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.

 

9/11 doesn't have to be an inside job

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 11:42 PM
link   
IMO, it is much more likely that the government knew about the attacked and just let it happen. It would be almost impossible for the government to pull off this stunt without being exposed. It would involve thousands of people. It would've been much easier to provoke someone like Osama bin Laden to attack us and then just sit by and let it happen. This way, no need to cover up anything at all.

[edit on 7-2-2007 by NegativeBeef]




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by NegativeBeef
IMO, it is much more likely that the government knew about the attacked and just let it happen.

If that is true it is called HIGH TREASON. If you knew about an impending criminal event and didnt stop it you would be tried as an accomplice.

It would be almost impossible for the government to pull off this stunt without being exposed.

Umm, they have been exposed. Thats why the truth movement is growing.

It would involve thousands of people.

I dont think so.
Why would it only take 19 arabs, but it would take thousands of Americans? I see no logic in that arguement at all.

It would've been much easier to provoke someone like Osama bin Laden to attack us and then just sit by and let it happen. This way, no need to cover up anything at all.


Keep researching.


[edit on 7-2-2007 by NegativeBeef]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11Bravo
If that is true it is called HIGH TREASON. If you knew about an impending criminal event and didnt stop it you would be tried as an accomplice.


HIGH TREASON is much more believable than COVER UP. Is there any reason to believe that the former isn't infinitely easier to do than the latter?




Originally posted by 11Bravo
I dont think so.
Why would it only take 19 arabs, but it would take thousands of Americans? I see no logic in that arguement at all.


It took a lot more than 19 arabs. Just took 19 to highjack the planes.



[edit on 8-2-2007 by NegativeBeef]



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:46 AM
link   
I can still see both possibilities - both have their merits and drawbacks. I'd encourage others also to keep all possibilities in mind - even the official version where they tried valliantly to stop the attacks but failed (as far back there as it deserves to be). LIHOP and MIHOP must ride together. For one, LIHOP is a necessary subset of MIHOP, since you can't let mormal defenses shoot down your drones. LIHOP/MIHOP also have in common "on purpose," as both lead to a successful 9/11 and all that flows from it. One still involves Arabs and so some insist it's propaganda to keep the WOT going. Well if so, it didn't work with me. the gov., not al Qaeda, is responsible for protecting us, they had all the tools, but nothing to gain, and it's they who failed to such curiously beneficial effect. The other has technical Qs and a glutted field of honeypot traps, nimrods, and disinfo grifters but may still prove true anyway.
just some thoughts.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join