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.

 

What if the USS Enterprise Sinks! & the U.S. Blames Iran!

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2006 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Dear Everybody:

If indeed the U.S. is about to go to war with Iran, then a convenient pretext would be the sinking of the USS Enterprise — done by us and blamed on Iran. It’s an old rust bucket (commissioned ca. 1960) and “needs to go anyway”. This could happen as soon as the USS Eisenhower reaches the area around October 21.

Our involvement in the Middle East has always been primarily about — surprise, surprise – OIL! And Iran’s got loads of it and we need it badly. Irak, our latest no-flow-gauge gas station just isn’t enough to offset production drops (post peak-oil) everywhere else in the world.

And since the events of 9/11 are directly related to all this (our whatever-it-takes quest for oil) please keep the following in mind:

1. “Al Quada” never existed. It’s an invention of our U.S. government.
2..WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down by hydrogen bombs (augmented with thermate cutting charges)
3. The damage at the Pentagon was done strictly with bombs.
4. A passenger plane was shot down over Shanksville, PA but not at the “official site”.

Understand these things and you will be able to predict future political events more easily.

We have indeed entered “interesting times”.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Mod Edit: tile as the original was misleading


[edit on 1-10-2006 by kinglizard]




posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   
A War on 3 fronts is.... a recipe for disaster. If the US should do as you say, it WILL ignite a wider mid-east war(and possibly a Global one as well). A war in which I don't think can be won... ever...



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Let's hope everything you say is thoroughly wrong...

What a nightmare. :shk:



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
First of all, I must say that I don't believe any of your points... why... spimply put, I'm not out of my mind... no offense.

However, assuming there is an attack on a US ship, there will need to be a motive for the Iranians to attack. Why would the Iranians attack a US ship? What was its purpose? I think your scenario is the least likely to occur unless the U.S. makes the first move.

Anyway, any such attack by the U.S. will result in the swift rataliation by Iran. Iran may take some time to get back on their feet, but they will unleash their terrorist arsenal and chances are create further hell and complications in Iraq. Israel will also be a target, though I'm not sure if they will be brave enough to do it.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Dear MasterRegal:

Of course Iran doesn’t want to start a war with us. But boy-oh-boy those Iranians sure were saying and doing some really “stupid” things earlier this year. They’ve already given us a plethora of phony motives we can tag on them in a false-flag-operation.

As you may know, we’ve been “practicing” the sinking of an air craft carrier — one that was newer than the USS Enterprise. On 14 May 2005 the USS America sank off the Eastern Seaboard after serving as a target for a series of explosions over 25 days. After all, practice makes perfect!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Wizard, I have seen this "idea" bandied about on a few websites. It has some merit in these crazy days, however do you really think that the powers that be would be so obvious? Surely "they" must realize that the public are becoming more aware of these false flag operations.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Dear Deessell:

Thanks for your input. I was hoping that this scenario is floating around out there in cyberspace. I myself have not yet seen the aircraft carrier hypothesis anywhere but logic dictates that something like this might very well happen.

We want control of the Iranian oil fields (our lifestyle is non-negotiable — per our vice president). We can only do this by force. We need a casus belli to go to war. We need a pretext.

A staged terror attack is a possibility but it wouldn’t look good, since it would show failure of our anti-terror efforts. A direct attack on our military would keep all those war-on-terror critics silent, while unifying everyone else. And we would be free to do whatever we please in our defense.

Unfortunately, very few people concern themselves with world affairs or real news of any kind. It's all about baseball games and suri cruse. So I think the establishment really has very little to worry about. We can blog till the cows come home!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
2 questions that cross my mind...

How would such an event be 'engineered' and by what likely method, to pin the blame on Iran? What would happen to the 8 reactors that power the ship if it is critically hit??

The political fallout (s'cuse the pun) from a 'Gulf of Tonkin-meets-Chernobyl' incident would be catastrophic to say the least



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Dear timski:

Great “signature”! Good to see someone rooting for the underdogs. Also, good questions! And easily answerable.

Keep in mind, this is a self-inflicted attack we’re talking about here. So we can sink our “ship”, e.g. the USS Enterprise, in a dramatic (lots of fireballs), yet environmentally safe way — i.e. without damaging the nuclear reactors. And the Persian Gulf is shallow and small so we can easily retrieve the wreck and haul it off to one of the United Arab Emirate countries for “recycling”. There would be no Chernobyl.

We took our sweet precious time to sink the USS America — officially 25 days. Why do you think we dragged that process out so long? To obtain “data” of course!

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Even if our government would do such a thing, I don't think this would happen just because Enterprise is a nuclear-powered ship and the environmental results in that area that is so important for shipping petroleum would be very unpredictable.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
It's amazing the ideas people come up with after watching a tv show.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
..the environmental results in that area that is so important for shipping petroleum would be very unpredictable..


Just a thought, but such a theoretical incident could be to the US (and Russia's in terms of export market-share) favour.

Shipped oil exports to nations like China and India and the rest of the Far East, which are competitors for the region's energy resources, would be severely disrupted if not completely halted by a US naval 'incident' in the Persian Gulf/Straits of Hormuz.
Iran's oil export-by-sea capabilities would be severly disrupted, creating the desired effect of sanctions along the lines sought after through the UN; and the US would gain leverage of the only other major gas/oil export routes from the region via pipelines such as the Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku route

Oil/gas and military presence in Caspian and M.E. regions
Iranian oil/gas facilities






[edit on 1-10-2006 by timski]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Dear Steve:

Which TV show are you talking about? I'm serious. I want to know. Because I DON'T watch television -- public or cable. I own a VCR/DVD and play movies only. If I know where this scenario was discussed, I will try to obtain a copy for review. You still may think I'm kidding, but I'm not. Thank you in advance for your help.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
It's a perfectly plausible scenario. It's been done before. If you look at Operation Northwoods You will see the plans were put in place long ago.

In the Tonkin Gulf they Put Operation Northwoods into action with a false flag event that is now known to have not occurred. This event was the reason the U.S. became involved in the Vietnam war.

I can see another ship being sunk and war being the result. I just wonder how many others will wonder about who sunk it.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
1. “Al Quada” never existed. It’s an invention of our U.S. government.
2..WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down by hydrogen bombs (augmented with thermate cutting charges)
3. The damage at the Pentagon was done strictly with bombs.
4. A passenger plane was shot down over Shanksville, PA but not at the “official site”.



I don't know if I want to laugh or if I want to punch you.


GOOD JOB JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. YOU ARE OFFICIALLY NO BETTER THAN A WHINING NUT BENT ON DISINFO.


Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link Regarding R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

[edit on 2-10-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
William Randolph Hearst, 19th century newspaper magnate, grandfather of Patty Hearst of SLA fame, pushed the United States into a war with Spain when the USS Maine blew up in Havana harbor, in 1898. We were already mad at Spain, and like Iraq, the Spanish had a harsh and cruel dictatorship in Cuba! How mean, how cruel, you ask? Well, real mean! The Spanish would not let the American Sugar Refining Co. Of NO, open a new sugar plantation in Cuba.

Aside: France killed 10s of 1000s of Africans by forced labor in the sugar industry in Haiti. After they had killed all the native Americans on Hispaniola. Under forced labor conditions, men would die in 2-3 years working the sugar fields. Hey, Adolph Hitler verified that 2 centuries later all over Germany!

Problem was, the Spanish did not blow up the Maine. We discovered in the 1990s when investigating the shipwreck, that it was more likely the explosion was caused by coal dust, the fuel of the day. But America was primed for war! We grabbed Hawaii, took the Philippines, Guam, Wake and Midway Islands. We set ourselves up to take Panama and Puerto Rico. Finally, we ‘took’ Cuba but gave it back when it proved to be a malaria carrying mosquito infested swamp.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Good thinking Wizard! Does anyone know when the Ike is going to arrive in the gulf? I ask that because of this thread link about put options for Oct. 6th.



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   
"WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down by hydrogen bombs "
Where's the fallout? The radiation?
No offense, but that stuff you're taking is illegal



posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   
If they sink the USS enterprise, how will they attack?


Sorry, they may sink a boat, but not the USS enterprise for sure and it's too expansive. Maybe they'll sink another boat... any other big ship near? or maybe they'll just another Gulf of Tonkin-style attack.

[edit on 1-10-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
1. “Al Quada” never existed. It’s an invention of our U.S. government.
2..WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down by hydrogen bombs (augmented with thermate cutting charges)
3. The damage at the Pentagon was done strictly with bombs.
4. A passenger plane was shot down over Shanksville, PA but not at the “official site”.
[edit on 1-10-2006 by kinglizard]



I don't know if I want to laugh or if I want to punch you.


GOOD JOB JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. YOU ARE OFFICIALLY NO BETTER THAN A WHINING NUT BENT ON DISINFO.


Dear Johnmike:

The evidence is in plain view for everyone to see. It’s called the countless pictures and films made of ALL the 9-11 events. Call it the “Zapruder film festival” if you will.

The inner cores of the WTC skyscrapers were — literally — vaporized by the neutron volley coming from the nukes placed in the bottom of the elevator shafts, along with the five and a half inch thick steel reinforced concrete floor slabs and pretty much everything else inside the buildings except for some light-weight objects such as paper documents. The “magic” is that high-energy neutrons are invisible to the naked eye (and CNN) and yet they can instantly superheat dense substances such as steel causing them to “evaporate” (sublimate, i.e. convert directly from their solid state to a gaseous form). Of course anything containing water will instantly explode into molecularly small pieces as well (this includes concrete and “biologicals” such as people) — leaving no fragments to be found.

Depressingly, academia and even renown experts in the fields of materials research and engineering have seem to forgotten — or never really understood — how basic materials behave.

E. g. take yourself a piece of concrete and drop it from a ten story building and see what happens. By the time it hits the ground it will have accelerated to top speed. See if it breaks into “talcum powder” — you instinctively already know it won’t. The gravitational energy is way too small to do that. And steel, especially mild steel typically does not break under gravitational stress — it bends. This can be observed at any junk yard. Or grab yourself a coat-hanger out of the closet and experiment with it to see what it takes to break it into little bitty pieces (let alone get it to “disappear into thin air” altogether). And no, it makes no difference, small scale or large. In principal these substances should behave the same — in a skyscraper or your backyard, in a research lab or in the field.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join