How likely is it that 9/11 was a coverup from the government?

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 5 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The cover-up was not 9/11 itself, but the duplicity of the Bush/Cheney administration who had multiple warnings, both written and oral, about al-Qaeda's pending attack and deliberately chose to do nothing.

    The Bush/Cheney Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill speaks of the Cheney/Bush obsession with "coming up with an excuse the American people would buy to invade Iraq" only four days after taking office. What "better" excuse that letting an attack happen on purpose so that the American people could be duped into thinking Iraq had something to do with the attack? O'Neill quit in disgust ("The Price of Loyalty") over this Cheney/Bush obsession. The reinsurers of the World Trade Center (at least two of the 13 insurers, maybe more) were under the control of the Bush family, with maternal uncle Wirt Walker I as Board Chairman, and both Wirt Walker III and GW's brother Marvin Bush as Board members...and for a Texas branch insurer, paternal uncle Jonathan Bush was CEO. These same motley Bush family four were in charge of the notorious Riggs Bank, the same bank that was discovered to have laundered money for two of the hijackers through the wife of long-time GW Bush friend Prince Bandar, who also happens to be a trained military pilot for Saudi Arabia and long-time friend of the bin Laden family. The firm contracted by the lawless Bush/Cheney administration to provide "security for the World Trade Center, for United Airlines (two 9/11 planes were United), and for the Dulles International Airport from whence two 9/11 planes flew was SECURACOM (changed to SECURATEC, Inc. post-9/11), and guess who was on the Board? Right...Wirt I Chairman, Wirt III and brother Marvin Board members.

    And here is a bit of information that warrants further research:

    Six weeks before the 9/11 attacks were allowed to happen (on purpose, I firmly believe), a Cheney/Bush-urged deal was made with acquaintances of Rupert Murdoch: Frank Lowy of Wesfield Properties and Larry Silverstein of Silverstein Properties. Involved in this deal is the former Republican National Finance Committee Chairman Lewis M. Eisenberg, who had been appointed (by whom I do not know) to be Chairman of the NY and NJ Port Authority, a huge donor to the Bush/Cheney campaigns ($300,000 at least). The suspiciously timed Bush/Cheney deal: Eisenberg was to award the very lucrative 99-year lease of the World Trade Center (WTC) to Lowy and Silverstein for the LOWEST BID ($3.2 billion---only a tiny fraction of what the lease was worth).

    Interesting to note: Both Eisenberg and Silverstein held senior positions with the United Jewish Appeal (UJA) whose only purpose is to raise money for Israel. When the 9/11 attacks happened, Silverstein (who had built and owned Tower 7 nearby) ordered his well-insured Tower 7 "pulled" (torn down) eight hours after the planes hit the WTC (no damages noted for Tower 7), for which the Industrial Risk Insurers (check to see if any of the Bush family four are on this Board---and check the other insurers for payouts) paid Silverstein a whopping $876 MILLION for an initial investment of only $386 MILLION. Makes one wonder how much these two men made from the multiple insurers for their six-week-old 99-year lease for the LOWEST BID of only $3.2 BILLION, does it not? You might also like to know that Silverstein, the greedy gut, sued to be paid TWICE, claiming DOUBLE INDEMNITY, because as he told the court "there were two planes." Follow the money and the Bush family four.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Mark F
    Lv 7
    5 years ago

    Not at all. We all know 9/11 happened, therefore it wasn't covered up by the government or anyone else. If it had been covered up, we wouldn't know it happened.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Duke
    Lv 6
    5 years ago

    It wasn't. The government did a poor job covering up the corrupt Fast & Furious operation, Abu Ghraib prison abuse, and the Iran-Contra scandal

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    It is not likely AT ALL. It is likely, however, that Obama's birth certificate is fake.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 5 years ago

    Anythings possible!

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.