Conspiracy: The Bailout Is Actually An International Ransom to Prevent Another 9/11

page: 15
48
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by nikiano
I didn't call you cowardly, I called your tactic cowardly.

Same thing.
You claim my actions are cowardly which would mean I am cowardly as only a coward would take cowardly actions.
I haven't insulted you and I expect the same respect from you if you want any type of reasonable conversation.


You're a professional debunker, and that's all there is to it.

What's my name?
Where did I go to school?
What's my favorite color?
What's my favorite food?
What's my dog's name?
If you can't answer these questions then you don't know me which makes your statement dubious at best.
I do not get paid to debunk your or anyone else' posts so I'm not a PROFESSIONAL DEBUNKER.
As stated, I'm a skeptic.

You obviously have some issues you need to deal with.
You only attack me because I disagree with you which means you refuse to believe you could be wrong. Take a step back, stop being so combative and maybe you'll get a better response. Why is that so hard for you to do?
I've gone FAR out of my way to be nice but....




posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Also, I will say, jf123, that your vehemence to keeping the prevailing conspiracy theory alive and kicking is actually quite surprising.

Why?

Well, you use the eagle as your avatar, and one of your quotes is "SUPPORT THE TROOPS."

But yet, you are trying to convince everyone to continue to believe in a plot that implicates the US government in allowing innocent civilians to be killed. Is that really supporting our troops?? You would rather have us believe that the government has allowed this atrocious crime to happen so much that you refuse to entertain ANY other theories??

And why? What is the motivation for the government allowing this to happen?

Well, you refuse to answer that question about motivation. Instead of answering my direct questions, you create arguments. You never answer my questions directly.

So, because you refuse to answer the question of motivation, all I can think of is what I've heard from films like Loose Change and people like Alex Jones, who say that the ultimate goal of our government is doing all this to bring about the New World Order, that wants to enslave and kill off 80% of the world's population.

Do you believe that? If so, then come out and say it. Or deny it. But give me a motivation for the government to be complicit in something like that.

I support the troops, too.

But I support the troops by daring to suggest that our government is not so evil and corrupt that they would allow something like this to happen to their own people. I believe, on the other hand, that the government machine got away from them, and that their own super-secret weapons programs got used against them.

I support the troops so much that I wanted to enlist as a military health professional after 9/11, but sadly, I ended up in the mental hospital by the time my appointment with the recruiter came around. And then, after that, I was in no condition after that to serve my country for a few years.

So you would rather believe that the troops are fighting for an evil corrupt government that wants to bring in the NWO, and enslave and kill 80% of the people?? If I believed that theory, I would't be saying "support the troops." I'd be saying "don't enlist!"






[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes I agree the fact that you're ignoring evidence IS delusional.


LOL

You can't be serious!

Evidence = Proof of Temperature

Speculation = The fire was hotter
Assumption = The temperature reading must be wrong

This is a PERFECT example of fighting evidence with BS.

One side has evidence (in this case a temperature reading)

One side has speculation (the fire MUST be hotter) and makes an assumption (the equipment MUST SOMEHOW be wrong).

Evidence proves speculation wrong, not the other way around.

How can you possibly expect people to take you seriously when you can't even tell the difference between concrete evidence and unsupported guess work?

This is ridiculous, who is the conspiracy theorist here me or you?



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by nikiano
Also, I will say, jf123, that your vehemence to keeping the prevailing conspiracy theory alive and kicking is actually quite surprising.

Why?

Have no idea what you're talking about.


Well, you use the eagle as your avatar, and one of your quotes is "SUPPORT THE TROOPS."

Yes because I think we should support our troops. Go figure.


But yet, you are trying to convince everyone to continue to believe in a plot that implicates the US government in allowing innocent civilians to be killed.

Never said that EVER.


Is that really supporting our troops??

I support the fact that our troops have signed up to protect us. They are willing to lay their lives on the line to fight for our freedoms and that deserves both our appreciation and respect. REGARDLESS of what situation the government puts them in.


You would rather have us believe that the government has allowed this atrocious crime to happen so much that you refuse to entertain ANY other theories??

Again, never said that.


And why? What is the motivation for the government allowing this to happen?

Evidently I need to post this again as you didn't read it the first time.
I think 9/11 happened because our government is INCOMPETENT.


Well, you refuse to answer that question about motivation. Instead of answering my direct questions, you create arguments. You never answer my questions directly.

Assuming you start acting in a mature way, please post your questions and I will do my best to answer them. If my answers are not what you're looking for, ask again.
I won't answer questions if you continue to insult me however.


So, because you refuse to answer the question of motivation, all I can think of is what I've heard from films like Loose Change

Loose Change is a joke.


So you would rather believe that the troops are fighting for an evil corrupt government that wants to bring in the NWO, and enslave and kill 80% of the people?? If I believed that theory, I would't be saying "support the troops." I'd be saying "don't enlist!"

I never said any of that. You must be thinking of another poster. Please get your facts right before pushing them onto someone.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 


There is nothing more I can explain to you as you simply won't believe that papers burned in the WTC's
You also refuse to believe that 451 F is hotter then 220 F.

Good luck in all your future endeavors.

Please don't bother responding to me as it will be a waste of your time. I refuse to discuss facts with someone living in a fantasy world.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I thought the bailout WAS the new 9/11

Instead of blowing things up and robbing trillions of dollars, the banks are just taking the money.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Jezus
 

There is nothing more I can explain to you as you simply won't believe that papers burned in the WTC's



Originally posted by jfj123
I don't believe something just because someone says it's so. I require evidence to believe it.


HAHAHAHAHA!

Before you can be a skeptic you need to learn what evidence is.

Evidence = Supported by proof

Speculation = Random assumptions



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   



I never said any of that.



No, you never say anything. That's one of debunker's/skeptics favorite tricks. You never come out and say what you truly believe, thus leaving it all up to speculation for others to guess what you believe.

So when we ask you what you DO believe (as I did), you accuse us of saying that you believe something you don't. I didn't accuse of you saying that's what you believed. I ASKED YOU if that is what you believed. And you STILL refuse to answer the question.
A favorite tactic of debunkers.....continue the never-ending arguments.

All you guys (debunkers) do is make arguments against other people's theories. You debunk everything....everything. No matter what credible evidence is given, you say it's not credible, and debunk it.

Yet you refuse to lay out what you believe. You refuse to elaborate on any of what you believe. If you're going to argue your convictions, at least have the courage to tell us what your convictions are. But you won't. And that's suspicious.

Your way of arguing the details without providing a theory of your own shows that you have an interest NOT in carrying on a regular debate (my version vs your version of what happened) but rather you have a vested interest in arguing the little points in order to keep the truth from coming out.

You say you are a skeptic, but I say that skeptics have an agenda....an agenda to keeping people busy arguing about the little details, in order to divert their attention away from seeing the "big picture." You do this by twisting words and planting old arguments into new hypothesis.

And when someone like me, starts to expose your tactics for what they are, you attack them, and tell them they're not being "adult." So, you if you can't deny my arguments, you attack me by calling me childish, and tell me I'm not being adult. Whatever.

Skeptics, debunkers, etc.... you all have a vested interest in preventing the truth from coming out. You pretend to hide behind science, but real scientists always keep an open mind about everything.

Anyway, if you want to post your theory, I'll continue to debate you. But until you have the courage to post your own theory of what happened, I call you a debunker and someone who is just on this thread to divert attention away from the "big picture" that I am trying to present.


Ok, so on with my hypothesis.....





[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Jezus
 

There is nothing more I can explain to you as you simply won't believe that papers burned in the WTC's



Originally posted by jfj123
I don't believe something just because someone says it's so. I require evidence to believe it.


HAHAHAHAHA!

Before you can be a skeptic you need to learn what evidence is.

Evidence = Supported by proof

Speculation = Random assumptions


and you need to learn basic math.
451 is higher then 220
Learn it, live it, love it, get it?



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
and you need to learn basic math.
451 is higher then 220
Learn it, live it, love it, get it?


So you can ignore scientific evidence and measuring devices because...

"451 is higher then 220..."

Hmmm, I guess this is debunker logic.

Hahaha and you need to learn basic English.

"451 is higher THAN 220"



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by nikiano



I never said any of that.



No, you never say anything. That's one of debunker's/skeptics favorite tricks. You never come out and say what you truly believe, thus leaving it all up to speculation for others to guess what you believe.

I already did.
And even if I didn't, does that excuse you putting words into my mouth for no apparent reason?


So when we ask you what you DO believe (as I did), you accuse us of saying that you believe something you don't.

Again, you're simply making things up.

You asked me what I believe and I stated what I believed.
As to what I think happened on 9/11?
hijackers took over planes
hijackers flew planes into buildings with one exception
damage was caused by fire and physical impact
buildings fell down and go boom
Government was too incompetent to put the clues together before it happened so a lot of people died.

This is as basic as I can make it for you.


I didn't accuse of you saying that's what you believed. I ASKED YOU if that is what you believed. And you STILL refuse to answer the question.

Including what I posted above, I've answered the question 2 times.


A favorite tactic of debunkers.....continue the never-ending arguments.

So you're a debunker then.


All you guys (debunkers) do is make arguments against other people's theories.

Theories require evidence which you don't have.


You debunk everything....everything.

That's a good thing. To debunk something is to prove it false which means it is no longer worth reviewing
Debunking is a good thing



No matter what credible evidence is given, you say it's not credible, and debunk it.

And no matter what evidence I have, you say it's not credible



Yet you refuse to lay out what you believe.

Already did 2 times now. Pay attention.


You refuse to elaborate on any of what you believe.

You refuse to stop acting disrespectful.


If you're going to argue your convictions, at least have the courage to tell us what your convictions are. But you won't. And that's suspicious.

I've done it already. Obviously you either can't read very well or ignore what I write. Either way, it's your problem, not mine.


Your way of arguing the details without providing a theory of your own shows that you have an interest NOT in carrying on a regular debate (my version vs your version of what happened) but rather you have a vested interest in arguing the little points in order to keep the truth from coming out.

I'd love for the truth to come out. Please provide evidence as to what the truth is and I'll gladly look at it. If it's actual scientific evidence and not speculation, I'll sign up, jump on board, row the boat, wave the flag, anything you need me to do.


You say you are a skeptic, but I say that skeptics have an agenda....

Some do, some don't. I don't. I have a scientific mind and simply am interested in the truth and not propogating falsehoods.


an agenda to keeping people busy arguing about the little details, in order to divert their attention away from seeing the "big picture." You do this by twisting words and planting old arguments into new hypothesis.

Only did as you asked. You shouldn't have asked unless of course your agenda is to divert this thread away from the truth by starting arguments?


And when someone like me, starts to expose your tactics for what they are, you attack them, and tell them they're not being "adult."

It's not that you disagree with me, it's how you do it. You can disagree in an adult manor or act like a child and insult. You chose the latter and that is also not my fault or my problem



Skeptics, debunkers, etc.... you all have a vested interest in preventing the truth from coming out. You pretend to hide behind science, but real scientists always keep an open mind about everything.

Yes everyone is against you. You're the only one who is honest and true fighting the good fight. All those who oppose you must be washed away. PARANOID MUCH?


Anyway, if you want to post your theory, I'll continue to debate you. But until you have the courage to post your own theory of what happened, I call you a debunker and someone who is just on this thread to divert attention away from the "big picture" that I am trying to present.


Ok, so on with my hypothesis.....

I'll be more then happy to post my thoughts and speak with you but not until you act a bit more respectful. You claim I am attacking you yet all you've done is attack me


If you can act within reason, I'll be more then happy to answer your questions. I have said this approx. 5 time now.
Feel free to ask questions as long as they're adult and reasonable and I will do everything I can to answer them.
The ball is in your court. If you truely are interested, we'll find our very quickly, won't we ?



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Section 2: General Hypothesis (continued)

B. What

So, earlier I said that I thought that the WTC towers were brought down by a super-weapon, which nobody had ever seen the likes of before. It was perpetrated by either terror cells embedded within the "government machine" or rogue groups from within the US government agencies, contract companies, or universities.

As far as motivation, I have several theories, but I will get into that under the "why" section. (One theory about motivation might actually take you by surprise!)

Did planes also hit the WTC? Yes, I'm pretty sure they did.

Why use planes before you use a super-secret weapon? Several reasons.

1. A diversion

The planes hitting the WTC towers happened early in the morning. The entire nation....no, make that the entire world... was watching the towers collapse on TV. What a great diversion.

The entire US defense is scrambling, focused on bringing down all the commercial planes from the sky. Meanwhile, there was a terrorist drill happening the same day, so when it happened, nobody knew if it was real or not, thus delaying the military from going into full action.

Then, while the US defense systems are focused on deterring another attack from the air, this gives whoever had control of the super-weapon hours more to get the weapon ready to give the US government a demonstration of power....and to show them that somebody else is now in control of their weapons....and BOOM. Our own weapon is turned on and used against us.

The rest of the nation thinks its the planes that brought it down, which brings me to my second point:

2. It's in the best interest for the rogue groups/terrorists to let the nation think that it was brought down by terrorists. (At least for now). Why? For two reasons.

First, because they perpetrated it in a way that would implicate that the government had a role in the events of 9/11, once the investigations started. At the very least, it would expose their weapons projects.

And the second reason is because now they have something to use for ransom/ blackmail later on.


Also, there is clear evidence that these attacks were not about killing people. They were about power and control.

If they wanted to kill alot of people, it could have been a lot worse. They could have attacked the non-reinforced wall of the pentagon. They could have attacked the WTC a couple of hours later than they did, when it was mostly full, and not mostly empty.

These attacks were demonstrations of power..."Hey, Mr. President, hey look, look what we can do. We now have control over YOUR weapons."

This is all about having power and control over our government. Military control.....monetary control.

If the world found out a super-weapon was used, then the world would attack us, or demand that we dismantle our weapons projects, and then they (the rogue groups/terrorists) would lose control if our government fell. It was in their best interest to keep the government intact.....for now. Because they needed bargaining power.




[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Section 2: Hypothesis, (continued)

What (continued)

So, here's the ironic twist to the whole situation....both the US government and the perpetrators of 9/11 (whoever they are) both need to keep the American defense system and secret weapons programs going. It is in both of their interest to not let the US military be dismantled or brought down. Because without our military, our government is impotent. And without our military/weapons program, the perpetrators of 9/11 have no control over our military.

This of course, can start an entire philosophical discussion about the ethics of developing and keeping a large military and secret weapons programs intact. Should we create these super-weapons if they could be used against us?

Our entire country takes a giant risk when we allow black ops/secret weapons programs to be developed by our own military. They say that these weapons are for defense or offense. But they can be used against us. Should any country take that risk of allowing weapons to fall into the hands of madmen?

Anyway, that's a philosophical debate that I'll save for another thread. But I just wanted to say, that if it did happen this way, it's a nice little catch 22 we have ourselves in.



[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Please provide evidence as to what the truth is and I'll gladly look at it. If it's actual scientific evidence and not speculation, I'll sign up, jump on board, row the boat, wave the flag, anything you need me to do.


How can you say that when you are willing to ignore scientific data on the assumption that it must be wrong because it disagrees with your preconceived notions and personal interpretation.

You keep talking about science but your thought process is completely illogical and unscientific.

You can't assume evidence is wrong just because the evidence insinuates something that doesn't fit in with your conclusions.

Your rationalization is backwards science, you are judging the evidence based off of your own conclusions instead of the other way around.

Can't you see how absurd this is?

You say you want evidence but will ignore it if it doesn't fit your conclusion.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by Jezus]



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   



As to what I think happened on 9/11?
hijackers took over planes
hijackers flew planes into buildings with one exception
damage was caused by fire and physical impact
buildings fell down and go boom
Government was too incompetent to put the clues together before it happened so a lot of people died.



Well, that is a start, but it is still not a complete theory. You said hijackers flew planes into buildings "with one exception." What does that mean? Are you referring to what hit the Pentagon that day, or are you referring to something else? Please elaborate.

Also, motivation. What was the motivation for the terrorists to attack us on 9/11?


Aside from that, believe it or not, we agree in two areas:

1. Yes, planes (or possibly some other flying object) were crashed into the buildings.

2. Yes, the government was incompetent and could have prevented this.

So, we agree on some things.

I also believe our government could have prevented 9/11 by keeping an eye out in our own backyard. They were so busy looking at everybody else's back yard, they didn't keep an eye on ours. They weren't minding the store, so to speak. They weren't keeping tabs on who was working for us. They weren't keeping tabs on foreign nationals with student visas. And they were incompetent enough to let the wrong people get a hold of our weapon's systems.

Now that we can agree on a few things, would you be kind enough to at least let me finish my hypothesis before you start picking it apart into little pieces?

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

Actually, we agree in 3 areas. I also believe it was terrorists. Whether these terrorists were domestic terrorists (i.e. rogue agents, scientists, etc..) or foreign terrorists, I do not know. But I suspect they all had access to our giant government defense network, security clearance, and access to military intelligence.




[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
If anyone is interested in some thoughts on how 9/11 ties into the bigger picture, I wrote an article called "A World of Abundance or a World of Scarcity: A call to awareness, a time to choose" in which I summarise some of the key evidence related to 9/11 (that debunkers like those in this thread don't like to talk about) and I present people with a choice.

One thing I have noticed is how many anonymous posters seem incapable of mentioning "hurricane erin", "9/11" and Hutchison Effect in the same post or paragraph without an insult or reference to ridicule, credibility or intelligence or honesty of one or more people associated with these things. To me, this is very revealing about how dangerous for the "controllers" the connection of these 3 sets of evidence really are.

www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

This article did seem to strike something of a chord when I first posted it a few weeks ago.



[edit on 28-12-2008 by izopen]



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by izopen
 


Great article. Thanks for posting. We think along similar lines when it comes to "alternative knowledge."


[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I'm replying anonymously because I think this Forum is run by the people who are destroying everything as a means of confusing all of us outsiders.

I believe that what brought down the towers were micro-nukes planted in the very lowest part of the sub-basement inside the core of the steel structures. The blast was directed upward, vaporizing everything in a 100 foot radius. As soon as the micro nukes went off, explosives in the upper structures were set off from the top down, making it look like 'planes' caused a collapse. There may have been more micro nukes higher up in the structure.

We do not know how small nuclear weapons can be made. What is the smallest nuke made? Can they detonate an H bomb without an A bomb to trigger a fusion reaction? I think so.

And the people who did it also put on a fancy story in the media, who collaborated with them about Arabs and planes. These things only existed on TV. The videos of the planes were a fraud. Real planes cannot fly into steel buildings and disappear inside. Some of the planes would have to come to rest outside the building and fall to the ground outside the building. That did not happen on TV or in real life. So, the plane story must be a fraud. What we saw on TV didn't happen. It was computer graphics. Every time I see sophisticated computer graphics in advertisements on in movies, I cannot help but to think that these same techniques were used to fabricate the story about planes and Arabs. Everybody in New York who saw 'planes' saw them on TV and only on TV. Why are there no independent pictures of 'planes' other than the TV images we all saw?

And the ransom aspect? I agree it's the same people who did 911 that are now crashing the economy. But not for money. They want a one world government where we are all treated more like livestock than we are today.

Anonymous



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jfj123
Please provide evidence as to what the truth is and I'll gladly look at it. If it's actual scientific evidence and not speculation, I'll sign up, jump on board, row the boat, wave the flag, anything you need me to do.


How can you say that when you are willing to ignore scientific data on the assumption that it must be wrong because it disagrees with your preconceived notions and personal interpretation.

Paper ignites at 451 F that is a fact, not a notion, not an interpretation


You keep talking about science but your thought process is completely illogical and unscientific.

your failure to understand that 451 F is hotter then 220 F is not my lack of understanding but your lack of understanding.


You can't assume evidence is wrong just because the evidence insinuates something that doesn't fit in with your conclusions.

The fact is 451 F is hotter then 220 F.


You say you want evidence but will ignore it if it doesn't fit your conclusion.


I can't change the temp. at which paper combusts and neither can you.



posted on Dec, 28 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nikiano



As to what I think happened on 9/11?
hijackers took over planes
hijackers flew planes into buildings with one exception
damage was caused by fire and physical impact
buildings fell down and go boom
Government was too incompetent to put the clues together before it happened so a lot of people died.



Well, that is a start, but it is still not a complete theory. You said hijackers flew planes into buildings "with one exception." What does that mean?

1 plane hit tower 1
1 plane hit tower 2
1 plane hit the pentagon
1 plane crashed in a field in shanksville


Are you referring to what hit the Pentagon that day, or are you referring to something else? Please elaborate.

The shanksville crash


Also, motivation. What was the motivation for the terrorists to attack us on 9/11?

Because they were ready to carry out their plan on 9/11 as opposed to a different day.



Aside from that, believe it or not, we agree in two areas:

1. Yes, planes (or possibly some other flying object) were crashed into the buildings.

2. Yes, the government was incompetent and could have prevented this.

Good start



I also believe our government could have prevented 9/11 by keeping an eye out in our own backyard. They were so busy looking at everybody else's back yard, they didn't keep an eye on ours.

There were many clues that showed up at many different facilities (ie FBI, CIA, etc. ) but there was no real way to correlate and organize the data between agencies.


Now that we can agree on a few things, would you be kind enough to at least let me finish my hypothesis before you start picking it apart into little pieces?

You've asked me questions I am simply trying to answer.
If you have more questions, please feel free to ask





new topics
top topics
 
48
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join