It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


911 what did the government gain vs lose?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:29 PM
So if the government did in fact pull off the 911 attacks what would have been in it for them? Depending on what the answer is I presume it would give a motive. Also, if they suffered a major loss in effect then I presume that would have been a deterrent to not take part in the attacks.

So lets weigh out what they would have gained vs. lost if they were involved?

And lets also weigh out what they would have gained vs. lost if they did not participate?

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:59 PM
They would have gained the ability to enter an unpopular war with minimal resistance. I lay out the MO here....

Other things gained are circumventions to the constitution via the patriot act, gold, silver, and the thwarting of several investigations.

nothing beyond human life is lost. to me thats the most important resource of all but not to all.

also, your question reeks of the presumption the government as a whole was 'in on it' if anyone was. I doubt that very much, excuse me if i misread you.

the last question i am not sure i comprehend?

And lets also weigh out what they would have gained vs. lost if they did not participate?

If they knew it was going to happen but didnt stop it, or flat out didnt retaliate?

Either way you have motive and you have MO. In most cases once you have that they dont go cold.

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 12:04 AM
Well, I think many of us could go on for pages about what they/it gained, but I don't know if I can actually think of anything they've lost.

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 12:10 AM
Their motives include:

A police state (Patriot Act)

Middle East occupation (PNAC)

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 12:19 PM
ye, i don't think the entire government was in on it rather mainly the higher ups in control. But ye they gained a lot with this, WAR is the most profitable thing in the world as sad and wrong as that is. Also the longer it goes on the more the profit. (Vietnam, Iraq) Every military company is making millions, selling weapons to everyone, umm Bush and Chaney have stock in military so they are getting richer by the second. Due to 9/11 the gov also gained a lot more control over the people, for example patriot act etc. They could pretty much do anything they want, no questions asked no permission needed, and they already do. They can listen to your phone read your emails, take you from your home, beat you, whatever and no one has the right to ask questions. All this gives control to the richer minority, its not just something that helps out say two people in power. Oh yea and off course oil, oil in Iraq, drugs in Afghanistan. ( Afghanistan was some years back though)

[edit on 27-8-2007 by luis9343]

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 12:44 PM
Well the Bush/Cheney & cronies certainly had the motive. As mentioned already, wars = profits. Dick's got Haliburton, Bush has oil. In addition to getting a foothold in the middle east, they've also used this war on terror to pass the Patriot Act and give us Homeland security.

Since 9/11 happened, everything has been put in place. All it would take is another big attack on the US like 9/11 and we'd become a full blown police state.

But why a police state? Probably because the population is getting too big to effectively manage it. They think people are stupid and should be controlled, otherwise chaos would ensue. Maybe they're right, but the ends don't justify the means.

Sometimes people in power do evil things for the betterment of mankind... or at least that's what they believe. As they say, "power corrupts".

Edit to add: I fail to see what motive Bin Laden and his gang had for any of this... let alone Iraq. We all know the whole WMD in Iraq is BS now. As for Bin Laden, what could he stand to gain aside from 15 minutes of fame and a huge bounty? Not to mention condemning many of his innocent countrymen to death. It just doesn't add up.

[edit on 8/27/2007 by Kruel]

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 12:59 PM
ok just to clarify, I am using the government term as a whole to be intended for the ones that were involved, not every actual person in the gov. just the mysterious ones that were involved.

so what did the gov gain by participating in the attacks?
well i guess one thing would be the support to enter into the war on terror, including popularizing osama bin laden(sp?) and also trying to democrasize(word?sp?) the middle east. the attcks on 9/11 also imo opened a doorway with a large us populace backed support at the time to indeed enter into the conflict in the middle east.
another thing is that giuliani and associates gained quite a hefty sum within the five years after the 9/11 attacks. which i am willing to bet helped play a part in his running for presidency.

so what did they lose by participating?
well i'm going to say that they lost a majority of trust and support of the american people as a whole for one thing. there are many others that i will state later in the thread as well.

now, what were they to gain if they didnt participate?

and what would they lose if they didnt participate?, but i believe that in 1989 the wtc had major problem to facade that was estimated to cost roughly in the millions if not billions, it was said to be needed within the next 10 to 12 years before problems started to unfold.
so i guess that if they didnt particpate that may have been a hefty loss.

top topics


log in