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.

 

Will there be a False Flag in December? Something is VERY fishy here folks...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Will There be a False Flag Event In December?
Something is very fishy here folks consider the following BBC News Clip posted to Youtube : www.youtube.com...

In the above clip suddenly US Intelligence Agencies are stating publically that Iran left its Nuclear Weapons development program 4 years ago. Embattled or 'Embattled' President George Bush is defending his policy that Iran is still a threat - while his own intelligence agency is reporting that Iran is not a threat. It suddenly does not make any sense...
www.youtube.com...

But what gets more confusing is when you consider the following :
- Debka.com is reporting that a third Air Craft Carrier has entered the Persian Gulf.. (December 4th - the Harry S. Truman. If Iran is less of a threat and Iraqi Violence is down - why do they need 3 (THREE) aircraft carriers there right now?? Think about it... The USS Enterprise, the USS Nimitz, and the USS Harry S. Truman are now opposite Iran... - that is not even counting the huge aresenal of other ships and planes and bases in the Region...
www.anomalicresearch.com... and www.debka.com...

- Last month on the 22nd of November there were additionally several signs of a buildup

Russia went on High Alert because of increased supplies being delivered to bases around Russia
www.timesonline.co.uk...

- US contracts for JP5 Jet Fuel Suddenly Increased significantly...
www.khaleejtimes.com.../theworld/2007/November/theworld_November679.xml§ion=theworld&col=
news.google.com.../2-0&fp=474a008bce1c0ed2&ei=CTBKR-_mOZ_eqwO_xNTpCw&url=http%3A//uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL223130682 0071123&cid=1124006384

But in the above Video Clip from the BBC it is clear that Bush has become 'Embattled' which may suggest a show - now in order to justify a invasion of Iran a false flag must be conducted and blamed on them. But by standing down it fools everybody into a false sense of peace..

Warn everybody.... Stop a madman from starting WWIII...




posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Yeah, you might wanna check those carrier locations, cause they ain't even close. I did this in another thread, but I'll do it again.

US Navy CSGs:

USS Nimitz: Returned to port in September. Undergoing post cruise refit.

USS Enterprise: Departed Gulf, due home Dec 11, 2007.

USS Harry Truman: Departed for the Gulf Nov 5, 2007.

USS Ronald Reagan: WESTPAC undergoing TSTA/FEP. Scheduled for pre-deployment exercises early 08.

USS John Stennis: Undergoing 6 month dPIA beginning Sept 07.

USS Abraham Lincoln: Everett Washington after completion of COMPTUEX and SMI prior to 08 deployment.

USS Eisenhower: Mediteranian performing TSC engagements with Ukraine, Spain, Greece, and Portugal units.

USS Carl Vinson: Newport News 2 years into RCOH.

USS Theodore Roosevelt: Naval Station Norfolk after completing 9 month planned incremental availability. Arrived Norfolk Nov 28.

USS George Washington: Completed carrier quals. Preparing to move to Yokosuka Japan to replace USS Kitty Hawk in 08. At home port as of end of November.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Tired of these predictions. Please don't anyone else post.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I don't think what has happened over the last few days will increase the possibility of a false flag. It probably decreases it more than increases it, as it would seem a bit weird just after the proof that they don't have nuclear capabilities.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
I do not know, however since you seem genuinely concerned here is some information that I received several days ago that may shed some light on the possibility.



Friends,
At the time of this writing (30 November 2007), reports come to me of a sudden spike in Pentagon orders for civilian tankers to haul hundreds of thousands of tons of jet air fuel to US Fifth Fleet ships, carriers and bases across the Persian Gulf. The Pentagon's sudden move to issue orders to civilian cargo companies has been a marker in the past suggesting that war is imminent. A similar move happened just prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The US Navy tops their gas tanks for war while the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who sail their own naval forces, have taken over command of the larger Iranian regular navy. We may expect more aggressive brinksmanship on the waters of the Persian Gulf and through the narrow passage of the Strait of Hormuz where so much of the world's imported oil will pass in tankers threading through waterways crowded with Iranian and US warships on high alert, playing chicken.


[edit on 5-12-2007 by antar] Iam trying to bring the entire article over but am having trouble. Have patience please.

[edit on 5-12-2007 by antar]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim_Kraken
Tired of these predictions. Please don't anyone else post.

Then why waist your time reading them?
If they bother you so much, don't read them. It's that simple.

Everyone has the option of posting what they might think is a prediction in hopes of someone to come alone and either help prove them correct or maybe they want to be proven wrong in high hopes.
______________________________________
EDIT: Fingers thought they knew what the brain wanted to say before typed...


[edit on 5/12/2007 by wyldwylly]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by wyldwylly
 


The posting of gloom-and-doom predictions that never come to fruition is the province of the supermarket tabloid. ATS should wash its hands of such garbage.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
I don't think there's a false flag attack coming, but more an obvious sign that there's some sort of in-house power struggle going on. The forces of good and evil in all it's glory. Let's stand back and see how it all works out.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
just as a side note...i can verify that the U.S. Harry Truman is in the gulf because my best friend brandon is in the navy and he is on that ship. he writes me a couple times a week over email and he told me and his fiance that he was going to be back to the gulf when he left this time. this is his 3rd tour of duty. i will have to ask him if he knows of anything that is up. he probably cant tell me, and he isnt very high up at all. hes only 22 and joined the navy so he could go to college. nevertheless i will anyway..cant hurt to ask.



kind regards,
digitalgrl



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Yeah, I would bet on another "terrorist" attack in the very near future. Bush wants a reason to go to war again, and its only obvious that he can do whatever he wants and get away with it, so why not?



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I think there is imminent threat of a nuclear attack on US forces and/or territory. Not by Iran, and this is why I do believe the threat is nuclear. We're about to get nuked and if we do everyone is going to think Iran did it because they've been trying to spin that threat for so long. They've been inching toward war with Iran, when suddenly very real and imminent threat appears. Please visit Nuclear Terror Imminent?

Of course, if my suspicions are confirmed, then WWIII is not far off either. This means that Iran will certainly take part, and will probably be the first to jump in against us.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Just in case some of you are not aware of this, but a nuke is not as bad as it would seem in comparison to biological or chemical weapons.

A nuke goes bang and yes, a lot of people die in one hit. Then you get the radiation fallout, but that will only fall in the same direction the wind is blowing. If there is no wind then fallout will be localised.

So, if you are able to miss the initial strike, then the fallout can easily be missed.

Where as bio and chem weapons spread out in a circular radius either through the air, water, close bodily contact or other forms of contamination.

These are far worse than a nuke.

And we all know which country has the biggest stockpile of those types of weapons (it's not Iraq)

As far as a false flag operation goes, it could be very possible that something would be done, yet why bother?

The majority of the planet would soon realise that any major attack by "terrorists" is in no doubt a false flag. I for one would not believe the media presented response to who was to blame. Especially if war war propeosed against certain nations.

But, as a theory, what if a false flag attack was made in a country that is normally seen to be against the US and the war on terror? or even neutral territory such as Switzerland?

By drawing the attention away from yourself you can make it look like an attempt by the 'terrorists' to bring the rest of the world into the fray.

We all presume who the supposed target would be, either the USA or the UK.
But what if it was Pakistan after installing a new government (although Pakistan is supposed to have some ties with the US in regard of protecting O.B. Laden.) or any other country, like North Korea.

NK has just recently supposedly stopped making attempts at gaining nukes. How would an attack on them in a false flag op shape the immediate period afterwards?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   
They'd probably want to hit the US .. if they want to declare a state of emergency and get George W in as commander in chief . Implement and write a whole new set of laws for a police state on a war footing ..definetely need it going off on US soil for that .

You'd think they would choose a coastal city /port . Say San Francisco and detonate when there is a westward blowing wind so most of the radiation goes out to sea . I suppose , evil that they are, they would pick Miami and wait for a southern wind to give Cuba a big dose of it.

Miami would be the best city wouldn't it ?, If the wind changed you'll get less collateral damage with it going off there than anywhere else ..But then it would be too obvious it was a false flag if they exploded there , Bush admin wouldn't be that stupid ...?

[edit on 6-12-2007 by Gun Totin Gerbil]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Misinformation Is how things get start, If you have seen any documenteries from M. M**R*, A mix of peoples views on the topic of his choice, plus misinformation to fit the facts, the truth is always strange, when we are use to misinformation on a daily basis by different sources, this is why blogs started several years ago. So [people can be informed to ask the right questions]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I don't know one way or another if Bush plans to attack Iran. I do know that he's a fool if he does and, at the very least, he must be mentally ill. Only someone not in his right mind would even consider such a thing in view of the absolute mess he created in Iraq.

Phantom, this link's for you: Tiny URL

[edit on 12/7/07 by 123143]



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Extralien
Just in case some of you are not aware of this, but a nuke is not as bad as it would seem in comparison to biological or chemical weapons.


I agree that chemical and biological wepaons are absolutely horrible alternatives that often go overlooked. Furthermore, I think that the human race has more to fear from biological threats than anything else overall. This does not mean that nuclear threats are not imminent however. I'll put money on it that a few nukes go off around the world before mankind is wiped out by a superbug.

Check out "The Stand" by Stephen King if you're interested in a "superbug/apocalypse" scenario. There's even a nuke in it too! The movie is on DVD.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   
my pet theory on a nuclear false flag is to hit near the us border meaning Canada or mexico, in so doing minimizing actual US fatalities and collateral damage while still doing its job of creating a premise for martial law. Such an attack would also further any nwo ambitions of a north american union by giving the US an exscuse to "secure" all of north america from "terrorists" and give the canadian/mexican population an event that would make them compliant to annexation.....

just my 2 cents.....



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim_Kraken
 


I don't agree with you.

It is exactly what we need. Especially all the manipulated, ignorant and warring americans, led by their warmonging president Bush. If there are signs of pre-war operations, contracts being delivered, etc. I think everybody shoudl consider it as fact.

Oh, mighty Warlord, please have mercy. Here, take our oil, destroy our cities, our believes, culture, but don't forget to brings us freedom and many re-building oportunities for us contractors and oil extractors.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   
And what about these sources getting basic information wrong? It doesn't make any sense to scream about war warnings when you're dealing with less than reliable sources, such as debka.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join