What would be worse? If the government LET 9-11 happen or if the government MADE 9-11 happen

That is to say, in your opinion ATS, what do you think the bigger crime would be? Perpetrating the attacks (that is to say directly being involved in crashing the Missiles (missiles meaning propelled objects not specifically a plane or a rocket propelled explosive) into the twin towers?

or...

being fully aware of the attacks and allowing the attacks to take place so a war can be justified?

reply to post by fnord


Under those considerations - same thing.

I can't decide what I want to believe yet but I would love for someone to try and explain this for me.

I know this may just be a coincidence and all but I find it kind of interesting and wanna know what you guys think.

This image shows the same side of the Pentagon that was destoyed on September 11, 2001. The image on the right hand side is from September 12th, 2001. You can see where the mysterious object flew into the building on the right hand side.

The picture on the right hand side is a satellite image from September 7th, 2001...notice the white marking on the grass? This marking matches up exactly with the way the "plane" flew into the building. The line leads to the same spot where the destruction is.

My theory is that either this is just a coincidence...or this was some sort of marking for what ever hit the building to follow. This marking on the grass did not exist before September 7th, 2001. I went back as far as the year 1999 via satelite images.

What do you think?

img69.imageshack.us...

reply to post by fnord


Neither......

Actually think letting it happen would be worse. Both situations stand to result in the same outcome in terms of death and destruction, so you have to look beyond that. Now my hope is that our government, for the most part, is trying to help our country be better, so if they made it happen, then they should have some sort of "benevolent" reasoning for doing so, reasoning that took careful planning and execution. If they just let it happen, then they didn't have time to think about the ramifications of such an event, good or bad, and as such, should not have let it happen without more planning.

i'm gonna have to say that it would be worse if we did it all ourselves. not much, but some. that would show that they are truly truly evil

if they let it happen, there would be less chance of it being proven that was the case, so only truly evil

six in one.........

it would be worse if they did it themselves as it would require more people to be in on the secret as they would have needed quite alot of preperation and if they let it happen then only a few would need to know, but the actions or lack of actions from those who lnew would differ very little on a moral scale in either scenario.

do you think it would be better (pearl harbor) if the gov warned the ships when the japanese message came through saying "u better get your forces ready because we are coming strong, and we dont plan on returning?"
or is it better that they just let the massacre ensue?

comes down to which persective are we talking.

people, or the miliatary industrial complex? because the answers are different

If the government let 911 happen, then the government made 911 happen. Short OPs should go in chit chat.

reply to post by howitzer89


Interesting. that white line does line up exactly, good catch. As far as things go, making it happen is worse though they are both equally evil from a human rights perspective. Someone mentioned Pearl Harbor, which is now documented that it was known about and allowed to happen. At least in the case of Pearl Harbor, our govt wasn't flying the planes.

Well, the fire that consumed Rome was - supposedly - set by the Emperor Nero, giving him reason to massacrate the Chistians. The Reichstag fire allowed Hitler to accelerate the banning of the Communist Party. Stalin and Mao Tzedong blamed "the ennemies of the people" from outside their borders for the atrocities happening under their rule. See the results of his "Cultural Revolution". I mean Mao. The FMI is blaming the people of the eastern countries, newcomers in the Europen Union for not understanding, complying and obeying the rules and laws of the "Open Market", therefore being left to fight for every next day, struggling to stay alive, while their "elected" rulers have complete control over all the businesses, helped and sustained by the international bankers, the worst scum on this earth. History repeats itself. Politicians are way too stupid and lazy to invent something new. 9/11 opened to the Bushes the way to increase their wealth and opened to the average citizen the way to controlled slavery. They did it.

Originally posted by howitzer89
I can't decide what I want to believe yet but I would love for someone to try and explain this for me.

I know this may just be a coincidence and all but I find it kind of interesting and wanna know what you guys think.

This image shows the same side of the Pentagon that was destoyed on September 11, 2001. The image on the right hand side is from September 12th, 2001. You can see where the mysterious object flew into the building on the right hand side.

The picture on the right hand side is a satellite image from September 7th, 2001...notice the white marking on the grass? This marking matches up exactly with the way the "plane" flew into the building. The line leads to the same spot where the destruction is.

My theory is that either this is just a coincidence...or this was some sort of marking for what ever hit the building to follow. This marking on the grass did not exist before September 7th, 2001. I went back as far as the year 1999 via satelite images.

What do you think?

img69.imageshack.us...

surely just another co-incidence....surely
on top of the myriad of other 9/11 flukes.
fool me once..shame on you
fool me again and again and again.... well, ah, um. yeah.... anyway

do you think it was some sort of final approach precision guideline for an incoming missile on a horizontal trajectory?

interesting to find out if any precision guidence missiles incorporate some such system.

wasn't there some sort of laser light bouncing around on the twin towers before they were hit by missiles(i am saying they were not planes and i'm not saying they were planes.)

to answer your question with a question:

which is worse?
the government faking every aspect of 9/11 and blaming it on 19 terrorists or

19 terrorists being blamed for the faking of every aspect of 9/11 by the government?

i am stumped...how about the rest of the public?

I'll take six bagels...no, make that half a dozen bagels.

Does it really matter?

Between the 2 the latter is more likely. I think both would be equally bad and since the necessity of a new "Pearl harbor like event" (which resulted in just under 3000 dead) was called for and deemed necessary Saudis become as the driving force behind the attacks more and more unlikely.

It can't get any worse.

If it is IMPOSSIBLE for an airliner to TOTALLY destroy a skyscraper 2000 times its mass IN LESS THAN TWO HOURS then our engineering schools should have figured it out and explained it within SIX MONTHS of 9/11.

In order for LIHOP to be true then airliners had to be able to cause that much destruction.

So how does Purdue's north tower impact simulation contradict the NCSTAR1 report by not having the core columns move when the NIST report says the south tower deflected?

psik

reply to post by fnord


Same diff.

There is no question that our government has agitated and irritated the people of other countries. And there is no question we TRAINED the KAMIKAZI pilots.

I see bloody hand whether it was "LET" or "MADE" since there is no question the US government set up the situation in the first place.