Section 2, General Hypothesis

B. What

I saw this quote on the article that was posted by izopen

9/11 was a demonstration of free energy technology. It can be used for good, but we need to make that choice and help others to as well.

-- Dr. Judy Wood

I didn't realize she also thought it was a demonstration, too, until I saw that article. So, it seems that Dr. Wood and I both agree that the events of 9/11 were a demonstration.

I had never thought of the weapon starting out as "free energy" technology, but that's interesting. If that's the case, it would lend support to my theory of what the motivation was.

So, that brings us to: why? Why would somebody go through all of that trouble to "demonstrate" such a weapon?

Well, I have a few theories. And that's where we come to the next section. I'll post the next section tomorrow, as I have plans for the night.


Note: I've decided that I'm going to flip When and Why around, and first give Why (motivation) and then When (timeline). Then I'll get to How.





[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

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.

That's not an answer, that's sarcasm.

When you're ready to post a serious theory of your own, as requested, and not sarcastic quips, I'll start to take you seriously.

Until then, I say you're just a debunker with an agenda.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by nikiano

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.

That's not an answer, that's sarcasm.

When you're ready to post a serious theory of your own, as requested, and not sarcastic quips, I'll start to take you seriously.

Until then, I say you're just a debunker with an agenda.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

blah blah blah
I have no idea why they picked sept. 11. Maybe it was based on coordinating flights. I really don't know.
Sept 11 only means something to us NOW after it happened.

Here I fixed it for you.

Originally posted by jfj123
I can't change the temp. by pretending the scientific instrument was wrong.

Me: I measured the stick with a ruler, it is a foot long.
You: No way, that stick is bigger than a foot, the ruler must be wrong!

jfj123 wrote,


The supposed truth movement is destroying itself from the inside.

I have some unanswered questions myself but I hate even bringing them up because of all the nonsense that would get piled on.


---

It would be great if there could be a thread on the outstanding questions on what happened on 9/11. The buildings collapsed due to the equivalent of two gigantic bombings in the form of airplanes full of fuel hitting the towers at high speed. The evidence on ever level, technical, witnesses, forensic - is so overwhelming, you'd have to a be a real conspiracy nu... uh ... buff, to strain trying to find alternative explanations.

My main questions is: did the US intelligence agencies get wind of some sort of attack, alert the upper administration, and did they decide that a direct hit on US soil would fit many of their long range plans. But did what ultimately occur on 9/11 surprise even them by it's effectiveness and massive levels of unwanted mass destruction?

This seems to fit much of my cumulative analysis and that of reasonable other with some doubts.

Amongst the rubble of the truth movement's collapsing edifice of dubious evidence there might be some indicators of this. But one has to sort through mountains of false reporting, pseudoscience and outright science fiction to even start looking.

I listened for 6 years and have given up hoping for some clarity but only am finding layer upon layer of obfuscation. The truth movement was the Bush administration's best friend in preventing alternative analysis of 9/11 from being taken seriously.


Mike F

Originally posted by Jezus
Here I fixed it for you.

Originally posted by jfj123
I can't change the temp. by pretending the scientific instrument was wrong.

Me: I measured the stick with a ruler, it is a foot long.
You: No way, that stick is bigger than a foot, the ruler must be wrong!

Unfortunately I need to correct your own analogy.
jezus: The ruler is 10 inches long
ME: The ruler says it longer then 10 inches
jezus: I don't care how long you think the ruler is, it's 10 inches because I think it must be 10 inches.

But you keep trying to change reality Good luck with that

Originally posted by jfj123

Unfortunately I need to correct your own analogy.
jezus: The ruler is 10 inches long
ME: The ruler says it longer then 10 inches

Exactly!

You must be wrong! The ruler doesn't know how to be wrong.

Either way you are trying to argue with the ruler.

Rulers don't have preconceived notions or a bias. They just measure. The fact that you make the wild assumption that the ruler is wrong without any evidence shows you aren't really interested in science, evidence, or proof.





[edit on 29-12-2008 by Jezus]

posted by jfj123

Unfortunately I need to correct your own analogy.
jezus: The ruler is 10 inches long
ME: The ruler says it longer then 10 inches

posted by Jezus



Exactly!

You must be wrong! The ruler doesn't know how to be wrong.

Either way you are trying to argue with the ruler.

Rulers don't have preconceived notions or a bias. They just measure. The fact that you make the wild assumption that the ruler is wrong without any evidence shows you aren't really interested in science, evidence, or proof.

Thank your for the correction jfj123. You have indeed made it perfectly clear, and that clarity is exactly what we expected.

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

posted by Jezus

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?

Thanks jfj123 for your reinforcement. Another person who wants real answers. I feel like I'm part of an unidentified minority of self-aware posters who would like to learn more but are frustrated that discussion of 9/11 which looks to be is moving toward the reptilian Zionists on the grass knoll level of discourse.

The CIA could not have diverted serious attention away from the back story of the most important event is recent history better than Truth Movement.

Those curious and with some grounding coming to many online forum looking for serious analysis just scratch their heads and dismiss the topic now.


Mike F

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jfj123

Unfortunately I need to correct your own analogy.
jezus: The ruler is 10 inches long
ME: The ruler says it longer then 10 inches

Exactly!

You must be wrong! The ruler doesn't know how to be wrong.

Either way you are trying to argue with the ruler.

Rulers don't have preconceived notions or a bias. They just measure. The fact that you make the wild assumption that the ruler is wrong without any evidence shows you aren't really interested in science, evidence, or proof.


[edit on 29-12-2008 by Jezus]

No but the person looking at it and not understanding it is wrong. That's you my friend.
You simply don't understand that 451 F is hotter then 220 F. I can't fix that complete lack of understand of basic principles here.
May god have mercy on your soul

Originally posted by jfj123
No but the person looking at it and not understanding it is wrong. That's you my friend.
You simply don't understand that 451 F is hotter then 220 F. I can't fix that complete lack of understand of basic principles here.
May god have mercy on your soul

Hmm...so if 452 F is hotter then 220 F...and temperature is 220 F (proven with evidence)...that must mean the temperature was lower than 452 F....

Their isn't anything to understand, you are arguing with a ruler...

SECTION 2: MY HYPOTHESIS

C. WHY: THE MOTIVE

Ok, just to recap my previous 2 parts of this section.

Who: Domestic terrorists (i.e. rouge scientists, military, or university students) or foreign terrorists, embedded within the vast network of government agencies, contract agencies, intelligence agencies and/or universities working on governement weapons research projects. Whoever it was must have had access to military intelligence or they had military clearance themselves.

What: Hijacked one of our own super-weapons, giving a demonstration to the US government on 9/11.

WHY?: What was the motivation?

Well, the best way to figure out motivation, is that we first have to put together the clues:

1. First, I stress that that I think 9/11 was not an attack primarily to kill people. Why? Because it could have been so much worse. It could have happened after 9am, and killed thousands more. They could have struck the non-reinforced walls the Pentagon, making it much worse. (I don't think it was just "luck" that the reinforced wall was struck.)

2. It was a display of power: they struck the pentagon, the WTC, and most likely were going for the Capitol or the Whitehouse. This means they were not going for the "Easy targets" as most terrorists do. They went for the motherlode. The BIG target.

They also chose to strike those that were the most symbolic of our country's power and wealth.

3. They struck on 9/11. Why? Why would terrorists strike on 9/11?

Two possibilities:

1. As a call for help.
9-1-1 is traditionally known for a call for help. It is the number you call in case of EMERGENCY. Islamic terrorists would not call 9-1-1. That would make them look weak.

2. Because that date was a date that would work best for them.

I choose number 2. Why? A military drill was already planned for that day. A terrorist drill. How perfect.

It would make sense for the military to choose 9/11 as a date for a national emergency drill. It would make sense for terrorists to choose a drill day as an attack day; it would be totally confusing for the military. They wouldn't know if it was real or not.

(In fact, it worked so well, they did it in the UK on 7/7, too.)

So, putting all those clues together? What do we have?
1. Someone with access to military intelligence
2. Someone with access to the big weapon
3. Someone who feels they have no control or power over the situation they are in, or someone who feels they have lost control and power in their life situation, and wants it back.



[edited to break 1 enormous post down into 2 smaller posts)



[edit on 29-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jfj123
No but the person looking at it and not understanding it is wrong. That's you my friend.
You simply don't understand that 451 F is hotter then 220 F. I can't fix that complete lack of understand of basic principles here.
May god have mercy on your soul

Hmm...so if 452 F is hotter then 220 F...and temperature is 220 F (proven with evidence)...that must mean the temperature was lower than 452 F....

Their isn't anything to understand, you are arguing with a ruler...

Actually it's 451. You can't even pay enough attention to get the number right. You simply just don't get it.
You're saying that since the fire was 220 according to the person in the video...Let me repeat that....according to the person in the video, it was an extremely low temp fire. In fact, the fire temp. was so low, nothing wood, plastic or paper would burn. What's left? If even paper won't burn in the 220 F fire, what was burning?
I'm waiting to hear the gears starting to grind

WHY: continued

So, what types of groups fit the above criteria?

1. A group of idealistic terrorists

If these terrorists were domestic and not foreign, then why would they strike at their own country? Well, one person's domestic terrorist is another person's not-for-profit agency with a cause. What do I mean by that?

Let's consider Greenpeace. Some people consider Greenpeace to be a not-for-profit-agency with a cause. Others consider Greenpeace to be domestic terrorists, especially when they start to interfere with ships on the water, etc...

Why do groups like Greenpeace strike? To raise awareness to important issues, and they feel justified in using extreme tactics.

So, why would a group attack our own country with our own weapons? To raise awareness throughout the world that the US is currently developing weapons that could be considered new weapons of mass destruction.

Why attack the pentagon and the WTC, but not just show the world in a different way? Because nobody would believe them, for one (could be easily denied by the military), or because they not only wanted to "out" the military defense department, but they also wanted to stop them. And to stop them, they had to have bargaining power.

Who?
Well, we would have to consider that anybody who would be willing to do this would have to be very idealistic and intelligent. University students come to mind.

Perhaps some of the university students working on projects in HAARP or other defense agencies. And really, don't tell me they don't exist, because I dated a guy in college who worked in Los Alamos as a student intern, as an engineering student. He was very smart, and he never did tell me what he did. Did he have military clearance? I have no idea. But students do internships in military defense, even if they are not in the military. Which he was not.

To give you a vague idea of a scenario: anybody ever see the movie Real Genius, with Val Kilmer? Ok, I'm showing my age here, but it was made in the 80's. Basically, this group of grad students were working on this project for their professor whom they were working under. They knew what their project was, but they did not have any idea what it was going to be used for. When they found out what their hard work was going towards (military weapons), they got angry, and turned the weapon against their professor and aimed it at his house. (Comic relief: they also put lots of popcorn in his house and ended blowing it up into pieces when the popcorn popped.) So basically, this is kind of along the same lines I'm thinking of. (Except the grad students were probably nowhere cute as Val Kilmer was! LOL!)

So, these grad students could consider themselves to be doing a good thing by exposing the US secret weapons project, and the government could consider them domestic terrorists.


Theory 2: A pissed off scientist whose research was turned into a military weapon

So, let's say you are this hard-working scientist who has dedicated his entire life to creating a free-energy for the entire world. He's worked on this project for years, finally creating it. And what happens? The military steps in and says "thank you very much, we'll take that now." He's pissed, and he takes action.

Or, he thinks he's created it as defensive weapon, but he finds out the military wants to use it for offense. And he's pissed. So, instead, he decides to "out'" the military, and takes charge of his own weapons....and uses them on 9/11.

Theory: pissed of military whose defense research was turned into a military weapon

See above.

Theory 4: Rogue intelligence agents from one or multiple different agencies

Motivation: To gain the upper hand over the entire government.

Why? Maybe some in this intelligence agency were tired of working for what they viewed to be a "corrupt government." Maybe they got tired of doing all this work for a country they loved, but they were upset that the ideals of their country had been compromised, and corrupted.

Or maybe there were 2 spy agencies at work, against each other, one agency trying to expose the other. (i.e. FBI trying to expose a black ops weapons agency?)

Theory 5: Foreign terror cell, embedded within the US government network

If it is a terror cell embedded in our vast government network, they could be working together in many roles: scientists, military, technicians; university students, etc...

Motivation: to expose the US military secret defense weapons


So, what do all these theories have in common?

(continued on next post)


[edit on 29-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 29-12-2008 by nikiano]

Section 2 (general hypothesis) continued

C. Why: what was the motivation? (continued)

So, what do all of those theories have in common?

-Anger
-Feeling a loss of control
-Wanting to bring down a corrupt government...an "evil empire" (think Star Wars)
-Wanting to expose a government's hidden dangers (super-weapons)
-Willing to kill people for the sake of a greater cause

What are all of these signs of?

A rebellion. From within our country. And maybe also from outside our country.

Quite possibly, an international rebellion.

But a rebellion of concerned scientists/military/intellgence, etc.... against a superpower that they had felt had gotten corrupt. Started by those who are tired of the corruption, tired of the secret weapons programs, tired of our country that has been corrupted from its ideal, original form.


Why such drastic measures?
1. They felt anything smaller than an all out attack could be easily quelled by the military.
2. They not only wanted to attack our government, they wanted to expose it. Expose secret weapons programs.
3. They needed the upper hand for future bargaining power.

But also...

4. They not only wanted to expose the black ops weaponry, but they also needed to have a plan to bring down the government.


Why would they not attack us without a plan to bring down the government?

Well, would YOU? I mean, it's like using a flamethrower against a dragon. You might damage it and scare it, but eventually, that dragon is gonna come after you, and it's a LOT stronger than you. So, if you're going to taunt the dragon, you better have a plan to kill the dragon when it comes after you.

And they did.


My guess is that the "terrorists/rebels" at some point gave the US government an ultimatum in the beginning: dismantle your weapons; release the free energy technology to the world, or else.

Well, of course the US is not going to do that. Instead, they introduced the Patriot Act and went after them with a vengence.

Also the US went to war in Afghanistan, supposedly the place where the terrorists were based. Why Afghanistan, if the rebels were not Al Quaeda?

Well, I've heard theories that Afghanistan was chosen because that is the perfect place to set up secret prisons that could not be monitored, unlike Guantanamo. So, there are all these prisons. Billions of dollars to fight a war.

Now, I also think that the rebels sent out a decoy. I think they wanted the government to think that the giant super-weapon was based in Iraq.

Why? To occupy the military and to waste their money and resources sending them to Iraq after a red herring. Something made President Bush think that there was something vitally important in Iraq, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein had been virtually incapacitated by that time.

My guess is that the terrorists/rebels sent them on a wild goose chase. Plus, Saddam Hussein was a menace anyway, so they might as well make him look like the bad guy. Hussein is taken out, and Bush goes in and finds.....nothing.

In addition, not only was the president and the country focused on the wars, but now they've also ignored the economy.

(Something the rebels/terrorists were banking on.)

The rebel terrorists/scientists took advantage of the economic situation, and was able to manipulate the stock market and bring it crashing down.

Behind the scenes, they said to the US: we'll use the weapon again unless you give us trillions of dollars in ransom.

The ransom was released into the system....over 2 trillion going to places that cannot and will not be disclosed.

However, I don't believe that the terrorists wanted the money for their own greed. I believe that the terrorists just wanted to use it to fight the US, or use it to fund their own research of "good technology." Or, they just wanted the US to flood the system with cash, which would eventually crash our economic system anyway.

But, when the ransom was first demanded, they told Bush to make some excuse of where the money will go. Tell Congress that it will go to buy up troubled assets or something that could not be easily traced. Do not bring in regulators. Make one person in charge of it all.

Key members of congress were probably told (in closed door meetings.) Enough to ensure that the bailout get passed.

After the bailout was passed, sudddenly instead of the money going to buy up troubled assets, it is funneled through banks as a ransom. Trillions go to places unaccounted for, and the bankers refuse to say where it went. (Paulson probably swore them to secrecy.)

So now, our rebels have not only gained at least 2 trillion dollars to do whatever they wanted with it: to use it to fund their fight with the US, or to use it for their own research on "free energy" technology. (or maybe they didn't even take it themselves) but they also succeeded in another attack: an economic attack that in all reality, could very likely bring down our country's economic system.....and end up resulting in a total governmental collapse.


But wait....there's more....


(continued on next post)






[edit on 29-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 29-12-2008 by nikiano]

Some people want to find a conspiracy under every rock or lurking in every shadow. Some people want to say some bad guys flew a plane into a building, the building fell down, people died, end of story. If you argue with me you are not a patriot.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between the nuts on either side. Dr. Wood is an undeniably well-trained scientist. I think her theories should be given some thought. She is asking questions, she is observing, she is challenging her observations. That is what a good scientist does. I don’t think she knows what kind of weapons was used because she is not privy to that kind of information. I would think it would be highly classified and not available to anyone outside of the military complex. I’m not saying that one does exist, but she does put forth some compelling arguments. I would have to wonder how much time the skeptics have spent reading the material on her website? I plan to read all of it before I make up my mind. I must assume that the people, who do not want to believe, will never do so. The ones, who want to believe, already do. That leaves us who are merely seeking the truth to find it on our own. Argue till you are blue in the face and you will just have a blue face. Discuss the issue and both sides may learn something.

Section 2: General Hypothesis (continued)


C. WHY: The motivation behind 9/11, economic crisis, economic bailout (continued)


And that video brings us to my final theory of motivation and responsible parties:

Theory 6: A military coup is taking place


But not just an ordinary military coup....but a black ops/psy ops/military intelligence coup. It's kind of a pseudo-military coup.

And think about it: what is the most common form of one government coming in and usurping another? A military coup. It happens ALL the time.

So, given that my hypothesis requires:
-Access to military intelligence (that a drill would be run that day)
-Access to military clearance
-Access to super weapons

A black ops/psy ops/intelligence military coup sounds the most plausible to me.

In addition: a military coup would make it very hard for people to get busted afterwards during intensified surveillance activity by the government after 9/11, because they know how to send encrypted messages. (At least all the spy movies I've seen suggest they do.)

In addition, they probably expected something like the Patriot Act to take place, so my guess is that they created an entirely UNKNOWN system of encrypted messages ahead of 9/11, to be used only within their rebel network/terror cell after the event takes place.

And I'm guessing that spies/black ops/psy ops could very easily come up with their own encrypted message system that even the government military couldn't break. It could even be a system of symbols or coded news headlines or such.

So, we're back to the whole idea of spy -vs- spy

edit:

And I'm sure it would be VERY easy for spies/spooks/intelligence operatives/black ops people to recruit highly intelligent and idealistic college students and angry scientists who have been disillusioned by their government...don't you think?



(continued on next post)

[edit on 29-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 29-12-2008 by nikiano]