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

Originally posted by mmiichael


Why aren't those seeking the 'real truth' out there tracking down the thousands and getting testimony from the thousands of Americans who were involved in planting thermite

That's a good point.

My father, and a lot of other people I've talked to, refuse to believe in the current prevailing 9/11 conspiracy theory that it came down via controlled demoition. He is constantly telling me, that the say that if the towers came down (with thermite, detonators, etc...) that would have required a lot of people to be complicit in the conspiracy,planting thermite, running wires, etc... and nobody saw anything like that.

But that is why something like a giant energy weapon might, or HAARP, might make more sense than a controlled demolition.

Because:

- It could have been done entirely remotely.

- It could explain the complete lack of furniture and filing cabinets found in the debris. Only 1 filing cabinet was found. One.

-It could explain the almost 1500 burned out cars that were burned and warped in areas that there were no fires and nothing was dropped on them.

-It could also explain the bending of light posts outside the pentagon. Maybe that was the path of the energy beam, and it bent light posts, like it bent and warped cars around the towers??

-It would explain the "hole" in the pentagon (that a plane could not fit through) and the hole that you can see when looking down the debris field of the WTC site.

-It would NOT require many of people to be involved in a giant conspiracy in bringing down the towers, like the 9/11 controlled demolition theory suggests. Rather, it would require just a handful of crazy scientists or military rogue scientists who knew how to operate the weapon.

Originally posted by jfj123
This whole DEW thing is getting so silly...

Look, I know we all still have questions as to what happened on 9/11 and would like answers but lets not make up answers, lets find the real answers.

Before any scientist can come up with concrete hard evidence and a concrete theory, they have to have a working hypothesis to start with. A hypothesis is basically a "what if" question. That's what we're working with right now...a hypothesis.

Theories, with further detail, usually come later after the hypothesis.

I made a mistake calling this a "theory." It's not a theory yet...it's only a hypothesis.

If my hypothesis is valid, and then further research can be gathered (such as the evidence that danman is submitting), and further research can be done, and a theory can be postulated with concrete, hard, data to back it up. If no concrete hard evidence can be found to back up the hypothesis, then it can be thrown out.

That's how science works. Hypothesis first, then data collection and evidence gathering, then working theories with hard, concrete evidence.




[edit on 25-12-2008 by nikiano]

reply to post by stinger94


It could be a buffering issue with your connection. When I get that message, sometimes refreshing the page helps, or going to the actual YouTube or Google video page to watch from there. It would be very unusual for the videos to suddenly disappear like that, although videos do disappear from time to time.



[edit on 25-12-2008 by ipsedixit]

Reposted because of change in embed link.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by GRANDWORLDDRAMA

 

Ever seen two guys with their swizzle sticks caught in the cherry pie before?

[edit on 25-12-2008 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by nikiano

The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A Hypothesis is never to be stated as a question, but always as a statement with an explanation following it. It is not to be a question because it states what he/she thinks or believes will occur.

You can reduce a hypothesis down to it's most simplest form-an educated guess based on observation.

So what educated guess (ie scientific method) have you used to determine that it is reasonable that a Directed Energy Weapon was used multiple times on 9/11 ?

Dr Wood just presents data in these two videos. She doesn't present any theories. There are some puzzling questions with 9-11 at the WTC. A lot of never answered questions. Questions that 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY defenders never want answered and want covered-up. Why is that?

Why did the dust clouds move along the ground for the exact same distance from their respective Towers, before starting to dissipate upwards into the atmosphere?



Why were the door handles and engine blocks missing from the destroyed cars? Why were they rusting so quickly and why did they not look burned in a normal manner with soot on them?



Why were they cleaning the streets on 9-12 and why were soldiers and apparent BATF agents acting as street cleaners?



Why were the fumes and dust clouds on the ground acting so strangely?



9/11-The New Hiroshima-Pt 1 - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007

Google Video Link

9/11 - The New Hiroshima - Part 2 - Dr Judy Wood, Madison, Aug 2007

Google Video Link

[edit on 12/25/08 by SPreston]

reply to post by SPreston


Ok I knew it was going to happen.
Now someone is claiming it was a nuclear bomb.
Of course there is ZERO evidence to suggest there was a nuclear bomb.

I can't wait until someone claims that the planes never even existed and that they were really just holograms

Originally posted by mmiichael
There are serious indpendent researchers who did do this, and their documentation is an appendix official record, which overwhelmingly deonstrates the buildings collapsed as a result of airplanes that were flown into two towers.

Other experts say it is IMPOSSIBLE for the building to have collapsed for that reason.

video.google.com...

reply to post by Jezus


There are supposed experts on both sides.

I've looked at almost every bit of 9/11 info available and have seen interesting points and some questions but nothing that says that planes+fire, can't drop a building.

There is a huge difference between SPECULATION and actual SCIENTIFIC DATA. And 90% of the time, I see nothing more then speculation based on a misunderstanding about what happened.

Originally posted by Sillyfool

"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."

--

Without wanting to sound nasty, responses like this are why one has to take extremely lightly the analysis of those who say the destruction of WTC was premeditated.

All aging buildings require expensive maintenance. A commonly propagated myth is the WTC requiring asbestos insulation being replaced and it costing a fortune.

The facts are different. Asbestos lining was only up to 38 stories in one building, half of it had been dealth with to conform to legal standards, and the rest was left to the owners to do on a voluntary basis.

All this and much more details of the buildings and what happened to them are freely available to those who want to do real reseach on the subject.


Mike F

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Jezus

 

There are supposed experts on both sides.

I've looked at almost every bit of 9/11 info available and have seen interesting points and some questions but nothing that says that planes+fire, can't drop a building.

There is a huge difference between SPECULATION and actual SCIENTIFIC DATA. And 90% of the time, I see nothing more then speculation based on a misunderstanding about what happened.

Watch the video, it scientifically proves that because of the steel center foundation, fire damage alone can not make a building built like that collapse in on itself. Even if somehow it was possible, the center beams would still be there.

The official report is scientifically impossible.

On 9/11 3 buildings did something that no other buildings of that type had ever done before.

You're a moonbat.

Either you're an absolute loony, or you're a plant to make the 9/11 truth movement look as ridiculous as the UFO community currently does.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Jezus

 

There are supposed experts on both sides.

I've looked at almost every bit of 9/11 info available and have seen interesting points and some questions but nothing that says that planes+fire, can't drop a building.

There is a huge difference between SPECULATION and actual SCIENTIFIC DATA. And 90% of the time, I see nothing more then speculation based on a misunderstanding about what happened.

Watch the video, it scientifically proves that because of the steel center foundation, fire damage alone can not make a building built like that collapse in on itself.

But they didn't collapse just from fire. Remember that planes hit 2 of the buildings at high speed, causing massive structural damage.

Originally posted by gilbavel
You're a moonbat.

Either you're an absolute loony, or you're a plant to make the 9/11 truth movement look as ridiculous as the UFO community currently does.

This is where I am somewhat sympathetic to the undefined truth movement.

There are questions to be asked, and the US govenment may be concealing critical information.

Sadly, the lunatic fringe, which includes any bored paranoid schizophrenic out there with a computer, have jumped in on an opportunity to forward the wildest notions. Fruitcake attention seeking scientists, engineers, etc. throw their 3 cents in to provide an air of legitimacy.

One has to wade through mountains of BS to find anything worth tracking. Who is motivated to, and how will we recognize when something valid is found?


Mike F

reply to post by mmiichael


I agree. 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.

Originally posted by jfj123
But they didn't collapse just from fire. Remember that planes hit 2 of the buildings at high speed, causing massive structural damage.

Well the official report claims different in regards to the collapse.

Plus what about the third building?

This picture is a snapshot taken from the video posted by alien-scientist earlier in this thread. It shows the early stages of the WTC construction. Notice the robustness of the central core.

In most depictions that I have seen they show the central core to be a relatively narrow column with a very wide span between the core and the outer shell, making the structure to appear more vulnerable to a cascading collapse.

Given the picture shown here I am more skeptical of a collapse that would have included the destruction of the entire central core.

On the other hand as for the pulverization of everything and subsequent free-fall, I think that if significant enough, the shock waves traveling through the structure might have caused enough weakening to incite the rest of the collapse, including the pulverization of concrete - right down to the molecular level even - compare it to the ash of Mt. St. Helens.

I don't give much credence to any sort of energy weapon being used (a bit far fetched), but I don't think we can rule out that a conventional timed explosive device might not have been placed in the aircraft's cargo holds either. Would a more exotic weapon have even been necessary? Perhaps not.

By the way, dirt can be used to help (smother) extinguish a fire. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe all is hunky dory, I just don't want people going down the wrong path on all of this. And no I won't elaborate further, simply because like most everyone else, I can only guess, I (we) don't really know (yet).



[edit on 25-12-2008 by sanctum]

reply to post by Jezus


Actually no the official report does not claim different.

Now this is just speculation on my part but, has anyone ever thought that the buildings were not built to the specs required? Could they have been thrown together as quick as possible and corners cut just like many other buildings have been???

posted by jfj123
reply to post by SPreston

 

Ok I knew it was going to happen.
Now someone is claiming it was a nuclear bomb.
Of course there is ZERO evidence to suggest there was a nuclear bomb.

I don't recall anybody mentioning a nuclear bomb in either video; do you?

I certainly never mentioned a nuclear bomb did I?

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Jezus

 

Actually no the official report does not claim different.

Where if the official report does it say that the impact caused the collapse?