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.

 

IF Gore Was Elected In 2000, Would 9/11 Have Gone Forward ?

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:08 PM
link   
If you believe the OS then the answer is "YES".

If you believe in an inside job then the answer is maybe, or not at all, this is a real possibility.
In retrospect to the Florida and supreme court fiasco, I have to wonder ?

In Germany before the war started there were two false flag events, one to consolidate absolute political power, the Reichstags fire and another the "Gleiwitz incident" to get the war going.

In 2000 the neo-cons took power in a big way, the list of characters in the administration are well known to ATS members.

Was the theatrics in Florida the equivalent to the Reichstags fire, to consolidate political power to get the war on terror off to a proper start ?

Again had Gore taken office would 9/11 ever been given a green light by TPTB ?




posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I think either way it is a yes.

That kind of event, especially if planned, was going to happen anyway.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
If one subscribes to the NWO theory, there's no way Gore could've ever taken power. Period. Bush was going to be in office.

So to me, one has to take away the NWO theory to put Gore in office. Ergo, no 9/11.

Assuming you believe it was an inside job, which I will not offer an opinion on.

ETA - s/f for an interesting topic, either way. This one could get interesting.
edit on 13-6-2015 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2015 by Shamrock6 because: Bad Latin. Bad!



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

A bunch of terrorists , predominantly from Saudi Arabia decided to fly planes into the WTC . Who was president at the time has no bearing on this .
edit on 13-6-2015 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I'm one of the few that still believe that it was 19 terrorists from the Middle East that hijacked the planes and flew them into the world trade centers.

Unless perhaps the previous attack on them during Clintons reign was a psyop as well.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I say no. To me it was evident that there was a war/competition brewing between the puppet masters. Once Bushivus II got the Florida count, it was time to implement the plan. Even though Gore the Bore won the popular vote.
Isn't it interesting that we go from having a surplus to having a deficit? Most of the 9/11 highjackers were Saudi Arabians, but instead of confronting the Saudis, we attack Afghanistan in a half-assed kind of way. Then Bushivus II and Darth Cheney go full on to pursuade public opinion and force the United States to attack Iraq.
I remember vividly this time in my life. To my relief, others saw the bovine scat as well. We all felt like we were in a bizarro world. The world changed. The timeline changed...if you will.


edit on KSat, 13 Jun 2015 20:27:24 -0500pm3020152440 by Kratos40 because: syntax



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You have it right, Shamrock. You have to look at the PNAC, the doctrine all set up when the attack happened. These things unfold in that way. That said, I don't think Bush had anything to do with it. There's this scripted quality to it all, and these elected officials just walk into a scene with shadowy forces, foreign and domestic pulling the strings.

But I do think its possible Gore might have been elected, and if he were a different event, scripted to him, might have unfolded.

edit on 13-6-2015 by tridentblue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I'm one of the few that still believe that it was 19 terrorists from the Middle East that hijacked the planes and flew them into the world trade centers.

Unless perhaps the previous attack on them during Clintons reign was a psyop as well.


See -- we can agree.

I've heard all sides of 911 --- IMO it is what it was.

That doesn't mean there wasn't enabling in allowing it to happen.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
It would be depending on where Cheney was at politically at the time and what direction Halliburton was going. To this day I believe he Had a big involvement.

And on a side note If Gore had won the election, all of us Americans would be paying all kinds of taxes on the environment.
Probably carbon taxes on just breathing!
edit on 6/13/15 by proob4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Was there any indication as to who was going to make up the Gore administration ?

Joe Leiberman would have been VP, he is kind of sketchy, but he is no Chenney.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: tridentblue


I think if Gore would have won, he would have created an extension of the Great Society and created a welfare system on steroids. Someone wanted us to be dependent on the government. Hence, the surplus would have disappeared as well.
Under Bushivus II and Dickus Cheneykus, the plan was set to transfer the surplus to the Military Industrial Complex, and set forth the 9/11 event. War creates profit. Especially those heavily invested in such industries.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: Shamrock6

You have it right, Shamrock. You have to look at the PNAC, the doctrine all set up when the attack happened. These things unfold in that way. That said, I don't think Bush had anything to do with it. There's this scripted quality to it all, and these elected officials just walk into a scene with shadowy forces, foreign and domestic pulling the strings.

But I do think its possible Gore might have been elected, and if he were a different event, scripted to him, might have unfolded.


Ahhhhh yes, the PNAC. It clearly lays out inasion of Iraq.

Does anyone truly believe "W" was running the presidency?

Gore has too much of a conscience. He would have been a detriment.

Still, I think 911 would have happened.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I think Liebermann would have been a non-factor. Gore (or his masters) would have picked others in the Cabinet who would be calling the shots...in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Yes, Osama Bin Laden would still have been blamed within an hour, Afghanistan would still have been invaded 26 days later, the Patriot Act would still have been rolled out 45 days later, Haliburton would still have been given a military escort into Iraq and the US would still have taken control of the poppy fields, and the pipeline would still have gone ahead.

Tower 7 and what hit the pentagon again? Norad asleep at the wheel, training exercise.

Gore, Bush, Clinton, Obama and other muppets are for our consumption - they have masters who wield the real power - voting every 4 years and achieving exactly #### all is proof of this.

Oh yeah, I forgot - freedom and democracy etc etc.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I'm not sure. The "intelegence failures" were two fold. The CIA withheld the crucial information that top level Al Qaeda operatives had entered the USA months before 9/11- all while they were making the case that an attack was comming. If they would have told the DOD/State Department/head of US counterterrorism the Al Qaeda operatives would have been arrested.

Then we have the Able Danger program which identified two of the 9/11 cells. Pentagon lawyers stopped military integence from telling FBI counterterrorism. Again, they would have been arrested. (The senate investigation into this was a joke)

Third is the defense failures on the morning of 9/11. Would that have happened under Gore's watch?

All I know is that "liberal" foreign policy advisers shared the Neoconservatives views. That the USA must expand military presence on the Eurasian continent in order to secure US hegemony into the 21st century. Entire books were written on the topic, and, like the Neoconservatives they said it wouldn't be possible unless the US was attacked.

What I'm saying is, I think it possible a select few within government had enough information to stop the attacks yet didn't. This probably would have transcended administrations.

Unless Bush appointed the CIA director, the lawyers at the Pentagon and the intern head of NORAD on the morning of 9/11. Which he did not.

If we want people to blame for the successful attacks we should blame George Tenet, the Pentagon lawers and Ralph Eberhart (head of NORAD on the morning of 9/11). The Bush administration also had a "hands off" policy with Saudi's.

We should blame them if not for purposely allowing it to happen then at the least they should be blamed for being the worlds biggest idiots.
edit on 13-6-2015 by JeanPaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
I think no matter if it's the Official narrative or the whackiest inside-job-theories that turn out to be true, there were too many wheels already in motion. I don't think Gore being in office would have changed anything.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Annee, I'm not so sure "O" is running the presidency, at least in the sense people expected him to when he was elected. There are obviously forces pushing our elected officials this way and that. The rules restricting them from reading the TPP spell it out clearly:

www.politico.com...

Shouldn't our elected officials be debating every part of a sweeping trade policy on the floor, with the bill in their hands?

As I've grown older, I've seen more and more of how power works. They preserve the sense of freedom through dialectics: they provide the choices for us, with outcomes preplanned for each choice we could make, and we feel free because we get to choose between them. Power is also extremely responsive, fast acting to any event, and opportunist. Never doubt that if such a power were behind 9/11, that they could have enacted a totally different scenario if the American people chose differently in the election. How could have an attack with environmental toxins by terrorists consolidated a unified global response under the leadership of Gore? (or created the same air or BS around him, depending on how you look at it)

Of course, you could be right that 9/11 was THE plan, we'll never know. In terms of the OS, I wouldn't expect a more intense counter-terrorism effort under Gore. But what I'm saying is, don't underestimate the powers that are out there, or their malleability.


edit on 13-6-2015 by tridentblue because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2015 by tridentblue because: added idea



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Deep conspiracies say Clinton "set up" a wall of retaliation to use if Gore lost the 2000 election.

You never know for sure.

Bush sure did ruffle many opposition feathers.

CIA releases memo showing agency blamed Bill Clinton for bankrupting war on terror ahead of 9/11



The Clinton administration had bankrupted the intelligence community and refused to let the CIA prioritize anti-terrorism over other major priorities in the late 1990s, leaving the agency stretched too thin in the days ahead of the 2001 terrorist attacks, former Director George J. Tenet said in a 2005 document declassified Friday.

Mr. Tenet, who was head of the agency at the time of the Sept. 11 attacks and has taken severe criticism for not anticipating and heading them off, said in the document that he took the threat of Osama bin Laden very seriously, and put major effort into trying to penetrate al Qaeda, beginning as far back as 1998.

In one revelation, Mr. Tenet says those efforts averted off an earlier “major attack” planned by al Qaeda for some time in 1999 or 2000. The document gives no other details.




posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
The right tool for the right job, ya know?

Bush was the right guy (and at the right time) for the "war on terror". If Gore had "won" (wink), he may have been the right guy to more aggressively implement Agenda 21, no? Not as instantly dramatic as 911 by any means, but equally if not more destructive to human liberty in its long-term ramifications.

So they may have simply delayed one program and accelerated the other. Gotta use the right tool for the right job.

Either way, we lose. And it's been planned that way from the very start. The game is rigged no matter what.

We all know this, guys. C'mon, man.
edit on 6/13/15 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Yes, it would have.

9/11 happened about 18 months into the Bush Presidency, meaning that it wasn't Bush policies that caused 9/11, planning was likely well underway well before the 2000 election.

The 1994 World Trade Center parkade bombs were widely seen as a "pre 9/11" attempt to bring down the towers, so this was planned well before 2000 election.

Gore wouldn't have had a significant enough impact on Middle East politics in the 18 months since the election to have changed it.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join