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

As for physics and what we saw on 9/11 I LOVE this video - these guys have gone to extreme analysis of the TV fakery on the day. And I believe that we cannot count on what we saw that day.

I wasn't in NY but I know people who were and over and over I heard that NY doesn't have sky. It's not Texas - you don't see everything and your memories get confused by what you saw on TV. And the noise from the choppers was bouncing off the buildings with the sirens from the fire engines and police. It was impossible to know if you saw a plane go into the building - debris and ash kept people from looking up. And everyone was being pushed back as they made the perimeter.

Therefore, people far away with views who presented images and youtubes should be plentiful and fascinating. This movie goes through all they could find with a flea comb as well as all the TV coverage. and Wow! it is worth a watch. Talk about Wag the dog


www.livevideo.com...

scroll down to get the whole film - many parts -

I believe the bailout is simply a way to funnel money to the upper 1% to line their pockets for the upcoming economic collapse. When the market finally crashes they want as much divide as possible between upper and lower class. This will give the powers that be complete control and won't be able to be undone in the short term.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by nikiano]

I don't know if this has been asked, but how would DEW explain Dr. Jones' thermite findings??

What government worth it's salt would put such a high price on civilian life... what BS!!!!!

reply to post by Solomons


The towers exploded. It's plain to see on most of the 911 videos. Explosives set around the general area of the plane impact and then all the way to the ground took the towers to the floor. You don't have to be an expert, it's blindingly obvious, which I guess is why so many people refuse to see it. Or hear it, explosions are present in a few of the videos out there, even for tower 7.

Directed energy (from where?) would have melted or vaporised the towers in an entirely different visual effect, would it not?

The probability of DEW use is so tiny and the evidence so inexistant I don't even think we should consider it, not when we have a viable theory with reams of evidence, which is the 911 WTC demolition job.

1) It would be cheaper to allow another 36 911's than to pay out the $1 trillion dollars that the economic problems are causing.
2) Allowing another 911 would create jobs in rebuilding & replacing the dead stimulating the economy.
3) Allowing another 911 would justify invading somewhere else.
4) If you've been watching the economy for the last 6 years you'd have seen all of this coming.

The reason they won't say where the money is going is because its all to pay off bad bets - the banks are bankrupt & to admit that would mean the economy would collapse plus people would probably string the bankers & politicians up from the nearest tree.

reply to post by Zepherian


Ok, so there is a lot of evidence for the controlled demolition theory of how the towers came down.

But why? What would be the motivation of someone bringing down the towers by controlled demolition? Purely as a false flag operation? Doesn't it seem a tad bit excessive for a false flag operation?

I think the average Americans would have accepted us going to war to retaliate against an enemy nation flying two planes full of hijacked Americans into two buildings full of working Americans. I don't think it was a necessary part of a false flag operation to bring down the towers. We would have had enough excuse going to war to defend ourselves without the towers coming down.

Honestly....the more I think about it, and mull this over in my head.....I think the planes, the smoke, the explosions, and maybe even the controlled demolitions were all a camoflage for a secret weapon of mass destruction. Bringing down all 3 WTC towers was just too much overkill for a false-flag operation. It didn't need to be that big for us to have a justification for going into Afghanistan and Iraq.

Imagine if that weapon's strength could be turned up. What if the WTC was just a demonstration....and if whatever it was that was used was turned up full blast, it could be used on entire cities at one time. Just "widen" the energy beam so it covers not just a city block.....but a city.

Now THAT kind of weapon could demand a large ransom.

The towers were taken down for many reasons and not by a foreign govt showing us a DEW weapon. THe buildings were mostly unoccupied and multiple bombs were placed in them as is obvious when you watch the videos.

Both towers were in need of billions in renovations and occupants. Building 7 contained many files for SEC investigations that had to be destroyed. THe building was insured for billions and set the stage for laws that have put us where we are now. The bailout is not a ransom it is outright theft of our national wealth before the next 911. Although I appreciate the effort of this thread, the originator is way out there and way off base.

a good rule of thumb for any crime is to follow the money.

Oh my gosh....I just had another thought.

Bush used the excuse that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction to go into Iraq and take him out.

What if....what if THIS was the kind of weapons of mass destruction he was talking about?? I mean, when someone says weapons of mass destruction, the general population thinks of nerve gas....nuclear weapons....bio-weapons, etc....

What if we had evidence from the very beginning that the WTC was taken down by a WEAPON (singular, not plural) of mass destruction. And we had evidence that it came from Iraq. And we had evidence that they were going to strike again. So, we went in.

What if they didn't want to tell the general public about this because of fear or mass hyseteria?? Or blackmail? Or because they simply couldn't prove that a weapon like this existed.

What if DEW was the weapon of mass destruction they were looking for in Iraq, but they just let everyone believe it was nuclear, chemical, or bioweapons? But they felt they couldn't wait any longer or else Saddam would strike again.....and so we just went in anyway??

Honestly, I'm just thinking as I write and throwing out theories as I think of them.....but things are starting to add up in my mind now. Things seem to be falling eerily into place.

reply to post by nikiano


How about the theory that a bunch of militant islamists hijacked airplanes and flew them into the buildings? Seems to make more sense then directed energy weapons. You guys can't accept that it was just as simple as that. No conspiracy, no aliens, no thermite. These people constructed a brilliant plan and got lucky.

As for the missing trillions being for some sort of ransom. That is a very intriguing idea. You may actually be onto something. Don't connect it to 9-11 and you may actually find something. The 9-11 angle is too kooky and doesnt make sense.

Who would be holding the US govt hostage for money?

reply to post by nikiano


do yourself a favor and calculate the power requirements an energy weapon would need to have to incinerate an entire city. You'll find out that the whole D.E.W. idea is completely without foundation.

Originally posted by drock905
reply to post by nikiano

 

How about the theory that a bunch of militant islamists hijacked airplanes and flew them into the buildings? Seems to make more sense then directed energy weapons. You guys can't accept that it was just as simple as that. No conspiracy, no aliens, no thermite. These people constructed a brilliant plan and got lucky.

Wow thanks for posting here !!!
You have the most reasonable hypothesis yet !!!
Excellent use of common sense !!!!

[edit on 23-12-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by Sillyfool
, the originator is way out there and way off base

I may be way out there, I admit....but I really don't think I'm way off base.

A giant weapon of mass destruction would be a plausible reason for a giant ransom. There is evidence that a giant weapon of mass destruction was used on 9/11, according to Dr. Wood's web site.

Our government said we went into Iraq to prevent "weapons of mass destruction" from being used again. They said we had evidence that we had them, and that's why the administration pushed so hard for the UN to let us go in, despite the fact no conventional weapons of mass destruction were found.

But who would have thought of "unconventional" weapons of mass destruction? Nobody, at the time. We, the general public, assumed that WE were the only country capable of coming up with huge, new weapons. Why would we ever that someone had a new, secret weapon?

If you think about it....this theory of mine fits with the rhetoric that was all over the news at that time. Weapons of mass destruction.....that's all we ever heard of back in 2002-2003 on the news. Weapons of mass destruction was in the news every day.

Maybe those people "in the know" knew exactly what the administration were referring to when they said "weapons of mass destruction." But the rest of us, were still thinking of nucelar weapons, germ warfare, etc... We did not think of energy beams that were capable of taking out entire city blocks....or worse.... because we didn't even know that something like that could exist.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


no, not like haarp

think more like a Satilite weapon

reply to post by nikiano


I really don't understand why the DEW idea hasn't died a lonely, sad death ??? There is ZERO evidence to support the idea.

Anyone with any basic knowledge of lasers, optics, etc.. can tell you that the DEW idea is rubbish !

reply to post by jfj123


Yep. I admit that was me years ago. Right after 9/11 happened, I believed the government. I wanted to join the military to fight for my country. I did not believe any of the conspiracy theorists at the time. Take a look at that date it was originally posted.

I even ended up in the mental hospital for a week after 9/11, because it affected me so much. And then twice more after that. A lot of us Americans did.

Then I started hearing more and more about 9/11, and I changed my mind. I've come a long way since then, and I recovered mentally, thank God.

But yes.....I've made a complete 180 degree in my thinking about 9/11 since then. I admit it.

I actually have to laugh at reading that now! LOL!

But you know, when I first became a pharmacist, I was very naieve and believed everything I learned in pharmacy school was true, too. And I believed that the FDA actually had the best interests of Americans at heart. Ha!! What was I thinking. My thinking has completely changed on that now, too. I trust the FDA right now about as far as I can throw them.

So you see, people's thinking does change over time. Haven't you ever changed your mind about something you used to feel strongly about in the past??

-------------

Also, if you still want to believe that 9/11 was exactly the way the government said it was, that's fine with me. I did for years. I won't fault you for believing it.

I'm just throwing out some theories here. You can believe whatever you want.



[edit on 23-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 23-12-2008 by nikiano]

reply to post by nikiano


I have no interest in following the government blindly nor do I necessarily believe most of what our government says. My point is that the whole DEW thing is simply not possible.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/23/2008 by Hal9000]

A bunch of terrorists fanatics cannot fly such big planes with such precision. It's impossible. You need very sophisticated means to do that. Those planes were automatically guided to their targets.

Those buildings were prepared to explode.
Every structure has sensitive spots. All you need is to remove/destroy them. Then the whole structure will collapse. You can't hit them with planes. Planes were used as a camouflage.

As I was watching TV serial "Rome", at one point Marcus Aurelius and Octavian decide to kill 100 senators (actually 1.000 people) for a very simple reason: they needed money. So they killed them all and plundered them. Just like that. And all in the name of saving the Republic.

Do you really think there is more to this whole reality show?

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by nikiano

 

do yourself a favor and calculate the power requirements an energy weapon would need to have to incinerate an entire city. You'll find out that the whole D.E.W. idea is completely without foundation.

wrong , the weapon exists somewhere in this endless galaxy

any type 2 civ or higher would have these types of weapons in vast quantitys in their space fleets

but your right that humans probably cannot tap into this realm of energy , at this point in our technological development.

but what if they secretly found a battery in a crashed ufo? and inside that little battery you could power your satilite beam weapon?

what was "Star Wars" SDI Strategic Defense Inititive about anyway?

i dont think it was used on 911 tho, despite the weird burnt out cars

i need to see better photos to know if the engines really got toasted or not (plz link me those photos someone)

IF the car engines got totally melted or pulverized into dust, but the rest of the car didnt?? well im going SDI satilite weapon as a likely suspect

But if no one can show me cars missing engines (and i mean open the hood really SHOW me good) , im afraid we cannot establish it as a fact and the SDI weapon theory IMO lays heavily on the missing engine story as part of the explanation (formula)

anyway about the bailout being a ransom lol

sounds just like a Dr Evil on his Secret Moonbase using his super secret Death Beam to attack us and demand ransom. lol

funny theory , i like the out of box thinking

idk lol, who exactly is the "real Dr Evil" than?

but overall , my conclusion is, since i wasnt there and didnt meet any of these people, i wouldnt know what the truth of those events are.
it would be nearly impossible for me to actually know for real. since i wasnt there.

hell , i bet the ppl who were there dont even REALLY KNOW what happened