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.
Conspiracy: The Bailout Is Actually An International Ransom to Prevent Another 9/11
page: 11share:
reply to post by Jezus
This is what was said.
This means that the poster is claiming that the official account says that only fire caused the collapse.
Here is the NIST final report summary.
wtc.nist.gov...
Notice how it doesn't JUST say fire?
And I never said that the impact alone caused the collapse, did I?
[edit on 25-12-2008 by jfj123]
Watch the video, it scientifically proves that because of the steel center foundation, fire damage alone can not make a building built like that collapse in on itself. Even if somehow it was possible, the center beams would still be there.
The official report is scientifically impossible.
This is what was said.
This means that the poster is claiming that the official account says that only fire caused the collapse.
Here is the NIST final report summary.
Events that played a significant role in the structural performance of the towers were the aircraft impact, the rapid ignition of fires on multiple floors, the growth and spread of fires and the structural weakening resulting from effects of high temperatures.
wtc.nist.gov...
Notice how it doesn't JUST say fire?
And I never said that the impact alone caused the collapse, did I?
[edit on 25-12-2008 by jfj123]
posted by Anonymous ATS
In most depictions that I have seen they show the central core to be a relatively narrow column with a very wide span between the core and the outer shell, making the structure to appear more vulnerable to a cascading collapse.
Given the picture shown here I am more skeptical of a collapse that would have included the destruction of the entire central core.
Indeed. Wasn't it wierd how those heavy beams in that remaining spire just turned to dust in mid-air? That was an extremely powerful central core. What could make heavy steel turn to dust?
reply to post by SPreston
Do you have any photos of steel beams actually turning to dust? Or any actual evidence showing entire steel beams/columns turning to dust?
Do you have any photos of steel beams actually turning to dust? Or any actual evidence showing entire steel beams/columns turning to dust?
Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by SPreston
Do you have any photos of steel beams actually turning to dust? Or any actual evidence showing entire steel beams/columns turning to dust?
It's right there in the videos and in other videos. Of course you did not bother to look did you? I posted two screen grabs. You are another expert who doesn't need evidence, aren't you? Your opinion is your science. Where did all the steel disappear to? How many floors high should all the steel be piled in the debris pile to equal the steel in a 110 story steel framed skyscraper? Some engineers estimate that 60-80% of the steel in the Towers turned up missing. Where did it all go? How did it turn to dust?
[edit on 12/25/08 by SPreston]
The way those three buildings turned to dust is not normal.
In a few seconds everything fell.
It appears as if something removed the skeleton in an instant.
If HAARP is in resonance with ionosphere, then lets speculate about it removing electrons from metal in those buildings by a focused beam, or something in this fashion. What could destabilize atoms of steel to pulverize them instantly and disperse them into particles...?
I think it's worth examining some such possibilities because the evidence does not offer rational explanation and the official cause of destruction of those buildings is pretty much nothing.
Since we mentioned Tesla before, this does have resemblance with Philadelphia experiment.
In a few seconds everything fell.
It appears as if something removed the skeleton in an instant.
If HAARP is in resonance with ionosphere, then lets speculate about it removing electrons from metal in those buildings by a focused beam, or something in this fashion. What could destabilize atoms of steel to pulverize them instantly and disperse them into particles...?
I think it's worth examining some such possibilities because the evidence does not offer rational explanation and the official cause of destruction of those buildings is pretty much nothing.
Since we mentioned Tesla before, this does have resemblance with Philadelphia experiment.
reply to post by SPreston
Again, I'm looking for actual evidence SHOWING steel turning to dust. How does steel turn to dust as oppose to melt?
I didn't seen any screen grabs showing steel turning to dust and actual steel dust. Could you repost them?
[edit on 25-12-2008 by jfj123]
Again, I'm looking for actual evidence SHOWING steel turning to dust. How does steel turn to dust as oppose to melt?
I didn't seen any screen grabs showing steel turning to dust and actual steel dust. Could you repost them?
[edit on 25-12-2008 by jfj123]
posted by jfj123
Again, I'm looking for actual evidence SHOWING steel turning to dust. How does steel turn to dust as oppose to melt?
How am I supposed to know? I'm just observing what seems to be happening. The 8000 pound exterior wall sections are hurled 600 feet in every direction from both towers, and the massive core sections seem to be pulverized into dust. Blocks away 1400 cars have their door handles and engine blocks seemingly turned into dust and the bodies are rusting right away and the bodies and tires seem wierdly burnt. What does that?
The dust clouds from the towers seem to be energized, and then lose that energy when they reach a certain distance from each tower, and then start to rise into the atmosphere. You don't think that's wierd?
And what is that cloud of dust pursuing each piece of hurled exterior wall section? Is that a sign of the steel turning into dust? Is that why they were in such a hurry to ship all the steel to China? Did they just keep the pieces they needed that looked normal?
by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics
[edit on 12/25/08 by SPreston]
Did you hear someone shouting : Muad Dib!!!
I understand that witnesses claimed they heard series of explosions?
But did anyone feel the heat impact? Such explosions and creation of such heat to melt steel should be felt as a very strong heat wave. Are there any testimonies of this kind?
I understand that witnesses claimed they heard series of explosions?
But did anyone feel the heat impact? Such explosions and creation of such heat to melt steel should be felt as a very strong heat wave. Are there any testimonies of this kind?
Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by nikiano
The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A Hypothesis is never to be stated as a question, but always as a statement with an explanation following it. It is not to be a question because it states what he/she thinks or believes will occur.
Well, I saw the same Wiki article about "hypothesis" that you did, and fair enough. It does say that hypotheses shouldn't be worded in the the form of a question.
But, it also says the following:
"In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself. "
Also, it says this:
"Sometimes, but not always, one can also formulate them as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon under examination has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic."
And also, this:
"In the United States of America, teachers of science in primary schools have often simplified the meaning of the term "hypothesis" by describing a hypothesis as "an educated guess". The failure to emphasize the explanatory or predictive quality of scientific hypotheses omits the concept's most important and characteristic feature: the purpose of hypotheses. People generate hypotheses as early attempts to explain patterns observed in nature or to predict the outcomes of experiments."
source: en.wikipedia.org...
However, you are right: my postings have not been in the form of a well-completed hypothesis. Rather, I have just been posting questions, and I have not taken the time to put all my questions into one good, all encompassing questions.
Therefore, I will do that now. I think with all the supporting evidence that people have submitted to this thread, plus the evidence I've found doing my own research in past years, I have enough evidence to present a decent (albeit preliminary) hypothesis.
I will submit my hypothesis in the following form:
1. Background; how and why I came to this hypothesis.
2. General hypothesis
3. Supporting evidence
4. Areas for further research
However, before I post, I just want to say 4 things:
1. I reserve the right to amend or modify my hypothesis at a later date, should any new evidence come to light. (As any scientist would do.)
2. I welcome any supporting or refuting evidence, provided it is given in a civil manner, without rudeness. (Although, I did giggle at the term "moonbat." That's a new one.)
3. Please keep in mind that although I have both a B.S. and a doctorate degree, I have been practicing in the healthcare field for the last 15 years, so I'm not exactly used to writing hypotheses and submitting them in a formal manner. So, please keep that in mind. I'll do my best to write in a scientific manner, but if I make mistakes in scientific format, I ask that you try to see the bigger picture I'm trying to present, and not clobber me on the details.
4. This will take some time to write it all down, so bear with me. I'll submit each section in a new post.
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
reply to post by ipsedixit
OMG. Thanks for the post to Dr. Wood. She's right! It all makes momentary sense to me, that 'they' have found a weapon able to dissolve the bonds of specific matter, or that's my understanding. Totally new weaponry! I haven't had time to think of the rest of this thread eg. blackmail, but the pieces seem to be falling into place, just the economy seems to be falling apart.
OMG. Thanks for the post to Dr. Wood. She's right! It all makes momentary sense to me, that 'they' have found a weapon able to dissolve the bonds of specific matter, or that's my understanding. Totally new weaponry! I haven't had time to think of the rest of this thread eg. blackmail, but the pieces seem to be falling into place, just the economy seems to be falling apart.
Hypothesis
Background
I started forming the beginnings of my hypothesis in the early morning hours of 12/23/08. The inspiration for this hypothesis came from a discussion I had on a non-related thread on ATS about a week before that date.
We were having a discussion about the legality of using Marines in DUI checkpoints. As usual on ATS, the subject of 9/11 popped up and somebody mentioned DEW, and his belief that DEW was used to bring down the WTC towers on 9/11. Although we were not discussing 9/11 at the time, I was intrigued, because I had done a bit of reserach on 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I had never heard of DEW before.
I asked the poster to tell me more about DEW, and he referred me to Dr. Judy Wood's website
www.drjudywood.com.
As I read her website, I was blown away. Her website answered quite a few questions that could not be answered by the prevailing 9/11 conspiracy theory which postulates that controlled demolitions brought down all the WTC buildings that fell on 9/11. Obviously, not every theory can address every detail, but I was not really worried about the small details that their theory didn’t address. Rather, it was the basic premises of the theory that bothered me, which are as follows:
1. Motivation: Every crime or conspiracy must have a motivation, right? Well, in the movie Loose Change, I loved it….right up until the end of it where they had to give a motivation for the would-be conspirators for collapsing the towers. At the end of this great documentary, it suddenly seemed to turn into an anti-semetic propaganda movie. I cringed. I could barely even watch it after they accused Larry Silverstein of being directly involved simply because he was Jewish.
I really hate anti-semitism, and anything that reeks of anti-semitism. I grew up with a lot of Jewish friends (in fact, my best friend in grade school was Jewish) and my parents also have a lot of Jewish friends. The anti-semetic tilt to that movie at the end really turned me off of the entire theory.
(And just because I submitted a hypothesis that the man who said he was the "Commander of the Lord’s Army" in the Old Testament book of Joshua was actually an imposter from an advanced civilization or an advanced race of beings, who helped him bring down the walls of Jericho, please don’t try to tell me that was anti-semetic. I was condemning the would-be imposter for trickery and deceit, not Joshua’s army or the authors of the Old Testament.)
(continued on next post….)
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
Background
I started forming the beginnings of my hypothesis in the early morning hours of 12/23/08. The inspiration for this hypothesis came from a discussion I had on a non-related thread on ATS about a week before that date.
We were having a discussion about the legality of using Marines in DUI checkpoints. As usual on ATS, the subject of 9/11 popped up and somebody mentioned DEW, and his belief that DEW was used to bring down the WTC towers on 9/11. Although we were not discussing 9/11 at the time, I was intrigued, because I had done a bit of reserach on 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I had never heard of DEW before.
I asked the poster to tell me more about DEW, and he referred me to Dr. Judy Wood's website
www.drjudywood.com.
As I read her website, I was blown away. Her website answered quite a few questions that could not be answered by the prevailing 9/11 conspiracy theory which postulates that controlled demolitions brought down all the WTC buildings that fell on 9/11. Obviously, not every theory can address every detail, but I was not really worried about the small details that their theory didn’t address. Rather, it was the basic premises of the theory that bothered me, which are as follows:
1. Motivation: Every crime or conspiracy must have a motivation, right? Well, in the movie Loose Change, I loved it….right up until the end of it where they had to give a motivation for the would-be conspirators for collapsing the towers. At the end of this great documentary, it suddenly seemed to turn into an anti-semetic propaganda movie. I cringed. I could barely even watch it after they accused Larry Silverstein of being directly involved simply because he was Jewish.
I really hate anti-semitism, and anything that reeks of anti-semitism. I grew up with a lot of Jewish friends (in fact, my best friend in grade school was Jewish) and my parents also have a lot of Jewish friends. The anti-semetic tilt to that movie at the end really turned me off of the entire theory.
(And just because I submitted a hypothesis that the man who said he was the "Commander of the Lord’s Army" in the Old Testament book of Joshua was actually an imposter from an advanced civilization or an advanced race of beings, who helped him bring down the walls of Jericho, please don’t try to tell me that was anti-semetic. I was condemning the would-be imposter for trickery and deceit, not Joshua’s army or the authors of the Old Testament.)
(continued on next post….)
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
A theory can be operational even if not proved. Most theories are like that.
The "official" explanation of how the buildings went down was neither scientific nor was it theoretical. Not even on the level of hypothesis.
There are two questions in regards to WTC destruction.
1. Who did it?
2. How?
Both official explanations are worthless even at a first glance.
This OP asks a third question:
3. Why?
Perhaps all three questions need to be answered to get the truth. Perhaps "how" may answer the other two questions?
Perhaps "who" may explain "how".
Perhaps "why" may explain the other two.
But there are many more questions which provoke hypothesis.
How do you make all that asbestos burn? We all saw how the buildings burnt. That fire could not bring them down. Not in this manner.
And "scientists" working for the government came out with a perfectly lame explanation - the steel melted.
Proofs?
None.
Who?
Terrorists capturing planes in flight and aiming them with such precision as if they were trained at Top Gun facilities?
That is even more lame than official answer to "how".
What happened to the science anyway?
Where did it go? Politics?
And the aftermath:
War in Iraq and Afghanistan, now in Pakistan.
Building up totalitarian system, destroying civil rights all around the world in the name of security.
Totalitarian systems are suicidal systems. I'm pretty sure that scientists are aware of that and they have advised governments about that particular trait.
Who cares?
Economic collapse worldwide.
What is happening to this fantastic, scientifically advanced civilization?
Everything is measured, everything is perfectly projected, understood and yet...
What?
Is behind all this?
What or who?
Is being covered up?
The bailout story also don't hold water.
Money is being taken away, given away, so what? It is all a simulation.
This is not about money.
The economic situation as it is now, is mocking the monetary system. It is so obvious.
What is all this about?
9/11 is a demonstration of total impotence of the NWO.
Yes it is.
NWO is trying to simulate a "response". This simulation is just about being exhausted. It is tiresome. It is empty. It has dug itself into the sand and unearthly landscapes.
It is going nowhere.
It is the wrong answer(s).
Questions are still there.
The "official" explanation of how the buildings went down was neither scientific nor was it theoretical. Not even on the level of hypothesis.
There are two questions in regards to WTC destruction.
1. Who did it?
2. How?
Both official explanations are worthless even at a first glance.
This OP asks a third question:
3. Why?
Perhaps all three questions need to be answered to get the truth. Perhaps "how" may answer the other two questions?
Perhaps "who" may explain "how".
Perhaps "why" may explain the other two.
But there are many more questions which provoke hypothesis.
How do you make all that asbestos burn? We all saw how the buildings burnt. That fire could not bring them down. Not in this manner.
And "scientists" working for the government came out with a perfectly lame explanation - the steel melted.
Proofs?
None.
Who?
Terrorists capturing planes in flight and aiming them with such precision as if they were trained at Top Gun facilities?
That is even more lame than official answer to "how".
What happened to the science anyway?
Where did it go? Politics?
And the aftermath:
War in Iraq and Afghanistan, now in Pakistan.
Building up totalitarian system, destroying civil rights all around the world in the name of security.
Totalitarian systems are suicidal systems. I'm pretty sure that scientists are aware of that and they have advised governments about that particular trait.
Who cares?
Economic collapse worldwide.
What is happening to this fantastic, scientifically advanced civilization?
Everything is measured, everything is perfectly projected, understood and yet...
What?
Is behind all this?
What or who?
Is being covered up?
The bailout story also don't hold water.
Money is being taken away, given away, so what? It is all a simulation.
This is not about money.
The economic situation as it is now, is mocking the monetary system. It is so obvious.
What is all this about?
9/11 is a demonstration of total impotence of the NWO.
Yes it is.
NWO is trying to simulate a "response". This simulation is just about being exhausted. It is tiresome. It is empty. It has dug itself into the sand and unearthly landscapes.
It is going nowhere.
It is the wrong answer(s).
Questions are still there.
Background(continued)
2. The premise that the US collapsed the WTC as part of a false flag operation to go into Afghanistan and Iraq
This premise doesn't make sense to me for several reasons:
a. To me, if they wanted a false flag operation, they would have had an excuse to go to war against the terrorists from them flying the airplanes into the towers and attacking the pentagon. The third plane was probably also meant to attack the Capitol of the white house, but that didn’t get that far. But if it would have made it, those 3 attacks alone would have been enough reason to go to war. Heck, those 2 attacks alone would have been enough for most Americans.
Collapsing the WTC after the plane attacks was over-kill….and very, very expensive over-kill at that. You don’t need over-kill for a false flag operation, you just need the appearance of an attack by a foreign country. Attacking the Pentagon, the WTC and the Capitol/Whitehouse (whatever the 3rd target would have been) would have been reasonable justification to go to war.
b. In addition, as I mentioned before, if they really, truly wanted to make it look like an attack by Islamic terrorists, they would not have crashed the WTC into it’s own footprint, sparing the other buildings in the area. They would not have attacked WTC at a time of day with very few people inside. Why? Because if “they” were truly trying to make it look like evil, godless, Islamic terrorists did it, they would have NOT spared the rest of the city buildings, and they would have NOT spared the innocent people. They would have flown the panes into the buildings and demolitioned them later on in the day, with many more innocent people inside, to really make it look like the “Islamic terrorists” truly were intent on killing as many lives as possible.
Think about it, we have been hearing from the government that these Islamic jihadists have no honor, and no respect for anyone's life who is not Islamic. If that is true, and if they really wanted to make it look like they attacked America, they would make it look like the terrorists had no heart. Instead, they made it look like the terrorists spared innocent lives and cared about collateral building damage.
If you’re trying to make your enemy look really bad, and turn world opinion against them, wouldn’t you try to frame them in the worst light possible? Wouldn’t you make it look like they attacked the WTC at the time of day where the MOST people would be in the towers?
Wouldn’t you attack the Pentagon in the LEAST fortified wall, rather than the MOST fortified wall?
If you wanted to make it look like the terrorists were really something to fear, and must be dealt with immediately, would you spare blocks of city buildings by collapsing the 110-story buildings in on their own footprint? Or would you collapse them down going sideways, in opposite directions, taking out dozens of other buildings in their path, and basically destroying the economy of NYC for years? If you were trying to make the terrorists look really, really bad, wouldn’t you do that???
I would. If I was trying to frame someone, and if expense or lives didn't matter, I would try to make them look like people who were intent on destroying our cities, and killing as many people as possible. Instead, the buildings were brought down in a way to cause the least amount of damage possible... at a time of day with the fewest amount of people in the building.
And the Pentagon was attacked on the side THAT HAD RECENTLY been fortified. Now, if you were trying to make it look to the WORLD like an Islamic Jihadist attacked the Pentagon, wouldn’t you go for the most VULNERABLE side, not the most fortified side? There was only a 1 in 5 chance of hitting the wall that was the most fortified, yet they did. I don’t think they did that by accident. They did it to spare lives.
These attacks were designed to be symbolic demonstrations...to show the American government that they had power to attack the essence of America. These were not attacks to kill the most lives or destroy the most property.
Think about that for a second.
Attacks like that do not reek of Islamic Jihad. Attacks like that reek of someone who wants to show he is the most powerful person on earth....that he has the power to bring down America....if he wanted to.
If you’re going to frame someone and try to make it look to the world like “Godless terrorists” did this, you would have made it a lot worse.
Are we to believe that the reason "they" spared no expense in taking down the WTC, but they wanted to spare American lives, too? That makes no sense, because according to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the people behind the false flag operation of 9/11 are also in with the NWO and want to eradicate 80% of the world's population someday. And if that's true, then these would be people who have NO conscience whatsoever. If you really want to eradicate 80% of the word's population someday, are you going to care how many people you kill on 9/11? No, you would kill as many as possible to make the "terrorists" look evil, and who cares about the collateral damage.
If people like this really existed, they would not care about sparing lives. Their main goal would have been to get the terrorists to look really, really bad. And in my mind, if this was supposed to be done by terrorists, it was terrorists with a conscience, because they attacked the WTC at 8am before regular business hours, they collapsed the building straight down on their footprints instead of out into the streets. And they attacked the Pentagon on the side that was recently fortified. Was this luck? No. It was planned.
That is not the work of an evil government trying to create a false flag operation. That is the work of people with an agenda, but also with a conscience.
Who would attack the most important symbols of America...but in a way to spare lives? Not someone carrying out a jihad. A jihadist wouldn't care about sparing lives.
No, that was the work of someone trying to sen a message. Saying: we could have killed more people, but we didn't.
Someone who was trying to send a message would do just that....attack the most vital symbols of America, but with the least amount of lives lost.
This was not a conspiracy designed to frame terrorists. This was an attack on the American government by someone trying to send a message.
Who? More on that in the section 2.
(continued in next post)
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
2. The premise that the US collapsed the WTC as part of a false flag operation to go into Afghanistan and Iraq
This premise doesn't make sense to me for several reasons:
a. To me, if they wanted a false flag operation, they would have had an excuse to go to war against the terrorists from them flying the airplanes into the towers and attacking the pentagon. The third plane was probably also meant to attack the Capitol of the white house, but that didn’t get that far. But if it would have made it, those 3 attacks alone would have been enough reason to go to war. Heck, those 2 attacks alone would have been enough for most Americans.
Collapsing the WTC after the plane attacks was over-kill….and very, very expensive over-kill at that. You don’t need over-kill for a false flag operation, you just need the appearance of an attack by a foreign country. Attacking the Pentagon, the WTC and the Capitol/Whitehouse (whatever the 3rd target would have been) would have been reasonable justification to go to war.
b. In addition, as I mentioned before, if they really, truly wanted to make it look like an attack by Islamic terrorists, they would not have crashed the WTC into it’s own footprint, sparing the other buildings in the area. They would not have attacked WTC at a time of day with very few people inside. Why? Because if “they” were truly trying to make it look like evil, godless, Islamic terrorists did it, they would have NOT spared the rest of the city buildings, and they would have NOT spared the innocent people. They would have flown the panes into the buildings and demolitioned them later on in the day, with many more innocent people inside, to really make it look like the “Islamic terrorists” truly were intent on killing as many lives as possible.
Think about it, we have been hearing from the government that these Islamic jihadists have no honor, and no respect for anyone's life who is not Islamic. If that is true, and if they really wanted to make it look like they attacked America, they would make it look like the terrorists had no heart. Instead, they made it look like the terrorists spared innocent lives and cared about collateral building damage.
If you’re trying to make your enemy look really bad, and turn world opinion against them, wouldn’t you try to frame them in the worst light possible? Wouldn’t you make it look like they attacked the WTC at the time of day where the MOST people would be in the towers?
Wouldn’t you attack the Pentagon in the LEAST fortified wall, rather than the MOST fortified wall?
If you wanted to make it look like the terrorists were really something to fear, and must be dealt with immediately, would you spare blocks of city buildings by collapsing the 110-story buildings in on their own footprint? Or would you collapse them down going sideways, in opposite directions, taking out dozens of other buildings in their path, and basically destroying the economy of NYC for years? If you were trying to make the terrorists look really, really bad, wouldn’t you do that???
I would. If I was trying to frame someone, and if expense or lives didn't matter, I would try to make them look like people who were intent on destroying our cities, and killing as many people as possible. Instead, the buildings were brought down in a way to cause the least amount of damage possible... at a time of day with the fewest amount of people in the building.
And the Pentagon was attacked on the side THAT HAD RECENTLY been fortified. Now, if you were trying to make it look to the WORLD like an Islamic Jihadist attacked the Pentagon, wouldn’t you go for the most VULNERABLE side, not the most fortified side? There was only a 1 in 5 chance of hitting the wall that was the most fortified, yet they did. I don’t think they did that by accident. They did it to spare lives.
These attacks were designed to be symbolic demonstrations...to show the American government that they had power to attack the essence of America. These were not attacks to kill the most lives or destroy the most property.
Think about that for a second.
Attacks like that do not reek of Islamic Jihad. Attacks like that reek of someone who wants to show he is the most powerful person on earth....that he has the power to bring down America....if he wanted to.
If you’re going to frame someone and try to make it look to the world like “Godless terrorists” did this, you would have made it a lot worse.
Are we to believe that the reason "they" spared no expense in taking down the WTC, but they wanted to spare American lives, too? That makes no sense, because according to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, the people behind the false flag operation of 9/11 are also in with the NWO and want to eradicate 80% of the world's population someday. And if that's true, then these would be people who have NO conscience whatsoever. If you really want to eradicate 80% of the word's population someday, are you going to care how many people you kill on 9/11? No, you would kill as many as possible to make the "terrorists" look evil, and who cares about the collateral damage.
If people like this really existed, they would not care about sparing lives. Their main goal would have been to get the terrorists to look really, really bad. And in my mind, if this was supposed to be done by terrorists, it was terrorists with a conscience, because they attacked the WTC at 8am before regular business hours, they collapsed the building straight down on their footprints instead of out into the streets. And they attacked the Pentagon on the side that was recently fortified. Was this luck? No. It was planned.
That is not the work of an evil government trying to create a false flag operation. That is the work of people with an agenda, but also with a conscience.
Who would attack the most important symbols of America...but in a way to spare lives? Not someone carrying out a jihad. A jihadist wouldn't care about sparing lives.
No, that was the work of someone trying to sen a message. Saying: we could have killed more people, but we didn't.
Someone who was trying to send a message would do just that....attack the most vital symbols of America, but with the least amount of lives lost.
This was not a conspiracy designed to frame terrorists. This was an attack on the American government by someone trying to send a message.
Who? More on that in the section 2.
(continued in next post)
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
Background (continued)
Another premise of 9/11 conspiracy theorists that I don't buy:
3. That the American government is inherently evil and working with the New World Order to wipe out 80% of the world's population
The underlying supposition of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that there is a New World Order that is intent on destroying 80% of the world’s population, and that the “evil” American government, including our president, is in on the plot. And they say that taking down the WTC was the beginning of that plot. They said that the false flag was needed in order to take away all our freedoms, which would eventually lead to eradication of 80% of the world's population.
I'm sorry, but I really, really, REALLY have a hard time believing that one. Is there a NWO? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Maybe they do have a plot to control the world.
But to KILL off the world so they can be left to run it by themselves?? That's where the 9/11 conspiracy theorists lose me. I just don't believe it.
First of all, as someone with a science background, I know that there are MUCH easier ways of eradicating 80% of the world's population than finding excuses to round everyone up in FEMA camps and then dispose of them in FEMA coffins.
Secondly, if you want to remain fillthy rich, you cannot do that by killing of all the poor people. Unless there are lots of people below you to create the luxuries that the rich need to stay rich, then the rich are no longer rich.
I mean, if only 20% of the population is all that is left, and they are all elite socialites, who would take care of them? Who would build their houses? Who would provide the electricity? Who would work in the manufacturing plants to build the cars that they would ned to travel the world? They would need to start doing things for themselves, and then there will be no rich and powerful class anymore. It will all be one class. So why kill 80% of the world if you care about remaining rich and powerful? It makes no sense. Powerful Kings and Queens need subjects and serfs and servants to remain kings and queens. Otherwise the Queen has to polish the silver herself and the King has to wash his own car, and where is the fun in that?
If there is a NWO and they do want to eradicate 80% of the world's population, and if they do have unlimited funds and resources, including scientists and technology, they could kill 80% of us off with germ warfare, and hide away for 20 years in fortified caves. Or they could poison everyone's water in a matter of weeks. If they really wanted to kill 80% of the world's population, there are much, much easier and cheaper ways of doing it than declaring martial law, restricting our freedoms and building FEMA camps.
Now, I'm not saying those things (restricted freedoms, martial law, etc...) might not be planned. I'm not saying they won't happen...but if they do, it will be for other reasons. But not for the ultimate purpose of eradicating 80% of the world's population, and not by an elusive NWO. Rather, I do think if these things did happen, it would be more for governmental control over the population....and not for some vast conspiracy to kill off 80% of the world's population.
I can believe that our government might have a plan to take away our freedoms to have more power over the people...but to destroy 80% of the world's population? I don't buy it. And that's where people like Alex Jones lose me.
I believe that there was an attack and a cover-up as to who perpetrated the attack, because the overwhelming evidence of a cover-up is there (see supporting evidence section), but not for the same reasons that Alex Jones and others in the 9/11 truth movement do.
I mean, I'm no fan of president Bush, but I don't believe the man is evil personified. Not the brightest lightbulb in the lamp store; yes. A "dry" alcoholic who probably never went through rehab and is in desperate need of a 12 step program; yes. A born-again Christian who probably honeslty believed that Armageddon may have been upon us at the time of 9/11; yes. But an inherently evil man who is part of a conspiracy to eradicate the majority of the world's population? No.
And I don't believe the American Government as a whole is inherently evil, either.
edit:
I'm not saying that our government has not become completely corrupt in many, many areas. It has. But corruption and greed is not the same thing as being so evil as to be in on a plot to destroy 80% of the world's population.
(continued on next post)
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
[edit on 26-12-2008 by nikiano]
[edit on 26-12-2008 by nikiano]
Another premise of 9/11 conspiracy theorists that I don't buy:
3. That the American government is inherently evil and working with the New World Order to wipe out 80% of the world's population
The underlying supposition of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that there is a New World Order that is intent on destroying 80% of the world’s population, and that the “evil” American government, including our president, is in on the plot. And they say that taking down the WTC was the beginning of that plot. They said that the false flag was needed in order to take away all our freedoms, which would eventually lead to eradication of 80% of the world's population.
I'm sorry, but I really, really, REALLY have a hard time believing that one. Is there a NWO? Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Maybe they do have a plot to control the world.
But to KILL off the world so they can be left to run it by themselves?? That's where the 9/11 conspiracy theorists lose me. I just don't believe it.
First of all, as someone with a science background, I know that there are MUCH easier ways of eradicating 80% of the world's population than finding excuses to round everyone up in FEMA camps and then dispose of them in FEMA coffins.
Secondly, if you want to remain fillthy rich, you cannot do that by killing of all the poor people. Unless there are lots of people below you to create the luxuries that the rich need to stay rich, then the rich are no longer rich.
I mean, if only 20% of the population is all that is left, and they are all elite socialites, who would take care of them? Who would build their houses? Who would provide the electricity? Who would work in the manufacturing plants to build the cars that they would ned to travel the world? They would need to start doing things for themselves, and then there will be no rich and powerful class anymore. It will all be one class. So why kill 80% of the world if you care about remaining rich and powerful? It makes no sense. Powerful Kings and Queens need subjects and serfs and servants to remain kings and queens. Otherwise the Queen has to polish the silver herself and the King has to wash his own car, and where is the fun in that?
If there is a NWO and they do want to eradicate 80% of the world's population, and if they do have unlimited funds and resources, including scientists and technology, they could kill 80% of us off with germ warfare, and hide away for 20 years in fortified caves. Or they could poison everyone's water in a matter of weeks. If they really wanted to kill 80% of the world's population, there are much, much easier and cheaper ways of doing it than declaring martial law, restricting our freedoms and building FEMA camps.
Now, I'm not saying those things (restricted freedoms, martial law, etc...) might not be planned. I'm not saying they won't happen...but if they do, it will be for other reasons. But not for the ultimate purpose of eradicating 80% of the world's population, and not by an elusive NWO. Rather, I do think if these things did happen, it would be more for governmental control over the population....and not for some vast conspiracy to kill off 80% of the world's population.
I can believe that our government might have a plan to take away our freedoms to have more power over the people...but to destroy 80% of the world's population? I don't buy it. And that's where people like Alex Jones lose me.
I believe that there was an attack and a cover-up as to who perpetrated the attack, because the overwhelming evidence of a cover-up is there (see supporting evidence section), but not for the same reasons that Alex Jones and others in the 9/11 truth movement do.
I mean, I'm no fan of president Bush, but I don't believe the man is evil personified. Not the brightest lightbulb in the lamp store; yes. A "dry" alcoholic who probably never went through rehab and is in desperate need of a 12 step program; yes. A born-again Christian who probably honeslty believed that Armageddon may have been upon us at the time of 9/11; yes. But an inherently evil man who is part of a conspiracy to eradicate the majority of the world's population? No.
And I don't believe the American Government as a whole is inherently evil, either.
edit:
I'm not saying that our government has not become completely corrupt in many, many areas. It has. But corruption and greed is not the same thing as being so evil as to be in on a plot to destroy 80% of the world's population.
(continued on next post)
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
[edit on 26-12-2008 by nikiano]
[edit on 26-12-2008 by nikiano]
Background (continued)
Ok, so basically, those were the top 3 reasons why I could not totally buy into the prevailing 9/11 conspiracy theory that the government perpetrated the attack on the Pentagon and the WTC that day as part of a false flag operation.
Now, we get into the background on the Economic Crisis and the resulting Bailout, which is the second part of my hypothesis. The whole economic crisis seems fishy, and the big bailout is not only fishy, but reeks of something rotten. NONE of it adds up.
Let's start with the Economic Crisis we suddenly found ourselves in this fall. What's wrong with this picture??
1. I do not have an economic degree. The only course in economics I ever took was econ 101 as a college sophomore and Financial Management for Pharmacists. Yet I could clearly, clearly see signs that a crisis was coming. It was all over the internet. I must have read hundreds of articles in newspapers and magaines that was warning about a coming economic collapse. I saw it coming, and it wasn’t even my job to be on the lookout for economic catastrophes. You had to be deaf, dumb and blind to NOT see it coming. Yet nobody in the government saw it coming?
A "crisis" insinuates that there was no warning to the event. But this was not a true "crisis", because there were warnings all over the place!
2. So, if it wasn’t my job to be on the lookout for economic catastrophes yet I clearly saw them coming….then what the hell were the people in the government doing whose job it WAS to be on the lookout for this kind of stuff coming?? I mean, if they missed it, it would be the equivalent of astronomers missing a huge asteroid coming straight for earth, and they didn’t see it until it was only 50 miles away. I mean, it was these government economists job to LOOK for this kind of stuff and WARN people high up in the chain of command that a disaster was coming.
3. This means that if they didn’t warn them, they were completely inept and incomepetent. And I can’t believe that every economist working for the government was inept and incompetent. Hell, I don’t even HAVE an economics degree and I could have told the treasury what was coming down the line simply from watching TV and reading the internet. I could have slept all day at my desk job and STILL figured it out.
4. So, if it’s impossible for any economist to be THAT inept and incompetent, then the warnings that WE were all hearing in the private sector must have been….ignored.
Ignored at best. Planned at worst.
5. Why would a government ignore signs of coming a financial collapse when it was predicted at least 1-2 years ahead? People all over the private sector were warning that this housing bubble would collapse and cause great financial chaos….yet nothing was done to reign in the mortgage crisis before it screwed up the economy....when it was so obvious even to those of us who knew nothing about the economy what was coming.
(continued on next post)
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
Ok, so basically, those were the top 3 reasons why I could not totally buy into the prevailing 9/11 conspiracy theory that the government perpetrated the attack on the Pentagon and the WTC that day as part of a false flag operation.
Now, we get into the background on the Economic Crisis and the resulting Bailout, which is the second part of my hypothesis. The whole economic crisis seems fishy, and the big bailout is not only fishy, but reeks of something rotten. NONE of it adds up.
Let's start with the Economic Crisis we suddenly found ourselves in this fall. What's wrong with this picture??
1. I do not have an economic degree. The only course in economics I ever took was econ 101 as a college sophomore and Financial Management for Pharmacists. Yet I could clearly, clearly see signs that a crisis was coming. It was all over the internet. I must have read hundreds of articles in newspapers and magaines that was warning about a coming economic collapse. I saw it coming, and it wasn’t even my job to be on the lookout for economic catastrophes. You had to be deaf, dumb and blind to NOT see it coming. Yet nobody in the government saw it coming?
A "crisis" insinuates that there was no warning to the event. But this was not a true "crisis", because there were warnings all over the place!
2. So, if it wasn’t my job to be on the lookout for economic catastrophes yet I clearly saw them coming….then what the hell were the people in the government doing whose job it WAS to be on the lookout for this kind of stuff coming?? I mean, if they missed it, it would be the equivalent of astronomers missing a huge asteroid coming straight for earth, and they didn’t see it until it was only 50 miles away. I mean, it was these government economists job to LOOK for this kind of stuff and WARN people high up in the chain of command that a disaster was coming.
3. This means that if they didn’t warn them, they were completely inept and incomepetent. And I can’t believe that every economist working for the government was inept and incompetent. Hell, I don’t even HAVE an economics degree and I could have told the treasury what was coming down the line simply from watching TV and reading the internet. I could have slept all day at my desk job and STILL figured it out.
4. So, if it’s impossible for any economist to be THAT inept and incompetent, then the warnings that WE were all hearing in the private sector must have been….ignored.
Ignored at best. Planned at worst.
5. Why would a government ignore signs of coming a financial collapse when it was predicted at least 1-2 years ahead? People all over the private sector were warning that this housing bubble would collapse and cause great financial chaos….yet nothing was done to reign in the mortgage crisis before it screwed up the economy....when it was so obvious even to those of us who knew nothing about the economy what was coming.
(continued on next post)
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
So, then we get to the Big Bailout
This was my thinking on the Big Bailout
1. Before the week of Sept 22-29, the economy wasn’t really on the minds of most people. Or if it was, it wasn’t in the main stream media. The election was, but the economy was not really talked about that much. Then all of a sudden….big names started to fail. Indy Mac. Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac. AIG. Lehman Brothers. Etc….
2. Then, all of a sudden, people take notice. The week of October 7th, the stock market starts to fall….hard.
3. Then all of a sudden, this huge bailout proposal is submitted to Congress. In about 1 month, we go from “Oh, everything is fine with the economy, no worries” to “Congress, you must pass this bailout package now, today. We must buy up all these troubled assets and get them off the market. There is no time to waste.” There are meetings behind closed doors, and within 1 week, despite OVERWHELMING opposition by the American public calling and writing them, imploring them to NOT pass this poorly thought out bailout package, they pass it. In one week.
4. So, let’s get this straight: Congress, who never does anthing swiftly, who usually leaves big decisions until AFTER major elections, who usually takes their sweet old time passing anything through both branches, passes a 1.2 trillion (TRILLION) dollar bailout about something that most of them admit, they don’t even understand. Most Congressmen and women will admit to the fact that they don’t even understand the entire mortgage mess.
5. Now, not only do they pass it, but they require no oversitght or government regulations. Why? Because Paulson told them not to, so he can be in control of it all. And Congress….are these people who like to give up control of ANYTHING?? No. Yet, they give away 1.2 trillion dollars, with no oversight, to a man that says he has it all under control. Who, in my opinion, was in charge of the department that should have been preventing this from happening in the first place.
6. And on top of that, it’s obvious that this plan is only fixing the symptoms of the economic crisis. The SYMPTOM is that no money is getting lent or borrowed. But is it the CAUSE?? No. This huge, 1.2 trillion dollar bailout was thrown at the problem, without even addressing the cause of the problem.
7. After they passed the bailout, did they go into session, determined to FIX whatever caused them this much problems? No. Did they address it? No. Did the attempt to re-instate the regulations on mortgage lending that were originally put into effect after the Great Depression, in order to prevent another one from happening, but dissolved less than 20 years ago? No. Did they address any of the FUNDAMENTAL PROBEMS that supposedly led to this crisis? No.
8. Did anybody go to jail for causing this crisis? No .Was there talk of anyone going
to jail? No. Have government regulators been called to testify as to how this happened? No. Has Paulson been through the ringer as to how he let this happen on his watch? Imagine that…..congress was not looking for a scapegoat to blame it on, so they wouldn’t get blamed themselves. Is that usual?? No, it is not.
I mean really, I kept wondering to myself….can any congress really, really, really be that stupid and incompetent??? Or could they be that corrupt, really??
9. But, as I looked deeper, even corrupt politics did not explain this. I mean, if you're going to be corrupt, you have to have a country that is solvent and flush with money to be able to benefit from being corrupt. But if you crash the country's economy due to stupidity, you cannot benefit down the road, because there will be no more money to be corrupt with!
And if you allow your country to collapse, there will be no government, so you will have no power anymore. And if you are a corrupt poitician, than what you crave most is money and power. So, this bailout makes no sense, because it virtually ensures that you will never again have money and power, because this bailout is destined to fail because it makes no sense to begin with. So, if you want to keep being corrupt, you basically have to take care of the system that supports you. So, corruptness does not explain it, either.
It just did NOT add up. But yet....there's more:
10. After the bailout, Paulson suddenly changes his mind. He says his previous plan was too complicated to work. So, he just decides to flood the system with money. No oversight, no regulations, nothing.
Do we hear an uproar from Congress? No. Should we have? Hell, yes!! If I was a congressman and I was strong-armed into voting on a package, because it was the ONLY way to prevent a complete and total meltdown, and then all of a sudden, he changed his mind after the measure was passed....oh, you can better believe I would have ordered Paulson's head on a plate! I mean, I was angry and I'm just a regular citizen. But if I was a congressman and I felt I had been "duped" into voting on that bailout that was intended to buy up bad mortgages, but then became a banker's sweepstakes..rewarding the very bankers who defrauded the system.....I would have been livid! So, why aren't we hearing any upraor from Congress??
11. On top of that insanity, we now have the only thing left to do: send in the press. So, the press goes in and interviews the bankers. What did you do with the money? they ask the bankers. Sorry, we aren't at liberty to tell you. WHAT??? Banker after banker disclose that yes, they did get money (even if they didn't want it), but they refuse to discuss amounts and they refuse to discuss where the money went.
They're kidding, right? Right? Please tell me they're kidding?
No. They're serious. And what does our press do? NOTHING. Have we seen any deep investigations? Nope. Nada. Zilch. They just say "Ok! Thanks for the interview."
You know what the main headlines of the news have been this past week? Record low shoppers in the stores and blizzards. Our bankers are refusing to tell us what they did with TRILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax money...but we're talking about the weather on TV.
Great. Just great....I'm so glad the press still takes their job seriously.
As Shakespeare may have said: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." No, wait....make that "Something is rotten in the District of Colombia."
(continued on next post)
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
This was my thinking on the Big Bailout
1. Before the week of Sept 22-29, the economy wasn’t really on the minds of most people. Or if it was, it wasn’t in the main stream media. The election was, but the economy was not really talked about that much. Then all of a sudden….big names started to fail. Indy Mac. Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac. AIG. Lehman Brothers. Etc….
2. Then, all of a sudden, people take notice. The week of October 7th, the stock market starts to fall….hard.
3. Then all of a sudden, this huge bailout proposal is submitted to Congress. In about 1 month, we go from “Oh, everything is fine with the economy, no worries” to “Congress, you must pass this bailout package now, today. We must buy up all these troubled assets and get them off the market. There is no time to waste.” There are meetings behind closed doors, and within 1 week, despite OVERWHELMING opposition by the American public calling and writing them, imploring them to NOT pass this poorly thought out bailout package, they pass it. In one week.
4. So, let’s get this straight: Congress, who never does anthing swiftly, who usually leaves big decisions until AFTER major elections, who usually takes their sweet old time passing anything through both branches, passes a 1.2 trillion (TRILLION) dollar bailout about something that most of them admit, they don’t even understand. Most Congressmen and women will admit to the fact that they don’t even understand the entire mortgage mess.
5. Now, not only do they pass it, but they require no oversitght or government regulations. Why? Because Paulson told them not to, so he can be in control of it all. And Congress….are these people who like to give up control of ANYTHING?? No. Yet, they give away 1.2 trillion dollars, with no oversight, to a man that says he has it all under control. Who, in my opinion, was in charge of the department that should have been preventing this from happening in the first place.
6. And on top of that, it’s obvious that this plan is only fixing the symptoms of the economic crisis. The SYMPTOM is that no money is getting lent or borrowed. But is it the CAUSE?? No. This huge, 1.2 trillion dollar bailout was thrown at the problem, without even addressing the cause of the problem.
7. After they passed the bailout, did they go into session, determined to FIX whatever caused them this much problems? No. Did they address it? No. Did the attempt to re-instate the regulations on mortgage lending that were originally put into effect after the Great Depression, in order to prevent another one from happening, but dissolved less than 20 years ago? No. Did they address any of the FUNDAMENTAL PROBEMS that supposedly led to this crisis? No.
8. Did anybody go to jail for causing this crisis? No .Was there talk of anyone going
to jail? No. Have government regulators been called to testify as to how this happened? No. Has Paulson been through the ringer as to how he let this happen on his watch? Imagine that…..congress was not looking for a scapegoat to blame it on, so they wouldn’t get blamed themselves. Is that usual?? No, it is not.
I mean really, I kept wondering to myself….can any congress really, really, really be that stupid and incompetent??? Or could they be that corrupt, really??
9. But, as I looked deeper, even corrupt politics did not explain this. I mean, if you're going to be corrupt, you have to have a country that is solvent and flush with money to be able to benefit from being corrupt. But if you crash the country's economy due to stupidity, you cannot benefit down the road, because there will be no more money to be corrupt with!
And if you allow your country to collapse, there will be no government, so you will have no power anymore. And if you are a corrupt poitician, than what you crave most is money and power. So, this bailout makes no sense, because it virtually ensures that you will never again have money and power, because this bailout is destined to fail because it makes no sense to begin with. So, if you want to keep being corrupt, you basically have to take care of the system that supports you. So, corruptness does not explain it, either.
It just did NOT add up. But yet....there's more:
10. After the bailout, Paulson suddenly changes his mind. He says his previous plan was too complicated to work. So, he just decides to flood the system with money. No oversight, no regulations, nothing.
Do we hear an uproar from Congress? No. Should we have? Hell, yes!! If I was a congressman and I was strong-armed into voting on a package, because it was the ONLY way to prevent a complete and total meltdown, and then all of a sudden, he changed his mind after the measure was passed....oh, you can better believe I would have ordered Paulson's head on a plate! I mean, I was angry and I'm just a regular citizen. But if I was a congressman and I felt I had been "duped" into voting on that bailout that was intended to buy up bad mortgages, but then became a banker's sweepstakes..rewarding the very bankers who defrauded the system.....I would have been livid! So, why aren't we hearing any upraor from Congress??
11. On top of that insanity, we now have the only thing left to do: send in the press. So, the press goes in and interviews the bankers. What did you do with the money? they ask the bankers. Sorry, we aren't at liberty to tell you. WHAT??? Banker after banker disclose that yes, they did get money (even if they didn't want it), but they refuse to discuss amounts and they refuse to discuss where the money went.
They're kidding, right? Right? Please tell me they're kidding?
No. They're serious. And what does our press do? NOTHING. Have we seen any deep investigations? Nope. Nada. Zilch. They just say "Ok! Thanks for the interview."
You know what the main headlines of the news have been this past week? Record low shoppers in the stores and blizzards. Our bankers are refusing to tell us what they did with TRILLIONS of dollars of OUR tax money...but we're talking about the weather on TV.
Great. Just great....I'm so glad the press still takes their job seriously.
As Shakespeare may have said: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." No, wait....make that "Something is rotten in the District of Colombia."
(continued on next post)
[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]
Background, continued
Another thing that happened this summer that got me thinking was the Energy Crisis
The Energy Crisis
Things that don't add up
1. We had HUGE increases in oil and gas prices this summer. Which really surprised me. Why? Because supposedly one of the main reasons, according to the 9/11 conspiracy theories (which I believed up until recently) was that we went into Iraq was because of Iraq's oil reserves. Supposedly, that was one of the major reasons for the false flag operation, was so we would have an excuse to go into Iraq, and get their oil.
Well, it sounded good to me at the time. Peak oil was here, according to many experts, we would run out soon. Iraq had tons of oil. Saddam Hussein was also an evil dictator, which I will not dispute. The man was evil beyond all measures of evil, and he killed thousands and thousands of people over the decades. So, he was a logical target. If you're going to overthrow a country for oil, go in and overthrow one with an evil dictator.
Now, I really believed this theory, about the war for oil until.....
2. This summer. When oil and gas prices went sky high. Hmmm....5 years into a war that was supposedly launched to get at their oil supply, and we still don't have their oil or cheap gas?
3. Another snag to the theory that the war was started as a way to get their oil... China comes waltzing in and signs a multi-billion dollar contract with Iraq this year, right under our noses. And we let them. Strange. If we were there to secure their oil, if we had started a false war for oil, shouldn't we have secured their oil supply right then and there?
Once again, the excuse for war for oil didn't add up.
But then again, neither did the administration's story, either....
(continued on next post)
[edit on 26-12-2008 by nikiano]
Another thing that happened this summer that got me thinking was the Energy Crisis
The Energy Crisis
Things that don't add up
1. We had HUGE increases in oil and gas prices this summer. Which really surprised me. Why? Because supposedly one of the main reasons, according to the 9/11 conspiracy theories (which I believed up until recently) was that we went into Iraq was because of Iraq's oil reserves. Supposedly, that was one of the major reasons for the false flag operation, was so we would have an excuse to go into Iraq, and get their oil.
Well, it sounded good to me at the time. Peak oil was here, according to many experts, we would run out soon. Iraq had tons of oil. Saddam Hussein was also an evil dictator, which I will not dispute. The man was evil beyond all measures of evil, and he killed thousands and thousands of people over the decades. So, he was a logical target. If you're going to overthrow a country for oil, go in and overthrow one with an evil dictator.
Now, I really believed this theory, about the war for oil until.....
2. This summer. When oil and gas prices went sky high. Hmmm....5 years into a war that was supposedly launched to get at their oil supply, and we still don't have their oil or cheap gas?
3. Another snag to the theory that the war was started as a way to get their oil... China comes waltzing in and signs a multi-billion dollar contract with Iraq this year, right under our noses. And we let them. Strange. If we were there to secure their oil, if we had started a false war for oil, shouldn't we have secured their oil supply right then and there?
Once again, the excuse for war for oil didn't add up.
But then again, neither did the administration's story, either....
(continued on next post)
[edit on 26-12-2008 by nikiano]
Background, continued
How the Administration's Story of the Iraq War Does Also Not Really Add Up
So, why am I putting this info from the Iraq War in the background to my hypothesis? Because it fits in directly with my hypothesis. You'll see why later on.
So, I'm not a military expert, by any means, and any attempt for me to try to explain anything in the realm of military action would be so far above my head, I wouldn't even try. So, let's go to Wikipedia's essay on the Rationale for The Iraq War.
here is the link for the above quote:
en.wikipedia.org...
1. Ok, so right here in Wikipedia, we show that the rush to go to war with Iraq started soon after 2001. We all knew that....no surprise. But why Iraq? I mean, it was supposedly Islamic terrorists who went after us on 9/11, but they were headquartered in Afghanistan. Why the big rush to go to war with Iraq? Why was Bush so determined to go to war in Iraq.
2. Some say it was because Saddam tried to kill Bush the elder, and Bush the younger wanted to get even. I don't buy it. Are you going to send thousands of men to war to retaliate against an assasination threat? No. Assasination threats are expected as a head of state. Bush the elder took that risk when he became president of the US, so that excuse holds no water.
3. Let's look at the weapons of mass destruction excuse. Ok, yes, Saddam was evil. Yes, he killed an ungodly amount of his own people with WMD. Yes, if he had the chance, he would probably do it again. Yet, since the early gulf war, he was pretty much contained by the UN. He was subject to inspections, and most analysts believe that Saddam was basically rendered harmless due to all the restrictions that were in place after the first Gulf war.
4. So why was Bush so adamant to go to war to Iraq....before the war in Afghanistan was even finished? I mean, supposedly, these terrorists were in Afghanistan. Right? We went in.....and then all of a sudden we divereted all of our military resources to Iraq.
Does that make sense? I mean, really....I don't know the first thing about military strategy, but that makes no sense to divert all your men away from a place that you had proof harbored the terrorists that attacked your country....and then diverted them all to Iraq as soon as the UN gave permission....leaving the men in Afghanistan basically without enough resources to win the war. Why?? To go into a country that was making no hostile moves towards anyone at the time. We had more pressing business in Afghanistan. So why move into Iraq and leave Afghanistan for later? It didn't add up.
Not to mention, Saddam didn't take credit for the attack on America, either. We had no proof he was directly involved in 9/11. So, why leave Afghanistan, a place where we supposedly did have proof, and go into a bigger, riskier war on 2 fronts??
Well, president Bush said we also had to liberate the Iraqi people.
5. Liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Hmm...does that add up? Well, it sounds good, and we are all for eliminating evil dictators, but... we also have to look at the basic studies of human altruism.
I remember I took psychology 101 in my freshman year at college. I had to be a subject in grad student's psych experiments (a pre-requisite for passing the class) and one of my studies was a study in altruism.
(continued on next post)
How the Administration's Story of the Iraq War Does Also Not Really Add Up
So, why am I putting this info from the Iraq War in the background to my hypothesis? Because it fits in directly with my hypothesis. You'll see why later on.
So, I'm not a military expert, by any means, and any attempt for me to try to explain anything in the realm of military action would be so far above my head, I wouldn't even try. So, let's go to Wikipedia's essay on the Rationale for The Iraq War.
The rationale for the Iraq War (i.e., the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent hostilities) has been a contentious issue since the Bush administration began actively pressing for military intervention in Iraq in late 2001. The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was best articulated by a joint resolution of the US Congress known as the Iraq Resolution.
The US stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".[1] Additional reasons have been suggested: "to change the Middle East so as to deny support for militant Islam by pressuring or transforming the nations and transnational systems that support it."[2] For the invasion of Iraq the rationale was "the United States relied on the authority of UN Security Council Resolutions 678 and 687 to use all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with its international obligations".[3]
In the lead-up to the invasion, the U.S. and UK emphasized the argument that Saddam Hussein was developing "weapons of mass destruction" and thus presented an imminent threat to his neighbors, to the U.S., and to the world community. The US stated "on November 8, 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441. All fifteen members of the Security Council agreed to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its obligations and disarm or face the serious consequences of failing to disarm. The resolution strengthened the mandate of the UN Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), giving them authority to go anywhere, at any time and talk to anyone in order to verify Iraq’s disarmament."[4] Throughout late 2001, 2002, and early 2003, the Bush Administration worked to build a case for invading Iraq, culminating in then Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 2003 address to the Security Council.[5] Shortly after the invasion, the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies largely discredited evidence related to Iraqi weapons and, as well as links to Al Qaeda, and at this point the Bush and Blair Administrations began to shift to secondary rationales for the war, such as the Hussein government's human rights record and promoting democracy in Iraq.[6][7]
Accusations of faulty evidence and alleged shifting rationales became the focal point for critics of the war, who charge that the Bush Administration purposely fabricated evidence to justify an invasion it long planned to launch.[8] Supporters of the war claim that the threat from Iraq and Saddam Hussein was real and that this has later been established. The US lead the effort for "the redirection of former Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) scientists, technicians and engineers to civilian employment and discourage emigration of this community from Iraq."[9]
here is the link for the above quote:
en.wikipedia.org...
1. Ok, so right here in Wikipedia, we show that the rush to go to war with Iraq started soon after 2001. We all knew that....no surprise. But why Iraq? I mean, it was supposedly Islamic terrorists who went after us on 9/11, but they were headquartered in Afghanistan. Why the big rush to go to war with Iraq? Why was Bush so determined to go to war in Iraq.
2. Some say it was because Saddam tried to kill Bush the elder, and Bush the younger wanted to get even. I don't buy it. Are you going to send thousands of men to war to retaliate against an assasination threat? No. Assasination threats are expected as a head of state. Bush the elder took that risk when he became president of the US, so that excuse holds no water.
3. Let's look at the weapons of mass destruction excuse. Ok, yes, Saddam was evil. Yes, he killed an ungodly amount of his own people with WMD. Yes, if he had the chance, he would probably do it again. Yet, since the early gulf war, he was pretty much contained by the UN. He was subject to inspections, and most analysts believe that Saddam was basically rendered harmless due to all the restrictions that were in place after the first Gulf war.
4. So why was Bush so adamant to go to war to Iraq....before the war in Afghanistan was even finished? I mean, supposedly, these terrorists were in Afghanistan. Right? We went in.....and then all of a sudden we divereted all of our military resources to Iraq.
Does that make sense? I mean, really....I don't know the first thing about military strategy, but that makes no sense to divert all your men away from a place that you had proof harbored the terrorists that attacked your country....and then diverted them all to Iraq as soon as the UN gave permission....leaving the men in Afghanistan basically without enough resources to win the war. Why?? To go into a country that was making no hostile moves towards anyone at the time. We had more pressing business in Afghanistan. So why move into Iraq and leave Afghanistan for later? It didn't add up.
Not to mention, Saddam didn't take credit for the attack on America, either. We had no proof he was directly involved in 9/11. So, why leave Afghanistan, a place where we supposedly did have proof, and go into a bigger, riskier war on 2 fronts??
Well, president Bush said we also had to liberate the Iraqi people.
5. Liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Hmm...does that add up? Well, it sounds good, and we are all for eliminating evil dictators, but... we also have to look at the basic studies of human altruism.
I remember I took psychology 101 in my freshman year at college. I had to be a subject in grad student's psych experiments (a pre-requisite for passing the class) and one of my studies was a study in altruism.
(continued on next post)
Lets assume for the sake of argument that the statements she makes are correct which would lead one to the inevitable conclussion that someone is
being "blackmailed" into doing their bidding. If this is the case then whoever is at the controls of HARP has also the controls of PROMIS. You could
not have pulled off 911 without both if using either one or the other. You would use PROMIS to establish what event could be used to accomplish a set
goal and then let PROMIS create the event in real time. you would then use HARP to of course bring the towers down. Well I DONT agree that this is how
it happened. There are too many variables that would have hindered such an event. 911 was perpetrated by our friends and made to look like it was done
by our enemies. If no plane crashed at the Pentagon or in Shanksville then NO plane was used which would mean that the media heads would be in on the
game as well as the people who control our planes, air defense, secret service, and those who own(ed) the world trade center, it's insurance
companies, and who controls the pentagon. This may not lead to a person but it certainly leads to a people...
Background, continued...
Altruism, continued.
After I participated in the study, the psych grad student basically told me that she designed the study because she wanted to see how altruistic people REALLY were, in real time, vs how altruistic they claimed to be. The grad student's assumption (or hypothesis) was that people would only be altruistic up until a point where it started to affect them adversely, and put their own welfare in jeopardy. According to her studies, she said, people were basically altruistic, up until a certain point. And also, that altruism only went so far when you didn't directly know the person you were helping. I remembered that study for years. Glad I did, too, because it comes in handy, here.
So, Bush says that he's willing to go to war to liberate the people of Iraq from an evil dictator, and to prevent him from using WMD on anyone else in the area. Even though Saddam is not doing anything to anyone at the time. At the risk the lives of thousands of American soldiers. At the risk of losing a war we were already fighting in Afghanistan. To help the Iraqi people and the people around them.
Then, as the war progresses, not only are American casualties are mounting, but we are encountering much more opposition to the Iraqi people than we thought....we keep "liberating." We keep trying to liberate people who obviously don't want to be liberated.
Nope, it doesn't add up. The grad student told me that past studies of altruism show that people will only be altruistic up to a certain point, until it starts to adversely affect them and jeaopardize their well being. If the cost is too great, the altruism won't happen. We already had too much to risk in Afghanistan to risk leaving that war, simply to save the Iraqi people. The cost was too great to go in just to liberate the Iraqi's. It didn't add up.
So, it couldn't have been about altruism. The only thing worth risking that much for is something else. An extreme risk to our country, here in America.
And, on top of that, after we went in, not only are we losing our own troops, but thousands of Iraqi civilians are getting killed. We go into save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein....and the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths occur.
First of all, have you ever tried to help someone who doesn't want your help? It doesn't work. After a while, unless that person is a dearly loved, and very close to you, trying to help that person becomes more of a burden and a hassle and a frustration... and you'll eventually give up.
So, it doesn't make sense that we would stay there in Iraq to keep trying to liberate them while they were dying by the thousands and our troops were dying, too....unless we had something greater to gain....or greater to lose.
Let's put this into perspective. Let's say that there is a building with a crazy madman inside, and he's in the center of the building with lots of ammo and explosives on him.
Let's say you're a SWAT team leader, and your main goal is to get the man man out of the building without causing harm to the hostages. Ok, so if that is your main goal, and if you go in and the hostages start getting killed by the thousands, are you going to keep trying to rescue them that way, or are you going to pull back and re-assess your strategy of helping those poor hostages? If your main goal is to rescue the hostages, you'll pull back and re-assess, and come up with a different way of helping them.
But now let's say the crazy madman is in the center of the building, but he doesn't just have dynamite strapped to his chest, he has an advanced weapon that could destroy the entire state. Now, let's say the hostages don't know this. Let's say that nobody in your state knows this but you and the SWAT team and maybe the chief of police and the governor of the state. Now, the goal is obviously different. Are you going to worry first about rescuing those civilians, or are you going to worry about disabling the mad man with the weapon? The goal becomes more about taking out the madman, and less about worrying about the hostages, in order to save the entire state worth of people. These hostages are now at risk at becoming collateral damage, in order to save the entire state state.
Well, let's see here.....we knew Saddam didn't have bioweapons, or nukes or anything like that at his IMMEDIATE disposal. At that time, we had satellites keeping an eye on his every move and the UN was monitoring him. We had no fly zones in the north and south of Iraq. We were fighting a war in Afghanistan. But yet...we were determined to go in to Iraq.
Also, crazier dictators like in Kim Jong Il in North Korea were obviously more of a immediate threat than Saddam Hussein.
So, why Iraq? What risk would have made it big enough to leave half our army back in Afghanistan in an unfinished war and go into Iraq?
Something they weren't telling us.
(continued in next post)
[edit on 26-12-2008 by nikiano]
[edit on 26-12-2008 by nikiano]
Altruism, continued.
After I participated in the study, the psych grad student basically told me that she designed the study because she wanted to see how altruistic people REALLY were, in real time, vs how altruistic they claimed to be. The grad student's assumption (or hypothesis) was that people would only be altruistic up until a point where it started to affect them adversely, and put their own welfare in jeopardy. According to her studies, she said, people were basically altruistic, up until a certain point. And also, that altruism only went so far when you didn't directly know the person you were helping. I remembered that study for years. Glad I did, too, because it comes in handy, here.
So, Bush says that he's willing to go to war to liberate the people of Iraq from an evil dictator, and to prevent him from using WMD on anyone else in the area. Even though Saddam is not doing anything to anyone at the time. At the risk the lives of thousands of American soldiers. At the risk of losing a war we were already fighting in Afghanistan. To help the Iraqi people and the people around them.
Then, as the war progresses, not only are American casualties are mounting, but we are encountering much more opposition to the Iraqi people than we thought....we keep "liberating." We keep trying to liberate people who obviously don't want to be liberated.
Nope, it doesn't add up. The grad student told me that past studies of altruism show that people will only be altruistic up to a certain point, until it starts to adversely affect them and jeaopardize their well being. If the cost is too great, the altruism won't happen. We already had too much to risk in Afghanistan to risk leaving that war, simply to save the Iraqi people. The cost was too great to go in just to liberate the Iraqi's. It didn't add up.
So, it couldn't have been about altruism. The only thing worth risking that much for is something else. An extreme risk to our country, here in America.
And, on top of that, after we went in, not only are we losing our own troops, but thousands of Iraqi civilians are getting killed. We go into save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein....and the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths occur.
First of all, have you ever tried to help someone who doesn't want your help? It doesn't work. After a while, unless that person is a dearly loved, and very close to you, trying to help that person becomes more of a burden and a hassle and a frustration... and you'll eventually give up.
So, it doesn't make sense that we would stay there in Iraq to keep trying to liberate them while they were dying by the thousands and our troops were dying, too....unless we had something greater to gain....or greater to lose.
Let's put this into perspective. Let's say that there is a building with a crazy madman inside, and he's in the center of the building with lots of ammo and explosives on him.
Let's say you're a SWAT team leader, and your main goal is to get the man man out of the building without causing harm to the hostages. Ok, so if that is your main goal, and if you go in and the hostages start getting killed by the thousands, are you going to keep trying to rescue them that way, or are you going to pull back and re-assess your strategy of helping those poor hostages? If your main goal is to rescue the hostages, you'll pull back and re-assess, and come up with a different way of helping them.
But now let's say the crazy madman is in the center of the building, but he doesn't just have dynamite strapped to his chest, he has an advanced weapon that could destroy the entire state. Now, let's say the hostages don't know this. Let's say that nobody in your state knows this but you and the SWAT team and maybe the chief of police and the governor of the state. Now, the goal is obviously different. Are you going to worry first about rescuing those civilians, or are you going to worry about disabling the mad man with the weapon? The goal becomes more about taking out the madman, and less about worrying about the hostages, in order to save the entire state worth of people. These hostages are now at risk at becoming collateral damage, in order to save the entire state state.
Well, let's see here.....we knew Saddam didn't have bioweapons, or nukes or anything like that at his IMMEDIATE disposal. At that time, we had satellites keeping an eye on his every move and the UN was monitoring him. We had no fly zones in the north and south of Iraq. We were fighting a war in Afghanistan. But yet...we were determined to go in to Iraq.
Also, crazier dictators like in Kim Jong Il in North Korea were obviously more of a immediate threat than Saddam Hussein.
So, why Iraq? What risk would have made it big enough to leave half our army back in Afghanistan in an unfinished war and go into Iraq?
Something they weren't telling us.
(continued in next post)
[edit on 26-12-2008 by nikiano]
[edit on 26-12-2008 by nikiano]
new topics
-
Thank you dear friends
Short Stories: 4 hours ago -
An Implausible New Electoral Process?
Political Ideology: 10 hours ago -
A Couple Of Great Movies Ive Watched Today
General Chit Chat: 10 hours ago -
WHY is DOJ Not Turning Over the AUDIO of JOE BIDENs Sworn Testimony to Prosecutor Robert Hur.
Above Politics: 10 hours ago -
Boeing 737 Max whistleblower Joshua Dean, 45, dead after sudden illness
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
Bigger than Covid
US Political Madness: 14 hours ago, 12 flags -
WHY is DOJ Not Turning Over the AUDIO of JOE BIDENs Sworn Testimony to Prosecutor Robert Hur.
Above Politics: 10 hours ago, 11 flags -
Modern Mind Control
General Conspiracies: 17 hours ago, 8 flags -
Boeing 737 Max whistleblower Joshua Dean, 45, dead after sudden illness
Whistle Blowers and Leaked Documents: 11 hours ago, 6 flags -
A Couple Of Great Movies Ive Watched Today
General Chit Chat: 10 hours ago, 6 flags -
An Implausible New Electoral Process?
Political Ideology: 10 hours ago, 4 flags -
Thank you dear friends
Short Stories: 4 hours ago, 1 flags
active topics
-
Modern Mind Control
General Conspiracies • 20 • : Terpene -
Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3
World War Three • 5748 • : manisha -
Those Fake Death Numbers From Hamas Out Of Gaza
Middle East Issues • 131 • : Lazy88 -
WHY is DOJ Not Turning Over the AUDIO of JOE BIDENs Sworn Testimony to Prosecutor Robert Hur.
Above Politics • 16 • : VariedcodeSole -
California Must Spend 20 Billion on Power Grid Upgrades If It Wants EVs
Fragile Earth • 27 • : VariedcodeSole -
Rendlesham Forest 1980 Pt II - Will There Be An Answer?
Aliens and UFOs • 3659 • : baablacksheep1 -
Israel rejected early Hamas offer to free all civilians if IDF didn’t enter Gaza
Middle East Issues • 158 • : FlyersFan -
The Acronym Game .. Pt.3
General Chit Chat • 7785 • : bally001 -
Freaky one eye website regards emerging global talent
General Conspiracies • 31 • : cavrac1 -
The Pentagon is lying about UFOs
Aliens and UFOs • 19 • : Jukiodone