Section 2: General theory
C: Motivation for 9/11, economic collapse, and bailout
And where else have we seen this happen? Think back not too long ago. Communist Russia....the USSR. One of the largest super-powers in the world. And
suddenly, almost out of nowhere, it crumbles. Their economic system totally collapses. We think it's great....we think WE collapsed it because of the
long standing "cold war".
But wait......who comes to power? Putin. First, he seemed to be the perfect leader. Everyone loves him. Bush looks into his eyes and sees a good soul,
or whatever he called him.
Then later on....um, maybe not so much.
Where did Putin come from?? KGB. Military intelligence.
Hmmmm....suspicous, eh?
I wonder if the KGB had anything to do with the sudden economic collapse of the USSR??
Hmmmm....the USSR sort of had their own national crisis with Chernobyl. How many years were there between Chernobyl and the fall of the USSR?
Chernobyl happened in 1986. The USSR fell in 1991. That's 5 years.
How many years between 9/11 and the economic crisis? That's 7 years.
Also, read this from wikipedia about the fall of the USSR:
The USSR's trade gap progressively emptied the coffers of union, leading to eventual bankruptcy. The Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991 when
Boris Yeltsin seized power in the aftermath of a failed coup that had attempted to topple reform-minded Gorbachev.
The trade gap led to the eventaul emtpying of the coffers....they went bankrupt.
Gorbachev came up as a "reformer." Then came a military coup.
Our coffers here in the United States are being emptied.
Obama has been elected as a reformer.
There have been predictions about something terrible happening in Jan, 2009 (a "test" for Obama) by prominent US officials, including V.P. Elect Joe
Biden and General Colin Powell.
Next section (WHEN: The timeline) to be continued... tomorrow.
[edit on 29-12-2008 by nikiano]
Conspiracy: The Bailout Is Actually An International Ransom to Prevent Another 9/11 , page 17
privacy
reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 07:20 AM by Pilgrum
reply to post by jfj123
Shades of Guy Montag
You keep reminding me of the story 'Fahrenheit 451' - the title being the flashpoint of ordinary paper and the story based on the destruction of books to keep the public safe from the 'subversive' ideas printed in them. Once alight though, I believe it can get considerably hotter than that like the equivalent of a coal or charcoal fire. Much much hotter than 220 degrees.
Shades of Guy Montag
You keep reminding me of the story 'Fahrenheit 451' - the title being the flashpoint of ordinary paper and the story based on the destruction of books to keep the public safe from the 'subversive' ideas printed in them. Once alight though, I believe it can get considerably hotter than that like the equivalent of a coal or charcoal fire. Much much hotter than 220 degrees.
reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 07:33 AM by izopen
Originally posted by nikiano
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]
Thanks for reading my article. Funny how no one else commented. I guess they have to "work on" just 1 or 2 things at a time... helps to keep the "muddle up" in place I suppose.
reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 07:39 AM by Pilgrum
reply to post by nikiano
I can see you've given this a huge amount of thought and thanks for sharing your ideas. I'm still only in agreement with the idea that the true target of 9/11 was the 'western world' economy (well so far anyway) and not the USA in particular, apart from housing the headquarters of that world economy. I see the bailout as a desperate last-ditch attempt to prevent that economy sliding into a long-term disastrous recession.
We've had our own 'bailout' implemented here in Oz, as has been the case in most western economies recently with further contingency measures being planned in case greater stimulus is required. I see nothing sinister about it, more an act of desperation in difficult times.
I can see you've given this a huge amount of thought and thanks for sharing your ideas. I'm still only in agreement with the idea that the true target of 9/11 was the 'western world' economy (well so far anyway) and not the USA in particular, apart from housing the headquarters of that world economy. I see the bailout as a desperate last-ditch attempt to prevent that economy sliding into a long-term disastrous recession.
We've had our own 'bailout' implemented here in Oz, as has been the case in most western economies recently with further contingency measures being planned in case greater stimulus is required. I see nothing sinister about it, more an act of desperation in difficult times.
reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 09:25 PM by nikiano
Missing puzzle piece #5: The hijackers and the planes: How do they fit into this?
Well, first, let's look at the Pentagon.
If you look at the pictures of the Pentagon after the attack on 9/11, it's clearly a hole, that went straight through the 5 walls. There was no plane wreckage taken away.
Pilots with previous flying experience on various ATS threads will tell you that there is no way that amateur pilots could have maneuvered a jet airplane and hit the wall of the Pentagon that day to get it to go through several layers of reinforced walls. Plus, a mostly aluminum plane could NOT have gone through several reinforced walls. It would have been nearly impossible. It would have had to have been a missile, many people said.
Who else says it was a missile? Well, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld himself:
Oops, clearly Mr. Rumsfeld forgot that he was not supposed to let it out that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, and not a plane.
Why would he, and the US government cover something like that up? Well, if my hypothesis was correct, and it was a black-ops military coup, it's because a missile would have been evidence that there were military weapons used against us, and not some terrorists who hijacked a plane. And if there were military weapons, then that would mean that somebody's military planes or ground troops would have been in the US that day. And if there were no other military planes from any other country in our airspace that day, then that would mean that it would have had to have been OUR military that shot the missile into the Pentagon. And if people found out that it was our missile, then that would mean that the fact that our military's weapons had been hijacked.....and that this was an attack from the INSIDE of the US....and he couldn't tell that much of the truth.
Similarly, Mr. Rumsfeld had another slip another time, when he said that those people who had "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania".
Here is the link to the clip:
www.youtube.com...
Furthermore, another poster from the same thread said this:
So, obviously, the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down. Makes sense, too. I mean, the government would have had no other choice at that point....we were being attacked and it was evident that another plane was headed for another target. They obviously didn't want to tell our country that they shot it down for PR reasons, but I can understand that they felt that they had no other choice at that time.
Here is the ATS thread that I got this information from:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Now, everybody on these ATS threads seems to believe that because the government was lying and found to have inconsistent stories floating about, then that means that they were the culprits. Sadly, I think that's exactly what the psy-ops was meant to suggest, in order to turn us against our own government.
Once again, I'll say that I believe the government was covering up the truth not because they were responsible, but because they were liable.
Because these domestic terrorists/rebels got a hold of our weapons that day, and the US didn't want it on record that our weapons weren't secure. So, they covered it up.
(continued on next page)
[edit on 30-12-2008 by nikiano]
Well, first, let's look at the Pentagon.
If you look at the pictures of the Pentagon after the attack on 9/11, it's clearly a hole, that went straight through the 5 walls. There was no plane wreckage taken away.
Pilots with previous flying experience on various ATS threads will tell you that there is no way that amateur pilots could have maneuvered a jet airplane and hit the wall of the Pentagon that day to get it to go through several layers of reinforced walls. Plus, a mostly aluminum plane could NOT have gone through several reinforced walls. It would have been nearly impossible. It would have had to have been a missile, many people said.
Who else says it was a missile? Well, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld himself:
"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."
Oops, clearly Mr. Rumsfeld forgot that he was not supposed to let it out that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, and not a plane.
Why would he, and the US government cover something like that up? Well, if my hypothesis was correct, and it was a black-ops military coup, it's because a missile would have been evidence that there were military weapons used against us, and not some terrorists who hijacked a plane. And if there were military weapons, then that would mean that somebody's military planes or ground troops would have been in the US that day. And if there were no other military planes from any other country in our airspace that day, then that would mean that it would have had to have been OUR military that shot the missile into the Pentagon. And if people found out that it was our missile, then that would mean that the fact that our military's weapons had been hijacked.....and that this was an attack from the INSIDE of the US....and he couldn't tell that much of the truth.
Similarly, Mr. Rumsfeld had another slip another time, when he said that those people who had "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania".
Here is the link to the clip:
www.youtube.com...
Furthermore, another poster from the same thread said this:
And also, various government officials mentioned various times that a plane was shot down, as if they slipped up and never corrected themselves. Guliani did it, Rumsfeld did it, and Cheney did it.
So, obviously, the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down. Makes sense, too. I mean, the government would have had no other choice at that point....we were being attacked and it was evident that another plane was headed for another target. They obviously didn't want to tell our country that they shot it down for PR reasons, but I can understand that they felt that they had no other choice at that time.
Here is the ATS thread that I got this information from:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Now, everybody on these ATS threads seems to believe that because the government was lying and found to have inconsistent stories floating about, then that means that they were the culprits. Sadly, I think that's exactly what the psy-ops was meant to suggest, in order to turn us against our own government.
Once again, I'll say that I believe the government was covering up the truth not because they were responsible, but because they were liable.
Because these domestic terrorists/rebels got a hold of our weapons that day, and the US didn't want it on record that our weapons weren't secure. So, they covered it up.
(continued on next page)
[edit on 30-12-2008 by nikiano]
reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 09:39 PM by nikiano
Hijackers, continued.
So, now let's look at the WTC site. Clearly, two things hit the WTC towers that day. There is footage of planes hitting the towers. We have video tapes of planes hitting the towers. We have eye witnesses of planes hitting the towers.
However, what kinds of planes those were are up to debate.
1. One woman witness who lived in a nearby apartment said that one plane looked like a military plane.
2. The planes on the videos I've seen look like holographic planes or doctored videos. I'm not a graphics expert, so I can't tell the difference, but I do know basic science, and I know whatever it was didn't behave according to basic physics.
(And I'm sorry, they excuse that the the aluminum had more tensile strength than the towers or that they did that because the planes were going really fast doesn't hold up. The faster the plane was going, the more the plane would have crashed to pieces. Unless the plane was going warp speed and was acclererating into another time/space continuum, nothing would make it go through the tower walls as if they were not even there.)
Maybe they were holographic planes, I haven't looked at the evidence enough for it, but for now, I'm thinking that the planes used to crash into the towers were not jet airliners, but rather, the videos were doctored to hide exactly what it was that smacked into the side of the towers.
Why? The evidence does not add up.
1. There should have been debris all over if it was an aluminum jetliner. There was not.
2. Do jet planes really blow up like that when crashed into an immoveable object? Has that ever been caught on film before, big explosions like that in a jet crash?
Maybe they would, and maybe they wouldn't. I'm not sure, but it looks like the giant explosions were like a giant special effects scene in a movie. You know how cars always explode in movies when they crash off a cliff? Well, in real life, they don't do that. Cars don't just explode. Do jets just explode into huge black balls of fire just because they hit something?
Is that normal, or is that pyrotechnics at work? Honestly, I don't know, but it looks a lot like something you would see in a movie scene....like in that Nicolas Cage movie where these hijackers hijack a plane and then run it into a building on the strip and it blows up in a big fireball.....yeah, that's it.
3. However, regardless or whether or not those two giant fireballs were normal, clearly evidence was planted on the scene.
See the following quote from another ATS thread:
Here is the link to that thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
So, obviously evidence was planted. But why, and by whom? And why?
(Continued on next thread.)
[edit on 30-12-2008 by nikiano]
So, now let's look at the WTC site. Clearly, two things hit the WTC towers that day. There is footage of planes hitting the towers. We have video tapes of planes hitting the towers. We have eye witnesses of planes hitting the towers.
However, what kinds of planes those were are up to debate.
1. One woman witness who lived in a nearby apartment said that one plane looked like a military plane.
2. The planes on the videos I've seen look like holographic planes or doctored videos. I'm not a graphics expert, so I can't tell the difference, but I do know basic science, and I know whatever it was didn't behave according to basic physics.
(And I'm sorry, they excuse that the the aluminum had more tensile strength than the towers or that they did that because the planes were going really fast doesn't hold up. The faster the plane was going, the more the plane would have crashed to pieces. Unless the plane was going warp speed and was acclererating into another time/space continuum, nothing would make it go through the tower walls as if they were not even there.)
Maybe they were holographic planes, I haven't looked at the evidence enough for it, but for now, I'm thinking that the planes used to crash into the towers were not jet airliners, but rather, the videos were doctored to hide exactly what it was that smacked into the side of the towers.
Why? The evidence does not add up.
1. There should have been debris all over if it was an aluminum jetliner. There was not.
2. Do jet planes really blow up like that when crashed into an immoveable object? Has that ever been caught on film before, big explosions like that in a jet crash?
Maybe they would, and maybe they wouldn't. I'm not sure, but it looks like the giant explosions were like a giant special effects scene in a movie. You know how cars always explode in movies when they crash off a cliff? Well, in real life, they don't do that. Cars don't just explode. Do jets just explode into huge black balls of fire just because they hit something?
Is that normal, or is that pyrotechnics at work? Honestly, I don't know, but it looks a lot like something you would see in a movie scene....like in that Nicolas Cage movie where these hijackers hijack a plane and then run it into a building on the strip and it blows up in a big fireball.....yeah, that's it.
3. However, regardless or whether or not those two giant fireballs were normal, clearly evidence was planted on the scene.
See the following quote from another ATS thread:
What happened to the people on the planes on 9/11?
What I have come to believe is that the planes that the people boarded on 9/11 are not the same planes that were used to hit the World Trade Center or Pentagon.
1. The Hijackers of the Planes were not at a level capable of what was accomplished on 9.11. This is really the major evidence. Under pressure, we are supposed to believe Amateur Pilots were able to hit the target dead on like that?
"Hijacker Hani Hanjour moves from Florida to the San Francisco Bay area in California, staying with an unidentified family. He lives with them from late April to early September. For most of this time he takes English lessons in an intensive program requiring 30 hours of class time per week, at the ELS Language Center at Holy Names College in Oakland. He reportedly reaches a level of proficiency sufficient to “survive very well in the English language.” Yet in 2001, managers at an Arizona flight school will report him to the FAA at least five times, partly because they think his level of English is inadequate for him to keep his pilot’s license. Due to his poor English, it will take Hanjour five hours to complete an oral exam meant to last just two hours (see January-February 2001). At the end of this period, Hanjour enrolls on a rigorous one-year flight training program at the renowned Sierra Academy of Aeronautics, in Oakland. However, he only attends the 30-minute orientation class, on September 8, and then never returns. "
2. We all know that a plane did not hit the Pentagon. There were no imprints where wings should have been and there was no sign of a major plane in the wreckage inside. The 'plane' also happened to conveniently hit the vacated area of the Pentagon that was undergoing construction. There's also more things wrong but those are the major to me.
3. The 'plane' that crashed in the Field was missing. There was a charred area and a few scattered debris no larger then a small rock, but no plane. Someone had gotten there first.
4. They were conducting a simulation that morning of hijacked planes and had unmanned remote planes in the air. Successfully confusing air traffic control and the whole situation.
5. The WTC Buildings were shut down the weekend prior to 9/11 for 24-28 hours while their electrical system was updated or some nonsense like that. Admittedly, anyone and anything could have entered the buildings at that time. The man who blew the whistle on that was never asked for a statement from the 9.11 Commission. Wonder why.
6. Bomb Sniffing drugs were called off of patrolling around the area a few days prior to 9.11
7. One person in particular who called his mom used his full name and asked his mom if she believed him. was this a message?
Here is the link to that thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
So, obviously evidence was planted. But why, and by whom? And why?
(Continued on next thread.)
[edit on 30-12-2008 by nikiano]
An Overview and Debunking of the AE9/11T\'s List of Demolition Signs
Posted 16 days ago with 12 member flags
Posted 16 days ago with 12 member flags
new film "Human the film (2012)" covers all the bases and more!
Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
Final Decision: Court sanctions lawyers behind September 11 conspiracy case
Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Can anyone recommend any good non kindle books on Philosophy and Metaphysics
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 4 minutes ago
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 4 minutes ago
Jesus' death... standard Roman execution or sacrifice for sins?
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 38 minutes ago
Religion, Faith, And Theology, Posted 38 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 33 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 12 hours ago, 33 flags
CPAC; Ron Paul won 2 years in a row; they change to electronic voting and he comes in 4th today?
US Political Madness, Posted 9 hours ago, 28 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 9 hours ago, 28 flags
ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.
ATS Live, Posted 13 hours ago, 19 flags
ATS Live, Posted 13 hours ago, 19 flags
Book of Thoth. Secret Societies. truth seekers This is a good read!
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 12 hours ago, 18 flags
Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 12 hours ago, 18 flags
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 16 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 16 flags
The One Party System replaces the Two Party system in the U.S.
Above Politics, Posted 17 hours ago, 14 flags
Above Politics, Posted 17 hours ago, 14 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Parenting 101: how to instill respect for others.
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 136 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 136 replies
First thread, Possible Ghost picture I took myself, Would appreciate your opinion on this.
Paranormal Studies, Posted 13 hours ago, 77 replies
Paranormal Studies, Posted 13 hours ago, 77 replies
Why Argentina WILL Invade the Falklands & How Iran are Involved
General Conspiracies, Posted 16 hours ago, 74 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 16 hours ago, 74 replies
Mystery of the Masonic "hunnerts o' times" language of Orphan Annie
Secret Societies, Posted 6 hours ago, 51 replies
Secret Societies, Posted 6 hours ago, 51 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.286 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.286 seconds
