It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Missing Nukes, Iran, and the UN, oh my!

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 11:25 PM
OK, could the pieces in this puzzle add up to this.

The Iranian President wants to visit the UN, Columbia Univ, and Ground Zero (no way).

We have a fairly well documented case of missing nukes and dead airmen from a Air Force base.

So, here's the puzzle, let's say the missing nukes were never sent overseas they are actually in New York. To look tough the administration says no to the Iranian Presidents request to visit Ground Zero. The media starts reporting that the Iranian Pres. is very upset, the next thing we hear is a nuclear explosion in New York.

The Government sets off 1 or more of the missing nukes in New York taking out the Iranian President, the United Nations ( and possibly Hillary)and finishing the job it started on sept 11th.

The spin machine kicks in blaming the Iranian President (the reason for his trip) as the biggest suicide bomber in history. ( he really wanted to set it off at ground zero to show that America is still vulnerable).

Imagine the devestation, with that wacky President out of the way (and with Iran CLEARLY to blame) we can attack at will.

Most of the United Nations highest officers wiped out (not necessarily a bad thing) the world will be in dire need of leadership, at this horrible time with so many Americans dead and with us still at war how can we possibly hold a Presidential election?

If the timing is correct, the bomb could be set off to destroy New York, most of the UN, while getting alot of support from other countries who want to claim they were attacked also, i.e. through the UN, take out all or most of the Presidential hopefuls (on both sides maybe), clear the way for all out war on Iran and anyone else in that region.

Then Bush could very easily declare Martial Law or at least take any of our rights he wants, declare himself President forever (just until this Terrorist crisis is past-same thing) and then we can live with a perpetual war machine and the threat of nuclear terrorism forever.

Any time we get out of line they just set one off in another city and we'll beg for their "protection". And since nukes were used on us first we will have the perfect excuse to use our nukes on any country in the world, I of course mean just the ones that "WE" say are harboring terrorists.

So is there any merit? or should I just change my name to Tom Clancy Jr.?

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 09:07 AM
Well Mr Tom Clancy Jr. That was a great speculation, I liked it alot, unfortunatly it's 9/21/07 and that hasn't happened. But damn you'd be a good risk player thats for sure.

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 09:12 AM
Springer is heading to NYC this coming week and, in conversations about how hard it is to get a hotel room thanks to the UN session, I came up with the exact same scenario. Springer now knows what it's like to live in NYC and constantly have the what if scenarios popping up in your head.

Incidentally, I would go with 24 over Tom Clancy for this plot line. For starters, a gov't stolen nuke was done in season 2 (or three - can't remember which) and the Middle Eastern high level "ambassador" being set up by a US group as a suicide bomber was done in the season before last.

We need Jack Bauer and we need him now.

new topics

log in