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.

 

So the Gov. Destroyed WTC, but Why?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Assuming of course that all the evidence that has been posted here on ATS to show the Government could be proven absolute fact and the government was behind 9/11, what have they gained?

In the years since 9/11 we have had 2 wars, maybe a third on the way, a not so stable economy, soaring oil prices, republican party has lost alot of support from their own members, including myself. How have the people behind this benifted in anyway from 9/11 directly? Bush has had alot of power consolidated in him but he can still only be president until 08.




posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I read that the WTC were hated and money-losers. Yet 6 weeks before the most bizarre attack on America happens, the WTC was purchased by a guy with Zionist connections who after 9/11 became over a billion dollars richer from ALL of his complex being destroyed.

"Pull it!"



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
How many people have benefited.

A small list:
Arms dealers
Banks
Construction companies
Oil contractors
Gas contractors
Oil rig builders
Transnational corporations
Documentary makers (Discovery, National Georgraphic, Adventure 1, News agencies)

Just to name a few who have benefited not just from 9/11 but most wars too.

some other people benefited from the put options on both American Airlines and United Airlines just before 9/11.

Lots of people benefited. You just have to look.

[edit on 4/6/06 by Nikolaos2030]



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by diggs
"Pull it!"


Don't you think the insurance companies would be a bit reluctant to pay him his cheques had there been doubts?

Btw how is it so that the term "pull" is used in CD business just with WTC7 while in every other case the term "pull out" or "pull" used by the firefighters means "evacuate hazardous area"? The same, AFAIK, in military.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
One word my friend: Distraction.

Distraction from what? NWO? Increased Alien activities?
Who knows? We were to distracted to see what they were distracting us from.


Distraction.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
Don't you think the insurance companies would be a bit reluctant to pay him his cheques had there been doubts?


Unless they were on the payroll too, if 9/11 is a conspiracy as big as is claimed then I would think someone/group inside the insurance company would benefit in some way.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
There is a thread that covers the theory of why very well. You can see for your selves in a ATS thread here.

I highly advise reading the thread first, before going over the source links.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by diggs
"Pull it!"


Btw how is it so that the term "pull" is used in CD business just with WTC7 while in every other case the term "pull out" or "pull" used by the firefighters means "evacuate hazardous area"? The same, AFAIK, in military.

Well the PBS doc was about the WTC 7 collapsing and it just seems too coincidental that the owner said to "pull it" and after they watched it collapsed. He didn't say "pull them". "It" was referring to the building.

Also the other referrence to "pull" when they were talking about demoing the WTC 6.

But it must be all just a coincidence, right?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Originally posted by diggs
"Pull it!"


Don't you think the insurance companies would be a bit reluctant to pay him his cheques had there been doubts?

You would think, but so far I've seen none of the insurance companies say that they exhaustively investigated the collapses for possible explosives.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The insurance companies have probably already re-couped their losses charging anti-terror
rates for any building or location deemed a target.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Maybe this answers why the insurance companies are keeping silent:


Here They Come Again

How Insurance Companies Exploited 9/11

By CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

....One of the manifestations of this new found Congressional freedom was the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002.

9/11 cost insurance companies in excess of $40 billion, which was more than any single loss they had suffered prior to that day. They disliked sustaining such enormous losses and out of self-interest decided the government should do something to make sure they never again sustained such losses.

At first blush it seems odd that insurance companies would ask the government to butt into their internal affairs. Insurance companies are big business and big business takes pride in the free market system that works best when government intervenes least in the lives of people and corporations. The insurance companies were willing to make an exception in this case, however, because what they were asking affected their profit margins (so they said) and big business is willing to look the other way when it is asking the government to do things that makes them wealthy. (So are individuals who hold themselves out as being conservatives but that is not relevant to today's topic.)

The insurance companies said that without help from Congress (by which they meant the taxpayers,) insurance companies would decline to offer terrorism coverage to companies. They were not the least bit embarrassed to say this to Congress. 9/11 had nothing to do with something the big insurance companies did wrong and therefore, they concluded, it was not inconsistent with their general aversion to having the government get involved in their affairs, for them to go to Congress and ask for help And help they got. It was called the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002.

The Act provides that in the event of another terrorist attack insurance companies will be required to pay the first $10 billion in losses. In addition, in 2003 insurance companies will be responsible for paying a deductible equal to 7 percent of the premiums received the previous year. The deductible rises to 10 percent in 2004 and 15 percent in 2005. Above that the taxpayers are required to participate in future losses by paying 90 percent of all losses in excess of more than $10 billion up to a maximum of $90 billion. In 2004 the taxpayers' obligation drops to $87.5 billion and in 2005 it drops to $85 billion. There are other provisions but space does not permit their description with one exception. That exception is this. In 2005 the Act expires. That is something the insurance industry fears even more than another terrorist attack.

The industry says it cannot afford another 9/11 notwithstanding the following fact. According to the Consumer Federation of American, insurers reported a 66.4 percent increase in profits in the first six months of 2002 thus suggesting the consequences of 9/11 were not as dire for them as they were for thousands of others.

www.counterpunch.org...



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
If I'm not mistaken I remember reading somewhere that just the 2 towers were insured and not the entire wtc complex. This makes sense because that's exactly want Silverstein was fighting over. He wanted $7.1 Billion but the insurance companies were only going to give him $3.55B. 3.55B is for each tower, not the whole complex so wtc 7 has nothing to do with it at all.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BannedintheUSA
If I'm not mistaken I remember reading somewhere that just the 2 towers were insured and not the entire wtc complex. This makes sense because that's exactly want Silverstein was fighting over. He wanted $7.1 Billion but the insurance companies were only going to give him $3.55B. 3.55B is for each tower, not the whole complex so wtc 7 has nothing to do with it at all.

I think that is correct, the insurance court case was about the towers only, but he profitted almost $500 million from the 7 collapsing too.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
So a small few of corprate elite profit from 9/11 but how did the government as a whole benefit? the soaring national debt shows the government lost money to the attacks.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
The immediate reason for blowing them had to do with psychology. Planes being flown into them got the media there, then blowing them up in front of the whole nation served to dumbfound and scare the crap out of everyone, so that we'd all want to bomb the Arabs into the stone age.

The buildings would've had to come down eventually, and it would've cost more than they were worth to deconstruct them. Demolition wouldn't have been allowed because of how massive they were. Buildings like that have to be deconstructed for safety. But like I said, huge money loss there. So it would've benefited the owner monetarily to have them blown. There was also a lot of insurance money involved, and even though WTC7 is standing once again today, the towers aren't, and there's a chance that all of that insurance will go straight into Silverstein's pocket. So there are two or three reasons for you.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
but how did the government as a whole benefit? the soaring national debt shows the government lost money to the attacks.

The current administration and their buddies (oil, defense comps) benefitted the most, but laws have been written (Patriot Act) and dept's formed (homeland security) that will benefit future corrupt administrations.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nikolaos2030
How many people have benefited.

A small list:
Arms dealers
Banks
Construction companies
Oil contractors
Gas contractors
Oil rig builders
Transnational corporations
Documentary makers (Discovery, National Georgraphic, Adventure 1, News agencies)

Just to name a few who have benefited not just from 9/11 but most wars too.

some other people benefited from the put options on both American Airlines and United Airlines just before 9/11.

Lots of people benefited. You just have to look.

[edit on 4/6/06 by Nikolaos2030]


Bingo.


img.scoop.co.nz...



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
So a small few of corprate elite profit from 9/11 but how did the government as a whole benefit? the soaring national debt shows the government lost money to the attacks.


Point is the government didn't benefit. You've got to realize those running the government, the pres, his brains (Cheney), and his partners and family in crime (Rumsfeld, Bush senior etc..), are not government. They are corporate leaders masquerading as government.
They didn't carry out the 9-11 attacks to benefit government, or you and me. They did it to benefit corporate profits and control of resources.
Nothing really new, just more shock and awe that's all...

The world is run by surprisingly few people, who control almost everything...



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Assuming of course that all the evidence that has been posted here on ATS to show the Government could be proven absolute fact and the government was behind 9/11, what have they gained?

In the years since 9/11 we have had 2 wars, maybe a third on the way, a not so stable economy, soaring oil prices, republican party has lost alot of support from their own members, including myself. How have the people behind this benifted in anyway from 9/11 directly? Bush has had alot of power consolidated in him but he can still only be president until 08.

I would say the first group that profited from this was the weapons idustry, by bowing up the towers the US went to war and bush made money, he is involved in the Wep....industry
So when ever there is a war out there he makes money, people die for his walet.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Say you have a million Anti War Americans, but you really needed to go to war for various reasons. How would you turn those Anti War Americans into Pro War Americans? Fake an attack, and point the finger to whoever you need to go to war with. Those Anti War Americans WILL want revenge. In this case it was Afghanistan because that's where "Al-Qaeda" and "Osama" initially were, but what else was there? OIL. Then, because all Americans were scared of being attacked again, Bush lied about WMD and pointed at Iraq, so we can rest assure they wont nuke us, but that was also for OIL. Don't believe me? Does Operation Iraqi Liberation ring a bell? Notice the BOLD, a lot of other people did, that is why they changed it to Operation Iraqi Freedom, a few months later.



Originally posted by tuccy
Btw how is it so that the term "pull" is used in CD business just with WTC7 while in every other case the term "pull out" or "pull" used by the firefighters means "evacuate hazardous area"? The same, AFAIK, in military.


The WTC 7 buildings were initially on fire. During a fire everyone is evacuated immediately when the fire alarm sounds off. So if everyone is out of the building, already evacuated, then what does "pull it" mean?

[edit on 5-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join