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.

 

Who stood to gain the most from 9/11?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I would like to concentrate on a lesser spoken of, but very important aspect of what happened that day.

Taking the official story to be the basis, who stood to gain the most from 9/11? Any and all suggestions are welcomed, however people are reminded to note the topic, and stick to it.

In no particular order, here is a possible list I came up with:

The President of the US
After a controversial election, the events of 9/11 provide a new focus for the people. The following months and years provide a perfect backdrop to introduce the Patriot Acts, wiretapping, and various other, similar invasion of privacy mechanisms which under normal circumstances would probably not be acceptable to the masses. Perhaps the actions and decisions taken after this event would also lead to an increasingly secured second term. Also noted is a reason to invade Afghanistan, and Iraq, which have well known economic and strategic factors tied closely to oil and the claim of "stability" to the Middle East. Another interesting quote to note - "Lucky me - I hit the trifecta!"

The US Military
Hand in hand with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the military gain in quite a few area's. Oppurtunity manifests to test new weapons, vehicles, devices in real combat situations. Training and experience of existing personnel increase, as do the number of recruits and the military budget in general. Even military presence at home provides a ground to justify increases in spending across the board.

Defence and security contractors
From the rebuilding of Afghanistan, to the development of weapons, tools and vehicles for the military, to the cleanup operations, defence contractors gain a lot of business from the events of 9/11. Protocols and procedures that failed, are reworked and reassessed. Continental and intercontinental airport terminals ramp up security efforts, both inside and outside of the US.

The owner(s) of WTC complex
Weeks before 9/11, the Silverstein group complete an investment worth $3.2 billion over 99 years, and insure the buildings against terrorism. Subsequent court rulings judge there were 2 seperate attacks that day, and the payout is said to be $7 billion. Considering the Port Authority's claim for asbestos abatement was thrown out in May 2001, the asbestos in WTC1 + WTC2 is disposed of free of charge. Worth noting also is that Silverstein apparantly tried to insure the buildings for much less, but was refused by his lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (GM).

Can anyone think of any other factions standing to gain a lot from the events of 9/11 ?

Disclaimer: this post leaves the assignment of blame in the "original story" hands, and is not, and nor should be the subject.




posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
PNAC and the believers in peak oil - PNAC wanted to create a 'new american empire' and knew they needed a variety of things to do it.

Space based weapons systems
control of oil supplies
a new pearl harbor to make it all happen so the public wouldn't resist


There is a theory called 'peak oil' which states that demand is going to increase for oil, but supply will dwindle. If this discrepency between supply & demand is too big soon you will have massive energy shortages, a breakdown of transportation, starvation and mass unemployment. This is a worst case scenario assuming no renewables come up to replace oil (thermal depolymerization, electric cars, biofuels, oil from coal, etc). In order to avert the worst effects of peak oil certain people wanted a new pearl harbor to be used as an excuse to invade oil rich countries like Iraq, Iran & possibly Venezuela. Those 3 countries alone produce 9 million barrels of oil a day.

FTR, for the price those idiots spent on the Iraq war (2 trillion in direct & indirect costs) America could've easily been energy independent. It only takes $300 billion in investments ($30 billion/year for 10 years) to become energy independent in 10 years according to the Apollo Alliance.


Also oil companies and oil exporters stand to benefit. Our foreign policy is increasing the price of oil by maybe $10/barrel. That means that companies and exporters are earning tens of billions a year in inflated revenue. So Ironically we are making Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela rich while we fight them. We are also making Chevron, BP, CITGO and other companies rich.

I have no idea if it was intentional or not but Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia are getting rich while the US, China & India are struggling. But that is the effect of oil importing vs. oil exporting countries.

www.washingtonpost.com...

[edit on 12-12-2007 by Juche]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   
the ? Wahabbists ?, the radical and extreme disclipine of Islam who
are proceeding with their long range goal of bringing about the demise of the western (immoral) world culture/empire,
and fostering the return of the Caliphate and a world under Islamic, Muslim rule.

the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan was the signal that the Anglo-American empire was ripe for the generational conflict



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Juche
 


Great post Juche, how could I have forgotten PNAC? A quick look at their website reveals some worrying statements:


The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.


Here is a link to their September 2000 document I believe you are referring to when you mention the "New Pearl Harbour". It is loaded with proofs supporting the gains the defence / military would get with their "new pearl harbour".

I find lots of links to Cheney and Rumsfeld in google, but they appear to have distanced themselves, save references, from PNAC now.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
the ? Wahabbists ?, the radical and extreme disclipine of Islam who
are proceeding with their long range goal of bringing about the demise of the western (immoral) world culture/empire,
and fostering the return of the Caliphate and a world under Islamic, Muslim rule.


Wahabists, or Petro-Islamics, could definitely gain from increased oil prices. But, I see this as a knock-on effect from the wars following 9/11, so it is somewhat secondary in nature.

I fail to see how Islamic extremists have gained or benefitted at all from 9/11. In fact, they now find themselves under intense scrutiny, and pressure, with the worlds eyes firmly fixed upon them.

There is some dispute over whether Wahabism goes hand in hand with Islamic extremists. What isn't disputed, is Wahabism's ties to Saudi Arabia, which claims "it has worked diligently over the last five years to overhaul its educational system" with regards to the anti-democracy/west claims.

Another interesting point to note, considering the link between Saudi Arabia and Wahabism, is Senator Grahams claims that "that the White House has suppressed convincing evidence that Saudi government agents aided at least two of the hijackers". Most definitely food for thought and quite possibly warranting addition to the list.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 04:43 AM
link   
i thought that rockafeller made a profet from the 9/11 WTC incadent

and a few others so doesnt that mean rockefeller is resopinsible for the attack and i thought that the WTC was owned by rockafeller as well so i think that something is going on



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Dark_Ace
 


Hmm, are there any sources for this? I'm not saying you are wrong, but it would be good to see where this came from. It's kind of hard to find the financial line behind the group that financed the deal, I found links to GM, is that where the ties lie?

I'm glad you pointed out "doesn't mean ... is responsible", as this thread, like I pointed out earlier, is not the topic or the point of the thread, and many can "profit" or "gain" from something that they had zero involvement in.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Sure as hell not the tali-bunns or "alqueda" They gained nothing, they get their countryside raped and there strongholds and brothers and wives get bombed. (not defending tali-bunn mooji scum)

When you really think about it attacking the us did nothing but bring a massive military war machine down on their heads. Which is why none of it makes sense, but most people dont ever come to this conclusion because of the repeated media brainwashing.



posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Retikx
 


Totally.
I had a similar discussion in another thread with someone else who mentioned that Al Qaeda had gained, quite to my amazement. I think we can all agree that with an act like this, military action would be a dead cert at the very least with the Taliban in Afghanistan, so, with that being said.. Do we suddenly forget about OBL's goal of ridding Saudi Arabia of American occupation?

The same might be said for bombings and such, but I strongly believe these kinds of attacks, while heinous, evil and serious, do not warrant full-scale military action against a country. Very annoying, but it would take something of the nature of 9/11 to initiate the "massive military war machine" across the middle east - what extremist could possibly want that?

While it isn't the topic, I thank you for bringing it up, and hope nobody else does in relation to "gains" from 9/11. Maybe a better angle, would be who could possibly gain from the US taking action against OBL/Al Qaeda/Taliban in particular?



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
i think the link about rokefeller is in one of these thinks

9/11 Ring of Power
youtube.com... 1

youtube.com... 2

youtube.com... 3

youtube.com... 4



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Four more -

PNAC

The Carlyle Group

The members of the government of Saudi Arabia

OPEC


[edit on 14-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   
There is one obvious candidate missing . Israel.


On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"


www.whatreallyhappened.com...



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join