What has the government or george bush gained from 9/11?
Im doing a project on 9/11 and i was wondering if the american government profited from this terrorist attack and how. Some facts would be good too.
- BillLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Saddam is an evil man who used poison gas on his own people, has killed political rivals, and violates the human rights of his people, especially the Kurds. The Iraqi people deserve to be liberated from him. (2) Saddam has ignored and violated resolutions of the United Nations Security Council relative to inspections and disarmament and needed to be removed to protect the credibility and integrity of the United Nations. (3) Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological weapons) in violation of UN demands. These weapons pose a threat to Iraq's neighbors and to U.S. interests in the region. (4) Saddam has ties to Al Qaeda and therefore bears some responsibility for 9/11 and must be removed as part of the War on Terrorism. (5) Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda and his possession of chemical and biological agents which he could transfer to them pose a threat to the U.S. homeland and to our people. (6) Saddam has been trying to buy aluminum tubes useful in a uranium separation plant. Such a plant could produce the highly-enriched U-235 required for making an atomic bomb. If Saddam succeeded in building such a bomb, he could transfer it to Al Qaeda who could use it in the U.S. If we wait for a smoking gun, it could be a mushroom cloud. (7) UN weapons inspectors did not do any good. They failed to disarm Saddam before, and would fail again. Iraq only agrees to inspections as a stalling tactic. o_O
- 1 decade ago
The formation and funding for the Homeland Security, which includes the Transportation and Safety Administration (TSA).
To create the TSA, they hired a number of employees that were working for the contracted security firms that performed the airport security screenings. While the airport security was blamed in allowing box cutters through; box cutters were not a banned item before 9.11.2001.
The government is the largest employer of unionized workers, and most of the unions have lobbyist that support the democratic party candidates. By increasing the workforce population of the government payroll, the democratic party gains support and funding.
George Bush initially gained some support and popularity by presenting a sense of purpose, and a sense of payback for the attacks; but in the long run many decisions that he made were used against him. It is funny how it was GW Bush's war even though the politicians in the house and senate were demanding action and voting for the war. They do have an inteligence committee that reviews classified information in order to assist in forming a decision...
When the government grows, the taxpayers pay the bills.
gained - homeland security employees, tsa employees, unions, democrats, lobbyists.
loss - GW Bush, taxpayers, republican party.
- TeaimLv 61 decade ago
In general, 9/11 has served as a justification for Bush and Cheney to pursue their military agenda.
In 2000, there was a document written by the Bush administration which described an extension of our military into the places that they currently occupy. The paper also stated that it would take another catastrophic event that was equal to Pearl Harbor to have the public support of the desired military strategies.
Wouldn't you know it, they got it. Quite a coincidence.
I'm sorry that my answer lacks details. You can search for the document that I am referring to. Maybe another answerer will provide the details of the paper.
- vote_usa_firstLv 71 decade ago
Look at the size and cost of the american government before 911.
Bush took the national debt from about $6,000,000 Million, to about $12,000,000 Million. (there are only 140 Million taxpayers to fund it all)
Bush tripled the size of government.
The federal budget before 911 was about $1,800,000 Million. At the end of the Bush administration it was $3,000,000 Million.
Police state legislation got passed like the Patriot Act - which was around for years but needed a disaster to get support.
Domestic spying on the citizens, FISA for example. Government illegally collecting millions of citizens phone conversations.
War empowers government, and the politicians who make the wars. War is always mirrored at home with police state expansion. You will never see war, and expansion of freedom and liberty at home.
War also causes a short attention span. Citizens fail to see the legislation movement, and focus on direct-from-pentagon press releases as if it was not propaganda.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- hog bLv 61 decade ago
There are lots of useful links here.
The immediate profit was to have an excuse to invade oil and gas rich countries, as well as an excuse to bring in the Patriot Act.
The rest of the profits continue to follow. But George Bush has little to do with it, he is just a front man for those who are actually in charge.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
well...there is only one way I think Bush or government profited. That is, we honor those people who served and died during the recovery, and gave George Bush a reason to attack Iraq. Even though before he attacked it was discovered they were not behind it...if they were then the whole U.N would have attacked Iraq. It was an idiotic decision to attack Iraq but for the people who still believed Iraq was behind it, it gave them reason.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You need to research.........
Sandy Berger stole and destroyed Classified Documents to protect Bill Clinton from the 9/11 Commission Investigation.
The documents were never recovered. Berger destroyed them all.
If Berger hadn't been successful, Clinton would probably ended up in prison.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Increased the budget and therefore the size and scope of government. Domestic surveillance, and other freedom grabbing legislation have further eroded our liberties replacing them with an omnipotent government.
- TJ9Lv 41 decade ago
A trillion dollars in debt for the government.
- BloatedtoadLv 61 decade ago
There are people who are profiting from 9/11 and they CONTROL our government. Let me take you through some steps and pay attention to Aaron Russo's testimony in particular:
Please watch this first video linked here. It’s only one minute. You’re going to be impressed. This is a local news video of a witness named Kenny Johannemann testifying to explosions that happened in the basement of one of the WTC towers. While he is testifying you still see both of the twin towers burning behind him in the background. This was live footage and it's only ONE minute long. Go ahead and watch this here:
(YouTube Key Words: Johannemann suicide)
Those explosions were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling the tower. You say, “wait, this doesn’t fit anything I know, maybe there is some other explanation for those explosions in the basement.” True. This is just one piece of evidence, but it’s a piece of evidence that raises a lot of questions. You didn’t see this on TV either. Does that ***** your interest?
The government has promoted a “theory” that maybe the fuel from the jet trickled down the elevator shafts into the basement and subsequently exploded. Could this be? Let’s continue and look at other evidence. Barry Jennings was another witness that got stuck in Building Seven during 9/11. Remember, Building Seven was NEVER hit by a jet. In Barry's case an explosion blew out a stair well below him leaving him hanging and stranded for hours until the fire department got him out. Both the twin towers went down during the time he was stranded. Building Seven, a tall building in it’s own right (47 stories tall), came down at around 5:20 (later that day). Fortunately, he was saved. Watch his account here:
(YouTube Key Words: Barry Jennings dead age – more hits when “dead age” excluded)
Again, the explosions he talked about were from charges that were set up to weaken the structure preparatory to pulling down this building. You say, “Hold On! Building Seven housed the FBI and the CIA offices, so who would have access to set up explosives in there? There has got to be another explanation.” True. This is just one piece of evidence which raises more questions. Again, you didn't see Barry’s testimony on TV.
William Rodriguez, head janitor at the towers, was meeting with some people in basement level #1 (the highest of several basement levels) when an explosion from below pushed everyone upwards, causing ceiling tiles to fall and walls to crack. Just as William started to express to others what he thought that explosion might be, an airplane hit and shook the building from above. His story begins at 9:31 here:
(Google Video Key Words: William Rodriguez)
Now, let’s look for other different kinds of evidence. Steve Jones, a physicist, obtained WTC dust samples from the collapsed WTC towers from people who lived nearby. He analyzed it and found that the dust contained residues of explosives. Steve Jones first became famous when he became known as the “voice of reason” during the Pons / Fleischman "Cold Fusion" debacle of 1989, if you remember that. For a Nuclear Physicist, like Steve Jones, analyzing dust samples for explosive residues is a relatively simple task. It may be similar to asking a PhD mathematician to do arithmetic. He reported his detailed findings here in Boston:
(Google Video Key Words: Steve Jones Boston)
In this lecture, you recall, he offered other scientists to take parts of his samples in order to analyze the "red chips" that he had recently discovered. That was December 2007. These specks have now, in fact, been confirmed to be unexploded “nanostructured super-thermite” particles. That confirmation is not just a smoking gun IT IS THE GUN. See the article here:
The actual paper in its entirety can be found here in PDF form. Be sure to click the “download” link here:
If you get into the actual paper, you learn that the explosives may actually have been sprayed into position like paint or insulation!
Steve Jones’ findings may not fit the stories that you have heard in the news but it does lend support to what Johannemann, Jennings and Rodriguez testified that they saw. You say, “The news media isn’t going to shoot itself in the foot by making something up.” So how do we rectify all the contradictions that we were told in the news? Could Steve Jones and these witnesses be glory-seeking kooks trying to make a name for themselves?
Then take a look at this:
Here is a BBC report announcing the collapse of the Solomon Building (the official name for Building Seven). There is only one problem. The reporter standing at the scene and announcing this didn't realize that, in fact, you could still see Building Seven still standing off to the right. It actually collapsed within about 20 minutes after that live report. Watch it here:
(YouTube Key Words: BBC Solomon slips – you get more hits by excluding “slips”)
How did the BBC know in advance that Building Seven would collapse? The fact that it was announced in advance is strong support that the flow of information on this tragedy was being controlled.
Were the people at the BBC the only people privy to this information? Probably not. Larry Silverstein was the leaseholder of Building Seven. In a 2002 PBS documentary he talked about how he discussed the Building Seven situation with the fire department and how the decision was made by that department to "pull" it. Well, there is one problem with his testimony that you may want to consider. It takes about a week to rig a building with explosives before you pull it. So are buildings constructed with built-in explosives just in case they need to be blown up in a hurry? Building Seven went down that same day. Whoops! Watch Larry's testimony from the PBS documentary here in this short clip:
(YouTube Key words: PBS Silverstein)
Incidentally, luckily for Larry, he insured his property in the nick of time just six months before September 11th! It was a sweet deal. So who orchestrated this terrorist event anyway? They had to get past the FBI and CIA and prepare at least three buildings for demolition as well as direct the activities of men with box cutters (if they even existed). It’s clear from the evidence presented here so far that at least some of the media was in on this. What else could explain the BBC blunder? They had to control the information to those of us who might not like the idea that a few thousand people had to be killed in order to fulfill some kind of agenda. What’s in it for these people that were “in the know?”
Aaron Russo was a famous movie producer who became best friends with one of the Rockefeller family members (Remember “The Rose” and "Trading Places" starring Eddie Murphy?). This is the same Rockefeller family that is a large shareholder of the Federal Reserve Bank -- a private company that loans money to our government and contributes to our huge national debt. You see the name “Federal Reserve” at the top the dollar bill. Yes, we're talking about THAT Bank! Anyway, the upshot of this friendship was that in the year 2000 (11 months before 9/11) Aaron Russo learned from his Rockefeller buddy that there was going to be an "event". He was told that out of this event the U.S. would go into Afghanistan and look for Bin Laden in Caves and then the U.S. would go into Iraq. His fascinating testimony about this "event" starts at 22:03 here in this interview:
(Google Video Key Words: Aaron Jones Cancer)
One more thing. In February 2009 a 44 story Chinese skyscraper caught fire and thoroughly burned into a crinkling cinder. However IT DID NOT COLLAPSE. By comparison WTC Building Seven had a few small fires and was never hit by a plane. It DID COLLAPSE. See that article here:
(Google Key Words: China 44 fire consumes)
Amazingly, all this evidence is only the tip of the iceberg. Each of these are separate independent pieces of evidence from unconnected sources. When taken together they paint a clear picture. You are a juror in a court of law. What would be your verdict? Remember, the word “conspiracy” is not in the dictionary to describe a fiction.