how many at the top would need to know

[justoneperson]

A common comeback from the conspiracy official apologists is "It would take too many to know to pull it off". So my question is HOW MANY WOULD NEED TO KNOW/ THAT IS PLAN THE 9/11 ACTIVITIES? Obviously down the chain of command most are obeying orders/directives so how few are needed in reality?
Looking forward to any replies/correspondence, yours in wanting to know the truth, mark c

[marky 54]

it dos'nt really matter how many know when no one is listening.

people are speaking out all the time or coming forward about the facts and lies on 9/11 of which none would be known about if the internet did'nt exsist, but how many of them do you see on the news with their storys being told?

you have to understand the media role in this to really understand reality itself as we know it. the vast majority get their information via the mainstream news and trust they are telling us all the facts and truth on every story, this then becomes the reality of what is happening in the world for that person.

however if the news networks did not want you to hear something all they need do is not report or ignore it and report on other things. so the things they have not told you does not enter your reality of what the truth is or what is happening around you.

this is how it was for me prior to obvious contridictions in the offical version becoming apparent which i found out due to the internet not the mainstream news and it is still that way for most.

now only when you can see things around you that are not being reported that would normally make mainstream headlines you have to wonder why that is and if the news channels are indeed reporting truth or just selective information of which you are allowed to hear.

it also becomes apparent when the news channels will go out of their way to report negitive things against the things they don't want you to believe or find out about, again this only becomes obvious when you see them omitting/twisting vast amounts of information inorder to do so.

so what we end up with is a matrix of an offical reality and a unoffical reality, the unoffical reality is not reported on the offical one is.

so what im saying is many do know the truth but they are either ignored or scared to come forward, but this is'nt a reality for those people who rely on the mainstream news for their 'truth' because their reality is one where no one contridicts the offical version who has firsthand experiance of the lies and distorted facts and only conspircacy theorists question it.

interms of knowing before the attacks had been done, no not many would need to know, many more would click on afterwards once they realised that something they had heard or seen could of been related, or was related. but again these people rely on their storys being on the news to be heard but are ignored, again not registering as reality for the vast majority who rely on mainstream news or simply don't have the internet.

hence the other come back comments like "well if its true why has it not been on the news".

well when you realised its controlled to control your allowed reality and thus controlling you and your thoughts the answer is obvious.

the allowed reality for this time period is 'fear' you'll notice the theme over a vast harray of subjects not just the subject itself but also the way they sell it as though you are suppose to be scared and sometimes encouraging it in the way they word things.

sharks, mosquito's, blah blah blah every part of your life or where ever you go.

so when people say "it would take many to know" they do know and speak out or are to scared to say anything but its just not reported. the vast amount don't know it as their reality or have their head is buried deep in the sand or they will say anything to win an arguement inorder to deny the facts if they seem to think it would be hard to shut up millions when all you need to do is not report it or totally blank them out or ridicule them as conspiracy theorists inorder for that person to be lumped as someone not to be listened to.

they will then mention on the news that "conspiracy theorist say" "conspiracy theorist claim" all the while not mentioning to the millions that victims familys firemen who were there people who worked inside the buildings on the day or what ever rank or offical is also asking the exact same questions. no instead they are all lumped into "conspiracy theorist claim or say" changing the actual reality for the viewers but also controlling their persecption of the subject guiding them to think its car'nt be true because conspiracy theorists are wacko's etc etc..

[justoneperson]

thanks for replying marky 54, no arguments from me, i know and have known exactly what your saying just not able to put it into words; it's just I WANT TO KNOW. I imagine it wouldn't need to be many but i'd like someone with 'noush' to quantify it for me, do we start with cheney? and work from there?, thanks, mark c

[kc]

you wouldnt need anyone at the top to know, you'd just need a renegade leader with the psychosis to drive him - look up Ollie North and Plausible Deniability.

[telecasterisation]

[Rowan Berkeley]

is that the two main operational theatres should be analysed separately : the world trade centre attacks should be treated as non government perpetrated (basically, foreign saboteurs), whereas the pentagon attack should be treated as an attempt by Cheney to "piggy-back" on the WTC op., of which rumours indubitably circulated worldwide among intel ops. beforehand.

You can refine this a weensy bit by arguing that Cheney may have gone further, for instance by supplying an airforce standdown, or even firing a few cruise missiles at the explosives-laden towers.

However, the much disputed question of whether the proprietors of the various tv news networks transmitted fake video footage, and if so why, remains to bedevil all such theories.