror groups, including the Pakistani Taliban, the organization behind the failed Times Square bombing attempt.




The Yanks really do want to have a war with Pakistan don't they.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
This is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Homeland Defense is gonna get railed on if they say that there is real and credible, yet unconfirmed, threat of terrorism on 9/11 (which many are doing right now). Or, they will get railed on if something DID happen on 9/11 and they didn't say anything. If it came out after the fact that Homeland Security had a "real and credible, yet unconfirmed threat of terrorism on 9/11" everyone would scream that they should have warned people and how irresponsible it was of them to withhold such information.

So, personally, I'd rather be safe than sorry and want to be warned of possible attacks. Tho it doesn't take a genius to use a bit of extra precaution on this date whether warned by the gov't or not.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoDat09
 


Ok, so here's something I don't understand. If the US Gov't has intelligence about a few individuals possibly committing a terrorist attack, why not bring them in?

By no means am I advocating detaining and sending them to Guantanamo Bay, but if the US knows who the individuals are, then send out the order to bring them in for questioning Saturday morning, question them and hold them until the allowed 24 hours, and release them Sunday afternoon. If they truly are terrorists, that would really screw up their plan.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
most likely it'll be a truck bomb.


If there is an attack (extremely unlikely now because it is unnecessary) it will likely be small, and perhaps isolated to a military base, or a federal facility... The terrorists this time will most likely be "domestic" ... The people are the enemy now!

The USA could be the next Afghanistan.


In reality, the key enemy of the USA, and the west in general has already defeated us, there is no need to attack us now.




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by LadySkadi
 


This is a silly quote from Napolitano:



"It is still the case that we don't have something that would reach that standard, but we still have lots of chatter out there. And we take every bit of that seriously and track it down. ... The date is important because it's 9/11. But as I said, in the intel world there's lots of chatter and we're taking it all seriously.


What does that even mean, "we still have lots of chatter?" I mean....who's she implying is "chattering" and since when is a potentially "credible" terrorist threat termed "chatter?"

I get the feeling you are about as concerned as I am about this "threat." In my opinion, this is exactly what we should expect for the 10th Anniversary of 9/11....I mean, never pass up an opportunity to instill some "terrorist threat" fear into the population, right?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
First of all this "threat" is either completely bogus or they set it up themselves but why tell congress? Shouldn't you tell the president and not congress? What will congress do? Write up a bill to stop terrorists, and by the time it leaves the senate it will be a 1000 page plan to give welfare to terrorists and mega banks.
edit on 8-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Unlike the west, Muslim's won't attack you on any specific anniversary date, they will just attack you.

That is more a western concept.


So that right there is a sure sign all this is bogus and an inside job and any other "anniversary" attack.

Think about that one.

Only a westerner with no understanding of other cultures would make that kind of threat and believe it.



edit on 8-9-2011 by Anonymouth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Looks like they are trying to find a way to blame Iran ,they have been trying hard,so wonder whats up their sleeve,wonder if this time a nucleur Hershey bar will destroy some large complex



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join