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.

 

CIA Agent: Nuke Attack Surely Coming

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by NextLevel

Originally posted by Zintac
And you must remember, evean a low yeid nuke would still be more powerfull then every bomb droped in WWII, not including "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" of course. [edit on 14-11-2004 by Zintac]


Ehr, no....

--> Between 1939 and 1945 the Allies dropped 3.4 million tons of bombs (reference)

If by 'low yield', you're referring to the fact that A.Q. won't exactly be flying Stealth Bombers or piloting ICBM's -- then you're indicating that suitcase nukes, backpack nukes or homemade nukes will be what we're facing. In that case, the 'low yield' equivalent will be on the order of several KILO TONS, not MEGA TONS.

So, actually, if the baddies detonate one of those, we're probably talking about several days worth of bombs, max.



Cool thanks for correcting me on that, i have done some more research. Please see my other post for usfull links.

Zintac




posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   
We(as a country) should let it be known, any attempt to use any type of WMD will be retailiated in kind. By starting with the thermal nuclear destruction of Mecca with the next attack.




posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Unfortunately I do believe it is just a matter of time before this happens. I find it interesting that they recently busted that group trying to buy Red Mercury for use in WMD. Something even more suprising was that we ever heard about it. I'm sure if the government did catch someone with a suitcase bomb, you would never hear anything about it unless it was leaked. Why would they risk the public finding out about that? No need to frighten the masses. Oh, unless we needed an excuse to go into...uh....I don't know, maybe ...say......Iran or Syria.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 04:19 AM
link   
So the focus is back on Osama now. haha.

America have killed many terrorists and made the homeland safer but they might still get nuked....? I guess they did need Osama for a later date, which is why they let him go in the first place.

So really the 2 wars in the middle east have gotten the U.S nowhere in my eyes. Countless americans dead, untold iraqs and afganistan people yet Bin Laden can still deliver a nuke to U.S Soil.

At least the U.S have 2 MASSIVE oil countries in their hands, nothing to do with the plan though huh!
And at least Iraq will sell its oil in dollars now unlike Saddam who was going to us Euros.


I feel like a I am watching a theatre play.

[edit on 15-11-2004 by 7th_Chakra]



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by Zintac


Very true, But you have to remember that all that weapon's grade Plastic Explosive's are missing form Iraq, and no one knows who has them.



Nor am I trying to start an argument, but it is necessary to correct some facts.

To say that "no-one knows who has them" is a serious misjudgment. You can be assured that someone has them, and someone else knows who has them.

Then you have to be concerned whether those someones and someone elses are across both sides of a staged conflict.


Sorry about the quote, but MA and I agree so little of the time, I figured I'd hang this one on the wall for all to see!


I've been suggeesting since theearly 90's that it wasn't a matter of if, but when, one of the unaccounted for suitcase nukes of the Soviets that come up missing after the fll of the Soviet Union made its way into the hands of a terrorist and into this country. As a matter of fact, I've only been waiting for them to pick the right time.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by CGB_Spender
By starting with the thermal nuclear destruction of Mecca with the next attack.


Yeah good call :shk: lets not only pissoff the radicals, lets get the moderates against us as well. What would destorying Mecca really acomplish?



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Ahem, uh, I'll handle this question.

Well, you see, Mr T., if you get every last one of them mad at you, then there is no reason not to kill them all!


How'd I do? Did I answer it well?



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
How'd I do? Did I answer it well?


where is that damm way above button when you need it



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 06:02 AM
link   
why does everyone think a nuke attack is gonna happen everyone is freaking out about it. just for once think for something good in this world. nukes were here for a long time and i never saw a nuke attack yet. just in japan. back in the 40's.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thinker
At forty-five degrees the sky will burn,
Fire to approach the great new city:
In an instant a great scattered flame will leap up,
When one will want to demand proof of the Normans.

I believe it will happen, nostrumdum said something like that.

If this happenes Muslim's will be the most despised race on earth after this. There will be big massive deportation of Muslims after this. Then a massive cold blooded war againist the ideology of Islam. The american's will not invade city's like faulljua, they will simply just nuke it.

The Muslim's extremist's will give birth to the anti-christ the man that they helped to created will then wipe them out.


I agree, the only thing such an attack will provoke is the worlds wrath against all Muslims, not out of defence or vengance but out of simple fear.

How will people be able to tell the difference between a radical Muslim or a moderate Muslim: you cant so they will ALL suffer.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:37 AM
link   
The threat is very real, and the fact that the last tape was supressed was a little worrisome.

NY, Tampa, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, LA and Seattle are all good targets for population and trade, major ports and airports.

I live in the St Petersburg/Tampa area in Florida, and there is much more to Florida than old people and Mickey Mouse.

We have CENTCOM and SOCOM at MAcdill AFB in , where they run the war from overseas. We have the Crystal River Nuclear Power plant 20 minutes north. The port fo Tampa that is entered on a regular basis with ships from all over the globe, as well as cruises to Mexico (Drug running exist already, I have always thought that would be a good way to smuggle a WMD back from a foriegn country. They can smuggle 100 tons of Marijuana, why not a nuke???) Money can buy different types of happiness for each person. Those who scoff and laugh at the man in Checnya who sold out his country men for the equivelent of a few dollars to allow them access to blow up those planes, would need only offer most Americans a little more, less than 5 figures.

Just live vigilant, not in fear....



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Does anyone think for a moment that at anytime
Al Qaeda had nukes they would have already used them?
....there really isn't a damned thing we can do about it.
Is there?


The minute Al Qaeda has a nuke, either NYC or Tel Aviv will
glow in the dark. We will all know it and there will not be
any time for speculating. The fact that we are all speculating
tells us that most likely Al Qaeda hasn't gotten the nukes
YET. BUT THEY WILL. There are too many loose nukes from
the Soviet breakdown, and too much black market $$$ making
to be done with certain countries (N. Korea for example) for
Al Qaeda not to get a hold of some at some point.

UM_Gazz, I'm sure your 'Is There' wasn't really asking if there
was anything we can do, but I'll answer anyways. YES, there
are definately things we can do. We can support the war on
terror and not try to turn it into a 'nuisance' - treat it like the
war it is. Supply the funding necessary. Supply the SUPPORT
necessary. Take the threat seriously, because it is serious.
Identify weakness' in our defense and domestic security.
FIX THEM. Re-evaluate the United Nations and it's roll in the
world ... does it help or does it get in the way of our security?
And most of all .... people of faith need to PRAY.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The thing I never understood about Islamic terrorist using a nuclear weapon in say New York is that there is 800,000 Muslims living in the state of New York many which live in NYC. So they would also be killing perhaps hundreds of thousands of Muslims how could they think Allah would like that?


They don't care. On 9/11 muslims were killed in the WTC attacks.
Al Qaeda called them 'martyrs'. Those muslims weren't martyrs.
They were murder victims. But to make everything seem alright
in their own putrid minds, the 9/11 murderers claimed that the
muslims who they murdered were really martyrs.

I'm sure that they'd do the same thing with an attack on NYC or
Tel Aviv. They'd just claim the muslims who died are really martyrs
and went to paradise to be serviced by those virgins.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:49 AM
link   
A single nuke strike would just piss off America. Just asking for retaliation like after 911. But a simultaneous strike at maybe 7 major cities would kill america in an instant. No way to retaliate. Too busy staying alive. Sneaking in nukes is easier than anyone thinks. Even a few hundered pounds of plutonium is not very large and can easily be sheilded from our "Sat's" and ground detection. Assembly inside a lead room prevents detection. All you need to do then is "lite-it-up".



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
He is referring to individual states and how they voted. D.C. is considered a state symbollically as it appears on the list of states in the election.
Going by this Link then we could say there is a 90% chance Osama will not strike D.C..


I do not believe ANYTHING that UBL says. He is a liar and a murderer.
Days after the 9/11 attacks he told the international press that he had
nothing to do with them, 'others did the attacks for their own interests'.
Now he admits that he did them. He also says that he will cripple
America financially. The best way to do that is to take out NYC. It
doesn't matter who NYC voted for ... they are at the top of his hit list
I'm sure.

He tried to weaken America and get people to vote the way he wanted.
Thankfully, he failed. (this isn't Spain) NYC and DC can't save themselves
by shouting 'we voted for Kerry'. UBL doesn't care.


dh

posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
He is referring to individual states and how they voted. D.C. is considered a state symbollically as it appears on the list of states in the election.
Going by this Link then we could say there is a 90% chance Osama will not strike D.C..


I do not believe ANYTHING that UBL says. He is a liar and a murderer.
Days after the 9/11 attacks he told the international press that he had
nothing to do with them, 'others did the attacks for their own interests'.
Now he admits that he did them. He also says that he will cripple
America financially. The best way to do that is to take out NYC. It
doesn't matter who NYC voted for ... they are at the top of his hit list
I'm sure.

He tried to weaken America and get people to vote the way he wanted.
Thankfully, he failed. (this isn't Spain) NYC and DC can't save themselves
by shouting 'we voted for Kerry'. UBL doesn't care.



The reason he disowned the attacks for the best part of 3 years (disregarding that comical video featuring a complete non-lookalike 'UBL' and some supposed sheiks) was because he most likely had no connection to them whatsoever, other than in his CIA asset role.

The reason he apparently took ownership for the attacks would be to sway more votes to the Bush camp at the last moment and ensure the protection he receives from the administration for four more years

Agreed that he is a liar and a murderer, but then he is a member of crime family connected to the Saudi royals, the Bushes, the Windsors and the rest of the international Mob. Why wouldn't he be like them?

As for the nuking of NYC or elsewhere on the US , you have to ask yourself which part of the organisation has the means, the resources, the back up, the systems and security to carry out something like that. Not some guy holed up, no doubt in some luxury, in some inaccessible Muslim tribelands somewhere



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   
OBL & Al Qaeda don't care about retaliation. They are prepared to die. Considering the "retaliation" after 9/11, even if they weren't prepared for death, they don't have much to worry about. Besides, there is no way that the U.S. would or could nuke any Middle Eastern nation in retaliation--we are not in a war with a specific country. You can't nuke an ideology.

It is important to consider all of Michael Scheuer's analysis--OBL is at war with the U.S. & Western interests, not because he hates our lifestyle, it is because of specific policies that the United States put in place that are antagonistic to Islam. These policies are responsible for millions of Muslim lives being lost. As distateful as it sounds, until the U.S. is ready to deal with OBL as a statesman instead of a terrorist and to respond to attacks as acts of war instead of acts of terrorism, the U.S. will be severely disadvantaged. That means using not only military resources, but intelligence, political policy, economic sanctions and diplomacy to end the war with Islam. The "war on terror" (and we aren't talking about what is going on in Iraq) is currently a counterterrorism measure.

I posted more about Scheuer's analysis here - www.abovetopsecret.com... There are some bits and pieces of the 60 Minutes interview at www.cbsnews.com... .

Scheuer says that it is a mistake to believe that just because we haven't been attacked with nukes that they don't have them or won't do it. Following Muslim law is very important to OBL, which is why waiting for an "official" fatwa before preceeding with nuclear weapons was critical, especially after he was criticized after 9/11 by many clerics because they felt that he was too extreme. However, since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the imperialistic intentions of the U.S. has turned many Muslims to OBL's point of view. Also, as evidenced by the years of planning that went into 9/11, they will plan precisely and attempt to maximize the impact. They would rather wait and execute a plan successfully than rush into a botched effort.

Also, Scheuer, who has been studying OBL for 17 years, says that OBL has historically told us what he intends to do and has consistently followed through. He has warned Muslims to leave U.S. cities, else they will be martyred--that should be an indicator of his intentions right there.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
american guys there is alot of paranoia u are facing. Bin laden is not god. its Not Easy at all to get such weapon. and if its scaring u that means that bin laden had his way. He wants to scare u all. but be rational. Such weapon are hardly created by countries. how do u expect him to get some. Satalites can easly detect radioactive substanses moving around.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by dh
The reason he disowned the attacks for the best part of 3 years (disregarding that comical video featuring a complete non-lookalike 'UBL' and some supposed sheiks) was because he most likely had no connection to them whatsoever, other than in his CIA asset role.


Oh wow. Sorry dh ... I can't go along with ya' on this one.
I am totally convinced that video was UBL and I am convinced
that he was responsible for 9/11. If that video had been a fake,
I'm sure the CIA would have done a much better job rather than
having it choppy sandwiched between some home movies.

I used to think UBL was fake. I thought Clinton made him up to
wag the dog and divert attention from Monica-gate. When Clinton's
Secretary of Defense came on TV and discussed more facts, that's
when I finally believed that UBL was real, and that the threat was
real.



posted on Nov, 15 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
OBL & Al Qaeda don't care about retaliation. They are prepared to die.


Wasn't it last year that UBL 'prophecied' that he'd be
martyred 'in the belly of the beast' ... and everyone
thought UBL would be delivering a nuke to NYC or
something and that he would go out with a BANG??

Anyone remember when he said that?

I figured he was sick and knew he was going to die, so he'd
kill himself in a suicide mission. Guess he didn't die afterall.
It was more talk to get his troops geared up ... more talk
to screw with the minds of those in the CIA and homeland
security.

[edit on 11/15/2004 by FlyersFan]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join