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

page: 17
48
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
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]




posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

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


So you're saying...because you don't know the answer to that question...the instrument must be wrong...

Do you seriously think this is logical?



[edit on 30-12-2008 by Jezus]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jfj123

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


So you're saying...because you don't know the answer to that question...the instrument must be wrong...

Do you seriously think this is logical?



[edit on 30-12-2008 by Jezus]


I know the answer, I'm asking you if you know it. Which of course you don't or you wouldn't keep trying to deflect from my point.
Do yourself a favor and look up ignition temperatures for various common objects found in offices then return and tell me which ones were 220 or less.

Then take a look in one of your mirrors so you know what your face looks like with a foolish look on it lol:


[edit on 30-12-2008 by jfj123]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 07:33 AM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 07:39 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Section 2: General Hypothesis (continued)

C. WHY: The Motivation Behind 9/11, the economic crisis and the bailout (cont.)


And if it all is, indeed, a pseudo-military coup by black-ops and rogue intelligence agencies, then in that case the US Government had a PERFECT motivation for going into Afghanistan.

Why?

Because for years now, there have been conspiracies floating around that said that the CIA has been funded by the illegal drug trade.

What is the major crop of Afghanistan? Poppies. Opium poppies.

Therefore, if the black-ops/rogue intelligence agencies are indeed behind this, then by going into Afghanistan, the US cuts off their funding.

The US went into Afghanistan to ruin the opium trade...to cut off their funding. Without funding, they'll have a heck of a lot more trouble continuing the coup against the US government.


Ok, I have to go to work now. I'll continue the next section tonight.

[edit on 30-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   


I guess I'll reiterate...

So the temperature reading was 220 F.

Because of that you think to yourself...



What's left? If even paper won't burn in the 220 F fire, what was burning?


...and because you can't answer that question you assume the temperature reading is wrong.

Just because their are unknown variables doesn't mean you can assume data is wrong.

YOU NEED A REAS0N BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.

"The device appear to be broken"
"A separate device got a different reading"
"Sally saw an inferno"

Their is absolutely no reason based on the evidence to think the device did not have the right reading.

Assumptions based on speculation is not science.

It is people like you, trying to rationalize and confirm the official story even if it is contrary to evidence and logic, that make 9/11 investigation so annoying.



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

Hey here is a NOVEL thought: Perhaps the 9/11 attacks were JUST what we all saw on television: Airplanes hijacked by Muslim extremists and crashed into buildings! Wow what a thought... Because of very lax rules on immigration via the Clinton administration the enemy and yes they ARE YOUR enemy and mine, were allowed to train to fly and NOT LAND aircraft in Florida flying trainer schools on HIS watch. Novel approach eh?
Maybe it happened JUST LIKE IT FULLY APPEARS. "




I tend to agree. Although the various theories indeed are very interesting, they still tend to do something very sad: Dismissing the recordings from the hijacked airplanes, and the testimonies from the heartbroken witnesses from the event; both the survivors aswell as the deceased.



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by nikiano
 


I think if you watch the movie "September Dawn" you might get an idea of who it may be????



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus


I guess I'll reiterate...

So the temperature reading was 220 F.

Because of that you think to yourself...



What's left? If even paper won't burn in the 220 F fire, what was burning?


...and because you can't answer that question you assume the temperature reading is wrong.

The question was for YOU not me. I know the answer.


Just because their are unknown variables doesn't mean you can assume data is wrong.

You really don't get it? I was hoping you were just screwing with me but it now looks like you really don't get it.

You're just not getting it.
You are not using logic or anything else most humans use.
I really apologize. I honestly thought you understood how fire works and were just screwing around but sadly I now truly believe you simply don't understand fire and temperature.



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightchild

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

Hey here is a NOVEL thought: Perhaps the 9/11 attacks were JUST what we all saw on television: Airplanes hijacked by Muslim extremists and crashed into buildings! Wow what a thought... Because of very lax rules on immigration via the Clinton administration the enemy and yes they ARE YOUR enemy and mine, were allowed to train to fly and NOT LAND aircraft in Florida flying trainer schools on HIS watch. Novel approach eh?
Maybe it happened JUST LIKE IT FULLY APPEARS. "


I tend to agree. Although the various theories indeed are very interesting, they still tend to do something very sad: Dismissing the recordings from the hijacked airplanes, and the testimonies from the heartbroken witnesses from the event; both the survivors aswell as the deceased.





But wait...I'm still not done tying it all together. You may be surprised in the end.




[edit on 30-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Section 2: General Hypothesis


C. Why: The motivation for 9/11, the economic crisis and the bailout


Putting the last pieces of the puzzle together: seeing the big picture

Ok, so I was going to jump into the timeline, but then today I realized that there were just a few loose ends to tie up, and even more pieces started to fit into place....such as the hijackings, the 9/11 truth movement, top scientists refusing to look at credible evidence, and most of all....how the Iraq war all ties into it.

Now, as you recalll, earlier in this thread I said that I had seen the movie Loose Change. Although I admire the interesting work that they did with the scientific evidence, I didn't like the way they tied it all together, because at the end it seemed very anti-semetic.

So, I'm tying all the pieces of my hypothesis together now, too...but you'll see that I've arrived at a much different conclusions than they did as far as the ultimate motive of the attack on 9/11.


Missing puzzle piece #1: First, let's look at the 9/11 truth movement.

As some of us on this thread (and outside this thread), there are a lot of 9/11 truthers who refuse to look at any possibility of any other conspiracy, unless the theory involves putting all the blame on our government. If they can blame the government, they'll consider it. If they can't, then they won't.

Well, if 9/11, and the economic crisis and the bailout are all one big interconected "black ops military coup", then that would make sense. Why?

Because another ironic twist is that not only are both our regular military and the "rebel/terrorists " interested in keeping the secret military weapons programs going, but they would also both be interested in keeping the 9/11 truth movement alive and well. Why?

Well, the military would be interested in keeping it alive, because that keeps most of the conspiracy theorists focused on the "false cover" (that the military did it) and keeps them from looking any further into the truth....that secret weapons were involved.

And the black ops rebel/terrorists would be interested in keeping the 9/11 truth movement going because it first, makes the government look totally incompetent and not really good for anything. Second, by continuing to expose lie after lie (i.e. the FDNY fire lieutennant just admitted that tower 7 was pulled) that starts to turn the people against their own government.

So, these 9/11 debunkers could be coming from both the military and black ops. It could be a form of psychological warfare.


(continued on next post.)



[edit on 30-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Section 2; General hypothesis (continued)

C. The motivation (continued)


Tying it all together (continued)


[i]2. Missing puzzle piece #2: Another reason 9/11 had to happen: part of a PSY OPS

Besides scaring everybody to death and killing a lot of innocent people, 9/11 did one other major thing; it made our government look totally and completely incompetent and inept. Actually, it went beyond inept, it made us look totally incompetent and impotent.

Look, even jf123, ever the ultimate patriot, is thoroughly convinced that the US government is now totally incompentent and ineffective.

Making our government look like idiots would be a very important step in a military coup against our government. Why? Well, although I'm not a military expert by any means, I would think that in planning a coup, not only do you want to plan how to take down the government, but all the while you are doing it, you want to plan how to get it to happen so the people of the country will HELP you take it down when the time comes.

How do you do that? How do you get the people to assist you in bringing down their own government? You make them WANT to get rid of their own government. How do you make them want to get rid of their own government? You change their perception...or you shift their perception....about their government. How? By using PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS....OR PSY-OPS.

I think that the 9/11 was the beginning of a major psy-ops, and the 9/11 truth movement was the continuation of that psy-ops to turn the people of the US against the government.
Why? Because when anarchy ensues, if the population feels that they do not need their government, or that they cannot trust their government, the population will have a very big incentive to turn away from the official government, and embrace a "new government."

After all, if you think your government can't protect you, why keep it? That's the number 1 role of the government. And THAT was a very big part of 9/11....psy ops.

Now, I don't know much about psy-ops, but I do know a lot about how to give people effective suggestions that they'll believe and keep. Why? Because I'm also a certified clinical hypnotherapist. I've gone to two different hypnotherapy schools, and there I learned all about how to give the suggestions in the best way that a person's subconscious will accept.

Here are a few things I'll teach you right now about suggestive therapy:

1. A person's subconscious always has a choice of whether or not to keep or reject a suggestion.

Now, do you know what the most important rule of giving a person suggestion that their subconscious will keep, and not throw out? The number 1 rule is this:

2. In order for a person's subconscious to accept a suggestion (and not reject it), you must give them suggestions that go along with their belief system. For example, if I'm working with a client who loves NASCAR, I might use a race-car metaphor to help them accept the suggestions more easily, because they love cars.

And that is exactly what I think they (the black ops/psy ops terrorists) did to us. They gave us suggestions that our collective subconscious (here in the U.S.) would easily take:

1. We believe terrorists hijack planes. So, they had them hijack planes.
2. We believe that when things catch fire, they are destroyed (from movies). So, they destroyed the buildings for us.
3. We believe that a government cannot be trusted; so they set it up so the government would seem even more un-trustworthy.

The second rule: To get someone to accept a suggestion, you must first get them to change their perception.

Before 9/11, we had thought that because of the might of our military, we were impervious to any kind of attack. Then all of a sudden, we coudn't stop these attacks from happening. After 9/11, our perception was changed....instantly.



(continued on next page.)

(NOTE: I became a hypnotherapist when I effectively used hypnosis to heal my PTSD. After going through hypnotherapy, I never ended up in the hospital again. That's why I got certified as a hypnotherapist, so I could help others like myself. God knows I tried medicine, but all that did was turn me into a zombie with PTSD! lol. So, if there are any vets out there with PTSD and meds aren't working for you, I highly recommend seeing a hypnotherapist. Hypnosis worked for me. )



[edit on 30-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 07:14 PM
link   
(continued from pervious post)

In addition, here is something else you might find very interesting about suggestible states.

Do you know there are many ways to put people into a highly suggestible state that would make them much more ready to accept suggestions. All you have to do is change their brain waves. Most times, it's voluntary. For example, you can change your brain waves to the alpha-theta state by doing self-hypnosis, or going to a hypnotherapist, or doing yoga, or meditation, or exercise, or anything like that. All those ways are voluntary....you change your brain waves yourself! (By the way, all hypnosis is self-hypnosis.)

But there is one way to put somebody into a suggestible state that is not voluntary. And you know what that is? FEAR.
Yep, if you scare the crap out of people, you will put them into a very, very highly suggestible state. (This is even how some hypnotists work!) And I imagine this is how a psy-ops would work. First, they scare the crap out of you, then they give you a suggestion. (i.e. First they attack your country, then they give you the suggestion that it was terrorists. And in that state, you easily accept it.)

So, although I don't know about psy-ops, I do understand the human mind from a hypnotherapist's point of view, and I know that if you scare people half to death, it is VERY easy to get them to believe something they normally wouldn't.

So, first they had something fly into the towers...and attack the Pentagon. They tried to attack the White House or Capital, but that didn't work. But still....it scared us to death. We were all terrified. THEN, they crashed WTC. We were already in a hyper-suggestible state, and that made it even more effective. So effective, that most people didn't question as to how a fire collapsed a 110 story building.

Also, look at Chernobyl. I don't know whether or not Chernobyl had anything to do with the people of the USSR wanting out, but personally, I remember thinking: Wow....I thought the USSR was more competent than that. After Chernobyl, all you began to hear was how bad the infrastructure of the USSR was, and how everything was crumbling to dust over there.....well, it definitely made me think differently about the USSR. All my life, I grew up fearing what would happen if we angered Russia. Then we find out that they can't even run a nuclear reactor correcty.

Bingo....perception changed. Instant perception change around the whole world because of Chernobyl. And....the same thing, I'm sure, happened around the world when 9/11 happened. I bet the whole world had an instant perception change about us.

So, once again..... fear, highly suggestible states, perception changes....what does it all add up to? PSY OPS.

(continued on next post)

[edit on 30-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
(Continued from previous post)

Suggestible states and psy-ops (continued)

So, they got a lot of us to go against our government, by making our government look completely stupid and inept, and even corrupt. (I admit it, I was one of them for a while. I really believed our government was behind 9/11, as an excuse to go to war for oil.)

Now, besides turning us against our government, what else did it do?

It turned us against ourselves. It started a lot of in-fighting between those who refused to believe the official story. Which means, they got the smartest people in the country (us) to basically start arguing amongst ourselves.

What is this a perfect example? One of the oldest military strategies out there: divide and conquer. If you can get those who would be smart enough to oppose you to start fighting amongst themselves, you get your enemy to conquer themselves, and you don't even need to do anything.

Do you see what they are doing to us?? They're getting those of us who think outside the box to fight amongst ourselves. Really, they are. They also get America to fight about whether or not the Iraq war was ethical or not. We are the most divided this country has EVER been. And I think that's by design.

Which brings me to the next loose end I need to tie up: The Iraq war. I said earlier that the Iraq war figures prominently into my theory, but I haven't said how yet. This is how.

(continued on next post)






[edit on 30-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 31-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
C. Motivation (continued)

Missing puzzle piece #3: How the Iraq War fits end with my hypothesis

First, I think I may have mentioned this before, but if not, let me say this: The entire time the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were happening, I kept asking myself: Why on earth are we going in to fight a war and also, at the same time, building up their nation??

It did not make any sense. I never took any miitary strategy courses, but I'm pretty sure that WAR means WAR. You don't go into a war thinking, "Well, we'll build this area up and tear this area down." Wait a minute! That doesn't work.

In world war II, millions upon millions of civilians were killed. It was a terrible tragedy, but it happened. When we went to war against the Nazis, we did NOT go in and build up their cities and try to make friends of the German people. And thank God we didn't, because although I'm sure there were millions of nice people in Germany, we wouldn't have won the war if we had.

So, I'm thinking....is this what they are teaching our military cadets in war schools right now? Waste billions of dollars by building schools and roads in a country while you're simultaneously battling a war?? I hate war myself, but my thinking is, if your'e going to go to war....at least go to war to win. Don't go to war to make friends. That's what a peace treaty is for....after you've won the war. You know, you would think that would be in War 101: The Basics.

So, I kept asking myself why would we go into Afghanistan to hunt out the terrorists, but then also build roads, build schools, build cities, etc...??? Why would you do that? What if you lost the war? Then you've only HELPED the enemy. Right? I mean, hello, we didn't exactly do a very good job in Viet Nam with our over-all strategy, you would think that they would be a little bit more careful this time.

Well, this hypothesis explains it:

I think our military did not go to Afghanistan to fight THEIR terrorists. They were there to fight OUR terrorists. By this time, the top brass in the military have found out that 9/11 was launched from inside, and that we were fighting ourselves. They decided to have a secret type of civil war....but on foreign soil.

So, this was the problem: the black-ops army had won the hearts and minds of the Afghan people (the Taliban? Al Queda? I honestly don't know enough about the poeple over there to say who it was, but they would have had to have help over there from some group or other), probably with bribes from the opium trade, and so now our military (the union army) had to win their hearts and minds and loyalty....and get them to switch allgiances.

And that's why the US military went in building roads, schools, etc... Maybe not only to to win them over, but also to give them something to be proud of, and hopefully sway them away from the opium trade. That is why the war was not being fought as a traditional war. That is why our president and our secretary of defense kept reapeating...."We are not fighting the Afghani people. We are fighting the insurgents."
Except...I think the insurgents were funded by our black-ops terrorists planning a military coup. And it would make sense; if our military black ops military coup really wanted to win....not only would they recruit idealistic students here in the US to fight the government from within, but they would probably also recruit idealistic rebels in Afghanistan, too to help their cause.

(You know what they say: War makes strange bedfellows.)

Also, we all know that groups of people who are normally enemies often times join together to fight a common, stronger enemy. (Indian tribes used to do it all the time.)
And if that's true, then maybe our black-ops mliitary coup also had formed an allegiance with other "bad guys" around the world? Such as.....Saddam Hussein.

Which, if you think about it, starts to make a lot of sense: What would happen if Saddam was funding a military coup, and our government got word of it? They would go in so fast our heads would spin. Which is exactly what happened.

We kept hearing of the "rush to war." We kept hearing that the administration kept saying over and over again....."Saddam is funding terrorists." Then, anlysts kept saying: "We have no proof that Saddam is funding Al Quaeda". But our government kept insisting that he was funding the terrorists.

So, what if Saddam was indeed funding the terrorists....but they were our "black ops" terrorists. I think it would explain why we were hearing only half truths. And that is why the US could not tell the UN the whole truth.

Then that would make perfect sense as to why we were insisting on going into Iraq, despite world opinion. After all, there are lots of atrocious dictators around the world and we don't take them out. My hypothesis says that Saddam was not only an atrocious dictator, but he was also funding a (black ops) military coup. And that's why we had to take him out.

So, that's how Saddam Hussein and the Iraq war fits into my hypothesis.

(continued on next page)


[edit on 31-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 31-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 07:53 PM
link   
(Continued from previous post)

Missing puzzle piece #4: Why top scientists here and in the UK refuse to look at evidence of "energy-weapons" and secret weapons being used.

Well, let's say the government came to you and said:
"Ok, listen, Dr. X.... There's much more to the story of 9/11 than we are telling the public, but you have to help us keep this a secret, because our own black-ops military have hijacked our super-weapons against us, and they used it against us on 9/11, but we can't tell the world, because it will turn into WWIII. So, instead, would you help us keep it a secret until we can crush the rebellion, so the military coup doesn't happen? Becuase if they win this secret civil war that we are in, the world will be much worse than it is right now. So, all we're asking of you is to not even admit the possibility that energy weapons were used, because then the cat will be out of the bag and all hell will break loose."

Well, think about it. I think many scientists would go along with that request, if it meant preventing WWIII from breaking out, if it meant that they could buy some time to locate and crush the rebellion.

So, this fits into my hypothesis, also.


Now, let's look at the next piece of the puzzle: the terrorists who hijacked the planes.

If this was a military coup, how and where do they fit into the picture?


(continued on next page.)



[edit on 30-12-2008 by nikiano]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
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:




"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]



posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   
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:

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]



top topics
 
48
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join