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.

 

Was 9/11/2001 "Caused" by Bush or Clinton?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Of course, you cannot attribute the tragic events of 9/11/2001 to two or even a hundred individuals.

Both Bush and Clinton have attempted positive things for America.

I judge a split decision.




posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I'd say either could have been in office; it wouldn't have mattered. Bush is the more likely of the two, because he's a member of the Republican party, which is more behind PNAC, which is the organization calling for the US to seize global assetts and etc. etc. 9/11 was just a means for all of that.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Get real. Neither Dubya nor Slick Willy have either the brainz or the cojones to scheme up sumthin like that. They're both sock puppets.

Clinton is a better "spokesman" tho.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
And it matters why exactly? 9/11 happened. WHat's the difference if Clinton or Bush caused it



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Neither caused it.

9/11 happened because of intelligence failures and missed oppurtunities spanning both administrations.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Neither caused it.

9/11 happened because of intelligence failures and missed oppurtunities spanning both administrations.



Is that your story and you're stickin to it?

The NeoCons surrounding Dubya (that no one listened to before) took Operation Northwoods off the shelf and updated it. Operation 9-11. It doesn't take a well-paid spook to connect those dots.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   
I agree that neither "caused" it.

I still express deep condolences to the families and friends of the victims.

A positive note: I believe that through tragedy we frequently grow stronger; in fact, the USA may grow much stronger long-term. Just one example of this is post-Pearl Harbor.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 06:30 AM
link   
Whoever planned 9/11, the President would not have been involved. He would have to be as surprised as the rest of us.
The only Presidential connection I would be willing to float and discuss is the 2000 election angle.
That the 2000 elections went the way they did to ensure a sitting President that would deliver the desired result (major and ongoing US involvement in the Middle East - war) by his very nature. And a President who, when told something by someone, would beleive them because of his unwavering belief in his own powers of perception (note the "I looked into his eyes" statement about Putin.)
It could also be argued that the same method of baiting on a smaller scale has been used for the past 30 years (regarding the middle east) but has largely failed until now. The right man for the right time and event.

[edit on 25-1-2006 by Outriderdark]



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   
stage was set by clinton, attack was allowed by bush



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Too many theories, and too many problems with the official story.

I wasn't there to say for sure, but the fact that it is obvious that WTC7 was 'pulled', it leads me to believe that there is more behind the events than we were told.

However, it is important to remember those who lost loved ones that day.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Its extremely possible that it was a result of Bush's election.

If one thinks that real outside forces perpetrated this hideous crime, think about it. Since father Bush, that name has not been popular in the world.
I recall prior to the results how the middle east and other countries were already predicting negativity if Bush won. I saw the clips. Did you?

If one thinks that this was an inside job, that the illuminati were involved, worlds superpowers, etc., then that leads you to the theory that this was either allowed to happen or brewed up right here in the USA, and that points to Bush.

Could Clinton have masterminded all this? Some would say he was not part of Skull & Bones. Others might say he could have done it. Who's ever going to know for sure???

Which of the presidents had the MOST TO GAIN?????



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
What I'm suggesting is that the whole thing wouldn't work if the President were involved. The President must be suprised by something like this. outraged. You can't have the worlds most visible leader trying to be an actor.
I also disagree that it would have taken hundreds of people. It could be done by a relatively small number of people and the rest who worked on it simply being manipulated themselves. It's more efficient that way. You have it so spread out that unless all the unwitting players are in the same room comparing notes, you'd never connect the dots. If there were in fact hijackers, they may have fully thought they were doing something under Al Caida orders, never knowing Mossad or someone else was pulling the strings. Remember how compartmentalized they said Al Caida was? The whole point being one cell wouldn't know what the other was doing? The wisdom of compartmentalization applies even to the real perpetrators.
While it seems probable that at least a certain contingent of US gov. figures would have been involved, countries like Israel had much to gain from it as well.
Going back all the way to the USS Liberty, you can trace what appears to be a pattern of trying to bait the US into full military involvement in the Middle East.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Outriderdark
What I'm suggesting is that the whole thing wouldn't work if the President were involved. The President must be suprised by something like this. outraged. You can't have the worlds most visible leader trying to be an actor.


Some researchers back this up. The Shroud of Memphis would have to fill in the specifics, because I can't remember them, but a story goes that some dude wrote of the 9/11 plans from a Canadian prison before they actually happened, and that only 1 tower was going to be hit, and the rest of the planes intercepted. The same researcher(s) (might've been Mike Ruppert) that pointed this out, also suggested that Bush may have understood similarly, and thus was truly embarrassed when things went much worse and he could do absolutely nothing about it (stuck at an elementary school with Cheney in command). He'd been duped.



posted on Jan, 25 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
That could work, having him know part but not all.
It seems so unnecessary, though. You don't need the President to know any of it and it benefits you if he's blind. All you need is a certain type of person that will deliver what you want (ie war) when it happens.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
Of course, you cannot attribute the tragic events of 9/11/2001 to two or even a hundred individuals.

Both Bush and Clinton have attempted positive things for America.


1. It was above Bubba's pay-grade

2. There's no way they woulda told Duhbya about that.


In other words, you can't really lay it on either of their doorstep; tho both were, in ways complicit. Let's hear it for Mammon!



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
Too many theories, and too many problems with the official story.

I wasn't there to say for sure, but the fact that it is obvious that WTC7 was 'pulled', it leads me to believe that there is more behind the events than we were told.

However, it is important to remember those who lost loved ones that day.


I happen to agree with you, but I also feel it is important to find the truth about what occured on 9/11/01, so we can prevent it in the future, and not have 3000 of our citizens die in vain.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Neither.

It couldn't have been 'caused' by Bush 43. He wasn't in office long enough.
He isn't smart enough to come up with something that big, let alone that
quickly. And I agree with the previous poster. Something like that is
'above his pay grade'. At that point, Cheney was really president and
Bush 43 was just a front for him. But Cheney didn't cause it either.

It wasn't 'caused' by Clinton. His 'wag the dog' dropping cruise missiles
over there every time Monica and he ... uh ... got together, didn't help,
but he didn't 'cause' it. The Radical Islamists hit the World Trade Center,
and other US targets overseas, early on while he was in. So the hate
was already there. I seem to remember that there was a plan by them
to dump 12 jet liners into the Pacific and it was thwarted by the Clinton
Administration. (or did I get the timing wrong??)

Bush 41 didn't 'cause' it. Neither did Reagan.

Israel knew it was going to happen. They let it for their own
reasons - to get the US more deeply involved in destroying the
radical Islamics who are threatening to destroy Israel.
But Israel didn't 'cause' it.

What caused 9/11 - or WHO caused 9/11 - are the radicals themselves
and those frightened Saudi Royals who financially supported them
throughout the decades. The Wahabbis. The radical muslim extremists.

Put the 'cause' of 9/11 where it belongs - on those perps who carried it out.
Radical Muslim extremists who have been propped up by the frightened
Saudi Royals for decades.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Reagan actually can be blamed for this. Had he not pulled the troops out after that barracks attack during his term, then the terrorists wouldn't have seen that we can be bowed by their actions.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join