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: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by lorentrook
"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


Dear lorentrook:

There was radiation. Why do you think all those rescue workers are sick and dying. No, it's not just the "toxic dust" that's responsible.

However, unfortunately, when it comes to hydrogen bombs things aren’t the way the used to be. Back in the good ol’ days (ca. 15 years ago) we still needed a conventional atom bomb to trigger the fusion reaction of a hydrogen bomb. Therefore hydrogen bomb explosions always had to be HUGE! And there was always lots of radioactive fallout (mainly coming from the atom bomb component). Well, sadly, things have changed. We can now activate the nuclear fusion of hydrogen through various other means, e. g. high energy lasers. Which means we can make hydrogen bombs as small or as large as we like. The Russians know this. The Chinese know this. Which is why neither of them will interfere militarily with whatever we do. We’ve got an entirely new set of weapons in our quiver. And some of our leadership and generals thinks it's o.k. to use them beacuse they're considered "clean".

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods




posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods

Originally posted by lorentrook
"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


Dear lorentrook:

There was radiation. Why do you think all those rescue workers are sick and dying. No, it's not just the "toxic dust" that's responsible.

However, unfortunately, when it comes to hydrogen bombs things aren’t the way the used to be. Back in the good ol’ days (ca. 15 years ago) we still needed a conventional atom bomb to trigger the fusion reaction of a hydrogen bomb. Therefore hydrogen bomb explosions always had to be HUGE! And there was always lots of radioactive fallout (mainly coming from the atom bomb component). Well, sadly, things have changed. We can now activate the nuclear fusion of hydrogen through various other means, e. g. high energy lasers. Which means we can make hydrogen bombs as small or as large as we like. The Russians know this. The Chinese know this. Which is why neither of them will interfere militarily with whatever we do. We’ve got an entirely new set of weapons in our quiver. And some of our leadership and generals thinks it's o.k. to use them beacuse they're considered "clean".

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


Jesus christ do you hear yourself? Everything you have said is absolutely wrong. Watch the videos again, there was no fireball, no flash of light which is what happens in any size of an A-Bomb or H-Bomb explosion... everyone that is sick, has respiratory sickness. There is absolutely no radiation sickness. If there was radiation, millions would be sick, not thousands. I live in NYC, I went to school two blocks away from the WTC, and guess what, I'm perfectly healthy. Further more, there was no radiation detected by any countries (and if you're going to tell me they are all in it... get real, a conspiracy that big never keeps secret.)

And please, support your arguments with facts. This is utter garbage and one of the most ludacrious conspiracies I have ever heard. Listen to yourself man. 75% of us hate our government, but return to reality... please.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
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.


And I have to post to your other reply. EVERY country has exercises. The US had exercises with South Korea over and over again just incase there is need for war with North Korea. We have exercises at home and all over the world. Iran had their own exercises.

And you're right, practive does make perfect, but practice does not mean inevitability.

But you missed my point. Such an attack will be suspicious because Iran has no motive to attack us.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Dear MasterRegal:

Again, you’re still thinking in terms of old-style “dirty” atom-bomb triggered thermonuclear weapons. Things have changed. We can now build nukes the size of a cherry-filled-olive! And we’re just itching to try out our new generation of ultra-deep-dig bunker busters which are actually nuclear missiles.

Because our latest generation of thermonuclear weapons is “water-based” they’re considered “clean”. The key components are two forms of heavy water; deuterium (non-radioactive) and tritium (radioactive). The reaction releases alpha particles and neutrons.

However, the alpha radiation (alpha particles) coming from a pure hydrogen bomb is difficult to measure. The common garden variety Geiger counters used for civil defense don’t cut the mustard. Alpha particles are the nuclei of a helium atom (two neutrons and two protons) without electrons. They will eventually pick up two electrons from somewhere — and if they get them from your lungs then you are in for a lot of “pain”.

Although alpha particles are stopped by a few inches of air, a piece of paper, skin or some other minimal shielding, they are EXTREMELY dangerous if they get INSIDE a living organism. E. g as dust on the surface of lungs or mixed with food and incorporated into cell structures where they can wreak all sorts of havoc — just like their 'long legged' cousins beta and gamma. Alpha particles are highly ionizing, and can do terrible damage to living cells. It’s because they only travel short distances that they are so hard to detect. Alpha-type Geiger detectors have a very delicate film on them. They almost have to touch the object to detect the alpha output. And if they actually do touch an alpha source, they become useless until they are cleaned.

And because you are still “screaming” for more facts, I’ll list some:

1. As a New Yorker you know firsthand that it took 100 days to extinguish the fires at the WTC sites. Didn’t that strike you as a little odd? There was — literally — a lake of molten steel at the bottom of the foundation pit beneath the bedrock.

2. NASA’s thermal survey of 16-Sep-2001 reported rubble temperatures as high as 1377 deg F four days after the “attacks”. FOY aluminum melts at 1220 deg F.

3. The thermonuclear explosions happened — out of sight – in the basement of the WTC buildings. And because those buildings were massive structures of concrete and steel, the blasts behaved essentially as all underground blasts do. They don’t show mushroom shaped fireballs. The neutrons vaporize all dense materials into a giant cloud of dust, long before the (relatively small) blast and heat waves arrive.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 10/2/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Wizard,

If this is not on the 9/11 board, I suggest you copy it there now. This has to be the most fascinating theory I heard so far.

Thanks,
Steve



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Dear Steve:

Believe it or not, I don't know how to post this. I'm a newbie here. And I can barely navigate my way through my own member center. I'm too old for this kind of stuff. I stuggle just to work my VCR remote.

Still, thanks for reading my thread.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.

[edit on 10/2/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Wizard:

With regard to the described Enterprise operation, how many complicit people would be required to make such an operation possible?

What length of time would be required to deploy such a plan?

Would this be difficult to hide on a military ship presumably filled with unwilling (but trained) occupants?


[edit on 2-10-2006 by loam]



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
This has to be the most fascinating theory I heard so far.


Just to be clear, I'm refering to your nuclear-9/11 theory, not the Enterprise one. If I were you, I'd copy some of your posts here and post them in the 9/11 forum (or just write a new one).

I'd also like to hear more about these micro nukes.

Much Thanks,
Steve



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:42 PM
link   
I dont thnk the US could succesfully pull this off, and convince the world it was Iran.

I mean, obviously the USA has the ability to crush a large piece of Irans structure.

If Iran was going to pre-emptivley remove the threat.. they'd either attempt to wipe the WHOLE threat out, instead of taking one ship down and hoping the rest dont retaliate.

Id more be thinking maybe HAMAS may try and attack, similar to cole...
even the USA could pull this off a little more easily.... but again blaming iran and opening up the guns will not be taken lightly by the international community.

I think, this war will start in a chest puffing exercise.

the US will put sanctions on Iran.
Iran will limit there oil output.
Iran will then start to pressure the hormuz,
the US will note that any attempt to limit the flow of traffic will be met with force to ease world demand.

It will come down to minutes.. waiting for the US to fire the first shot at an Iranian vessel putting pressure on the water ways...

As soon as that first shell is fired, iran will open up.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Dear loam:

I hope this isn’t a “trick” question. You’re not an under cover agent, are you? Just kidding…but only half-heartedly. Since you’re a beaver, I’ll talk to you.

Every military is organized in the same way. Soldiers are trained to follow orders, not ask questions. Everyone is strictly on a need-to-know basis only. "Divide to conquer, and to keep conquered, keep divided." Nowhere are people more specialized than in the armed services. It’s the ultimate hierarchy.

So it depends on to which degree the decision makers would want to minimize loss of life. In a staged sinking of a ship such as the Enterprise even the captain himself could be kept out of the loop. No matter what their rank, soldiers always immediately yield control to higher-ups. And there is always someone of higher rank. Therefore, I can answer your question only by guessing — only those with a lot to lose (i.e. high pension plans) might get some type of limited forewarning. Their future financial interests would help them keep their mouths shut.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
The enterprise is the flag ship. I highly doubt this will be the ship IF it happens.

more so a small cruiser or something.. something expendable..

an attacks an attack.. it doesnt matter who how or when.. if they fire a slingshot at the us navy im sure we'll know about it.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
1. “Al Quada” never existed. It’s an invention of our U.S. government.


An invention where thousands of these men blow themselves up in the name of U.S. govt.?


2..WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down by hydrogen bombs (augmented with thermate cutting charges)


I'm sorry, can you define what hydrogen bombs are?


3. The damage at the Pentagon was done strictly with bombs.


I was expecting missile or unmanned vehicle, not bombs.



4. A passenger plane was shot down over Shanksville, PA but not at the “official site”.


No evidence of such thing. Passengers on board says they were hijacked, not to mention the pilots yelling.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Wizard,

First of all, nothing personal but you are drinking too much of the tonic your selling, your conspiracy nonsense distracts from the more obvious scenarios.

Second, the Ike has been scheduled to leave for 8 months.

There are currently only 4 ships in the entire US Navy deployed on 'surge' deployment, and 2 have been deployed for almost their full tour. Those four ships are the USS Hue City, USS John E Williams, USS Saipan, and USS Iwo Jima. Considering the USS Hue City and USS Iwo Jima are in response to Lebanon, and the USS Saipan and USS John E Williams are off the coast of Somalia in Task Force 150, a multinationally commanded task force, it is unlikely they are there to start a war.

Third. The Enterprise is in the last few weeks of its deployment, and it has been flying sorties for the campaign in Afgahnistan from off the coast of Pakistan. It isn't even in the Gulf, and won't be going there. Is the US going to launch the attack from Pakistan and blame Iran, or is the US going to start a war with Pakistan?

While it is clear you have never met a conspiracy you wouldn't believe, if you are going to create a conspiracy with the US Navy, at least try to put the ships in the right place on the map first, and proving ships aren't where they say they are would be useful too, but since Pakistani planespotters photo USS Enterprise aircraft daily, my guess is they would have to be in on your conspiracy to make it believable.

Besides, if the US wanted to start a war with Iran, all they have to do is talk Israel into making 1 airstrike against the nuclear facilities. The USS Philippine Sea is litterally 25 miles from the coast of Iran patrolling ABOT and KAAOT, well within range of Iranian coastal missile batteries and Iranian coastal radar guidence systems.

Finally, if you want to create a conspiracy theory with the Navy, can I recommend taking a good look at the Stennis CSG deployment scheduled for January 07. The Eisenhower CSG is 1 Cruiser, 1 Destroyer, and 1 Frigate, and US Frigates don't even carry missiles.

The Stennis CSG on the other hand has 1 Cruiser and 3 Destroyers, and one of the destroyers has all the AEGIS upgrades for Ballistic Missile Defense. Now I understand I am basically feeding your paranoia, but from a logical perspective if the US was going to start a war, they would take a beefy task force with tons of tomahawks, and they would include an AEGIS warship with missile defense, something the Eisenhower group doesn't have, but the Stennis group does.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
No no, it's fine that you think something's fishy, but jumping to such conclusions is nothing but counterproductive and, at times, downright damaging to people who actually persue logic before running with theories.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Wiz, interesting theory but I think that's all it is.. interesting. I suspect the 'excuse' for Iran will be much worse than what you surmise. I've had the strong feeling in my gut that another 'terror' attack (To justify our attack on Iran) is going to happen soon and can't be avoided. (Quietly wishing it wouldn't happen in my lifetime)


Honestly? I believe it will be nuclear related and God help us all.





Darksided
Besides, if the US wanted to start a war with Iran, all they have to do is talk Israel into making 1 airstrike against the nuclear facilities. The USS Philippine Sea is litterally 25 miles from the coast of Iran patrolling ABOT and KAAOT, well within range of Iranian coastal missile batteries and Iranian coastal radar guidence systems.



That's a good point Dark but you have to realize that a tactical strike on any kind of "nuclear" installation is not your run of the mill attack. This 'type' of attack would require 'greater' justification than what's on the table right now. Israel has been into it with it's neigbors for quite some time now (obviously) but do you honestly think that if Israel bombs nuclear facilities in Iran with the subsequent unavoidable fallout and collateral damage that the world in general will just stand by and let that happen? I don't think so. WHOLE nother' dynamic here.


Really doesn't matter as far as i'm concerned because I have the sickening feeling in my gut and America and Israel will have their 'excuse/justification' soon.. very soon.



[edit on 3-10-2006 by ViewFromTheStars]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Ok guys let's try to ignore those 4 points wizard mentioned in his first post and just talk about Iran and pre-texts for war with them.

I think the Enterprise being sunk by the US - or maybe even one of its allies, and then blaming the Iranians, would be an almost feasible plan. However, even though the Enterprise is old, all of our carriers are VERY heavily defended by hoards of other ships, and attacking a carrier alone would be very difficult. If even the US were to do it themselves, they'd have to come up with one hell of a plan to pull that off against the King of the chess board.

It would have to be done to a smaller group or ship that wasn't so heavily defended, perhaps an anti-mining ship or frigate of some sort. Or even just a cargo ship. Perhaps the "attack" could even done by another country and blamed on Iran. Anyone heard of the USS Liberty incident?

en.wikipedia.org...

Israeli fighter jets and even torpedo boats spent hours trying to sink this clearly marked American vessel to put the blame on Egypt and get the US to enter the six day war. The Israelis killed 34 US Crewman and injured another 173. It didn't all go according to plan - if the Israelis and Americans did in fact conspire, that is.

And who is to say another USS Vincennes couldn't happen again - except this time blame the Iranians? Maybe even go as far to use an American F-14 drone with Iranian markings or such? Hey - Iran is the only other country in the world who flies that plane, although they haven't had parts for it in years. I'm sure they could find a way to make an F-14 a drone, give it a couple Harpoons or Excocets, fire it at the ship's Phalanx-blindspots so it could not be shot down. The plane then might be shot down by a ship, and its wreckage could be investigated.

But today, not much progress is being made talks-wise. But hey, when you have a bumbling, egotistical "we're always right whether or not we have intelligence" administration that insists a hardcore "Israel should be wiped off the map" radical President must disarm, not much progress will be made.

I doubt our ability to even hold another war - Iran is a massive country compared to Iraq, and our military is stretched our rather thin as it is. I'm sure the Air Force and Navy could bomb the hell out of their facilities and whatnot, but how could we hold down the ground? I may be mistaken, but I believe Iran is a much more hardcore-religious state than Iraq is, and many of their people have probably been taught to hate the Americans as much as possible.


Time will tell. I'm afraid that we will indeed stumble across some reason; whether "convenient" or not; to go to war with Iran, because God knows half this world is run by greed.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by el_madmaster
I think the Enterprise being sunk by the US - or maybe even one of its allies, and then blaming the Iranians, would be an almost feasible plan.


Does anyone realize that the destruction of a US aircraft carrier with total loss of life would be the largest loss of life in world naval history, and your acting like this is even a remote possibility? The casual implication like the one quoted above simply doesn't show up on the reality radar.



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Dear darkside:

The loss of life (on our side) could be limited through use of nearby rescue ships and keeping as many planes and pilots off the ship. But it still would be awful. Not to mention the loss of life at the “business end” of our exotic weapons. Why do you think I’m posting on ATS? The odds are ridiculously low that publishing this scenario beforehand might change the possible course of events but I have to at least try. Who knows, if something like what we’ve been discussing were indeed planned then — however doubtful — maybe a decision maker with a conscience might have “second thoughts” and try to intervene.

In any case it’s “heavy” news to think that we’re going to war again to steal oil. Officially of course we will proclaim to be purely protecting “our national interests”. You will hear that catchphrase until your ears hurt.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 10/3/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I am not convinced oil would be the reason to go to Iran, the US doesn't need the oil in Iran, and over the next 6 months exactly 2.5 million barrels a day of new additional oil is coming online. Is it coincidence Iran pumps 2.5 million barrels a day?

Attacking Iran for oil is like the analogy of stealing a candy bar from a kid, the US has no need for yet another candy bar. In many ways it is about as stupid as saying the US attacked Iraq for oil, which would make sense if Iraq was selling their oil to the UK or US, but instead Iraq is selling their oil on the world market where the US doesn't make any money from it.

However, war isn't about conquoring for resources anymore. The US sees Iran as the loudest of the pack of big mouth bullies. If you want to send a message to the pack of bullies, often it is easiest done by slapping the loudest kid in the mouth, as opposed to trying to take on the whole pack.

Too many conspiracy theories lately are trying to enter the mainstream, and none of them are very believable in my view. They are way to simpleton to be believable for my taste, its basically the 'no blood for oil' crowd trying to be too clever, and I fear ATS is starting to follow this mold as opposed to out of the box theories where we used to be.

The way I see it, if we do indeed follow the money...

The US hit Iraq because it was the center of the middle east, a symbol of contempt for the US, and a symbol of strength to the Mid East. The problems with strength is others learn to hate you, something the US knows all too well, and thus it was easy to get support to kick the Iraqi bully down a notch in 1991. 12 years later, the US decided to again exploit Iraq, this time as a battlefield against those who had found ways to attack the US on their soil.

Now you have Iran, who is posturing itself as the big dog in the region. As a reaction, we have already seen Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the UAE actually speak out FOR Israel against the Iranian puppets in Hezbollah. It follows the pattern of the region, everyone hates the strong man in the region. I fully expect the US to exploit this to knock Iran down a notch just as the US did to Iraq in 1991, with the full support of the Sunni btw.

Did you catch that? First the US plays the Shia against the Sunni in Iraq, now the US plays the Sunni against the Shia for Iran. It isn't complicated, its business, and it has nothing to do with oil and everything with being the worlds only superpower. For those who don't like it, take a scroll through history, it is indeed how superpowers in history have acted.

The US doesn't give a crap about the oil in Iran, the US didn't care about the Iraqi oil from 1991 - 2003 either, because oil isn't real power anywhere but in the minds of leaders who have nothing else of value in their economy, well, and people who watched too many Dune movies on acid who think 'oil is the spice.'


[edit on 3-10-2006 by darksided]



posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   


posted by darksided

I am not convinced oil would be the reason to go to Iran . . Attacking Iran for oil is about as stupid as saying the US attacked Iraq for oil, which would make sense if Iraq was selling their oil to the UK or US, but instead Iraq is selling their oil on the world market where the US doesn't make any money from it. [Edited by Don W]



I’m told oil is fungible. Although that is not exactly true, it must be true enough to make it irrelevant where Iraq’s oil is sold. I am under the impression that Iraq oil is pumped, piped and shipped by American firms in Iraq. There is only one market for oil - the world market. Oil prices are based on the price of Brent field oil. Different crudes have been assigned different ratios to the price of Brent. If there is any profit in oil, the US firms are making theirs. And then some!



The US sees Iran as the loudest of the pack of big mouth bullies. If you want to send a message to the pack of bullies, often it is easiest done by slapping the loudest kid in the mouth, as opposed to trying to take on the whole pack.



Well, D/S, just based at who is fighting where it looks as if the US might also qualify as a “bully?” The Middle East is a socio-econo-religio-politico area that we have never known or understood. In fact, in our own bellicose and condescending way, we feel we don’t have to understand them, but they better understand us! That ‘stiff’ attitude is what cost us 59,000 KIA in Vietnam and has cost us nearly 3,000 KIA in Iraq - so far.



Did you catch that? First the US plays the Shia against the Sunni in Iraq, now the US plays the Sunni against the Shia for Iran. It isn't complicated, its business, and it has nothing to do with oil and everything with being the worlds only superpower. For those who don't like it, take a stroll through history, it is indeed how superpowers in history have acted.

The US doesn't give a crap about the oil in Iran, the US didn't care about the Iraqi oil from 1991 - 2003 either, because oil isn't real power anywhere but in the minds of leaders who have nothing else of value in their economy, well, and people who watched too many Dune movies on acid who think 'oil is the spice.' [Edited by Don W]



I’m not sure it is going to work out as you suggest, Mr. D/S. It looks more likely to me that we will vacate the premises and the area will fall under the control of Iran. Hegemony. The West will have its outpost of Israel, but even that is beginning to look in doubt, demographically speaking. I wouldn’t bet Israel will be Jewish in 2048.


[edit on 10/4/2006 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join