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.

 

Didn't They Just LET the Attacks Happen?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 01:13 AM
link   
So far the thought of human kind has been evolving to conculde...
1. A plane DID hit the Pentagon (thats why they found REAL reckage)
2. If the goverment doesn't have the nerve to plant biological-chemical weapons in Iraq, it doesn't have the nerve to plant TNT in the towers.
3. The firfighters who got killed were not "Men in Black" wearing the wrong uniforms.

It certainly helps to demolish some of the lunatic conspiracy arguments that I think we could all do without. They haven't made much sense to ordinary people and quite frankly never will.
But what I can't get my head round is the strange stock market activity shortly BEFORE the attacks. The government says that it might have been the assets of terrorist organisations in the know. What NOBODY seems to doubt (including the mainstream media) is that it SOMEBODY was in the know.

Tell me would a anti U.S terrorist organisation bank so many hundreds of millions with the U.S?
Since there is so much money involved would it make sense for this same organisation to JEOPADISE its plans by advising so many of its supporters on their US investments?
Does it make sense to you that they would withdraw them near the last minute and thereby make their money easy to trace and in addition perhaps their plans?
Does it make sense to you that no terrorist assets have been recovered due to the pre 9/11 stock market activity itself?

Personally I think this semtext in the towers and ideas like it are noise that gets in the way of the truth. Because the truth is that there was strange (largely unexplained) stock market activity before the attacks.
For the points mentioned i don't think this was the anti US terrorists-supporters withdrawing their US investments. So i can only assume that it was the result of inside knowledge on our own side.

Does it make sense to you that our spies have to cause terrorist attacks to happen, when surely all they really need do is LET them happen?
Was Iraq an "intelligence failure"? And was 9/11 an "intelligence failure"? Those are the real questions with perhaps real awkward answers.
Don't ask me what they would gain. You've heard the conspiracies: war preparation, the masses instinctively uniting round their leaders, and of course the stock market. Plus the investment rewards from Bush’s big increase in defence expenditure which followed a few months after the attacks.
The fanatics are real and so is the goverments alleged manslaughter.
Now the only other conspiracy left is which branch of the Republican party started all the other conspiracies?

Please tell me what you think, or else this post might not be up for long. Yours Alex.




posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Firstly, that real wreckage isnt enough in my opinion.

A boeing hit the pentagon, with nothing left to the visible eye.

If all they can come out with is enough scrap to fill a wheel barrow, says quite a bit.

Who's saying there was TNT in the towers?
It would of been smarter to put it at the base of the tower...

no one said the firefighters were government agents...

I agree two planes HIT the WTC....

But just because the USA wasnt behind the controls DOESNT MEAN they didnt do it.

Why do people simply state that for the USA to be involved, they ahd to remote the plains, put demolishions in the mand all this hoo har and crap

is it to hard to belive they found out about the plan, then let ti happen?
Isnt that making them the cause?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
We have man, many threads on 9/11 that discuss the whys and wherefors of the incident, some of which fo along with your thoughts:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thread closed.



 
0

log in

join