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

Ok, so here is the summary of my background portion:

Summary:

Things weren't adding up. Nothing added up. 9/11 didn't add up, the cover-up for 9/11 didn't add up. The fact that the families of 9/11 victims were paid to be quiet and never speak of it to the press didn't add up. (In the history of America, aave we ever paid the familes of the victims of an attack? I don't think so.)

The reasons for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq didn't add up. We were risking too much by leaving Afghanistan half finished, and we were risking too much for going into Iraq when there wasn't enough cause. And if we were concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people, it didn't seem to apparent, since so many became refugees and were killed in the war to "liberate" them. Sure, I can understand risking it all to defend a close ally like the UK or Canada...but Iraq?

It couldn't have been for oil. If we got easy oil from invading Iraq, then we wouldn't be needing to suddenly start worrying about becoming energy independent and oil independent. Why are we all of the sudden furiously embracing the mantra "drill, baby, drill" if we went to Iraq for oil?

On top of that, the economic crisis didn't add up, and the bailout didn't add up. We supposedly got into this mess by spending and borrowing too much, but the way to solve it was to spend and borrow more?? Nope. Doesn't add up.

On top of that, nothing coming out of Washington these past few years added up. I can't think of anything that Washington has done recently that makes any sense, and that doesn't seem like an outright affront to our basic rights as Americans. They're taking tax money from us, and giving it to businesses, like the auto-industry, who can't seem to make a profit. We're rewarding those businesses that fail, and the companies who were following honest and sound business practices are getting caught in the economic fallout. Are they trying to collapse our country? Because that's what it looks like.

On top of that, we have the illegal alien problem gone wild in a time where we are supposedly worried about foreign terrorists coming onto our oil. And Washington's attitude towards that is not only frustrating, but completely incomprehensible. They leave our southern border wide open, but yet when our border patrol agents (Ramos and Calderon, I think are their names?) do their job and defend our country against a known violent drug-dealer they are thrown into jail. The administration was deliberately trying to send the border patrol a message: "Don't get involved. Don't do your job. Or you'll end up in jail, too." Why?

Not to mention...if a government was really, seriously, and truly trying to prevent foreign terrorists from invading our country after a 9/11 type of event, what would make more sense for it to do to protect its citizens?

a. Heavily patrol the wide-open southern border, known as a favorite place for illegals to cross. And maybe put up cameras, and give every resource imaginable to or border control agents.
b. Do a better job of tracking down illegal aliens and foreign students who are in our country without permission, or who have over-run their student visas.
c. Make every effort to made to deport the people in our country who are here illegally and perpetrating crimes.
d. Pass the patriot act that restricts the rights of Americans and gives the government the right to spy on our conversations, jail the border control agents who had the gall to defend themselves against a drug dealer illegally trying to cross into the country, and set up Marines not on the border between us and Mexico where potential "terorists" could cross, but in DUI checkpoints in the middle of California.

Well, it must be D, because that is what the administration has done since 9/11. Right? Sure.

But let's say the prevailing theory of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are right, and Washington is doing this to gain control of us and restrict our freedoms. That doesn't make any sense, either, because if they really wanted to create a totalitarian state, would they leave the southern border with Mexico wide open? Would they let us fly anywhere we want to outside the country?

Yet, I've talked to citizens from other countries, and they say that when they come into our country, they do have to go through elaborate identification checkpoints, with retinal scans? Why? If they leave the southern and northern borders wide open to illegal aliens, why do the elaborate ID checkpoints with people coming in here legally?

These are not signs of a country that wants to control its citizen's every move. If you want to control a people, the first thing you do is control where they travel. And aside from making it more frustrating to travel, they haven't restricted our travel anywhere.

It doesn't add up. Nothing adds up.

Unless the government is NOT looking for people who are trying to hide from the government and the authorities, but rather, they are looking for people who are working in plain sight, and maybe even in conjunction with the government on certain projects. These signs of increased governmental monitoring of everything we do....including the Patriot Act are signs of a government that wants to TRACK the moves of it's citizens and visitors...but not necessarily control them.

So, then....we come to my hypothesis. Next.

Thanks for bearing with me through the long background. I will continue this tomorrow. I'm really tired now, so I'm going to go to bed now and I'll post my actual hypothesis tomorrow. Hope you understand. I had to work Christmas Eve, and all day today (Christmas), and I'm really beat. I'll post again tomorrow evening.

Merry Christmas, everyone.



[edit on 26-12-2008 by nikiano]

reply to post by SPreston


You're showing me dust/debris clouds but you haven't shown evidence that these clouds are metal dust clouds.
Do you have evidence that these clouds are made of metal dust from support structures within the buildings?

As a matter of fact, please show me the process in which you are claiming steel is turning to dust using scientific analysis.

[edit on 26-12-2008 by jfj123]

What steel? Do you see any steel on those pictures?
Please stop asking for evidence from ATS members.
Why don't you for a change ask the "officials" for their evidence. They haven't presented any.

Originally posted by DangerDeath
What steel? Do you see any steel on those pictures?
Please stop asking for evidence from ATS members.
Why don't you for a change ask the "officials" for their evidence. They haven't presented any.

Someone has made a claim that steel has turned to dust. I am simply asking that person to back up their claim.
Frankly, I'm tired of people making wild claims and accusations and submitting them as FACT when they have no facts to support their claims.

Why am I the bad guy? I didn't make the claim as fact did I?
What if I made the claim that the Vulcans blew up the WTC's and presented it as fact. Shouldn't I expect that someone might call me on it? Or would you all automatically believe me just because I said so?

No one is making claims here. People present theories. Others speculate on them. What kind of proofs can we provide anyway? The officials have provided no proofs for anything. It's just political pamphlets from their side.

The question is where did all that steel go? The official explanation offers no proof for their claim. So we rightfully ask: steel, how, where?

We are not satisfied with explanation that jet fuel melted steel. It is not possible. It is so obvious. The whole building pulverized. How is that possible knowing that much of it was steel core?

You are not a bad guy, you're just insisting on the wrong thing. Try to reconsider.

Originally posted by DangerDeath
No one is making claims here.

Of course they are making claims.

People present theories.

Theories require evidence which they are not providing.

Others speculate on them.

Some have mentioned they were speculating and I respect that. They put their thoughts into proper perspective which respects both the idea and other posts as they are not trying to pass off something on others.

What kind of proofs can we provide anyway? The officials have provided no proofs for anything. It's just political pamphlets from their side.

If you make a claim such as the dust was made of steel, and you present it as fact, provide evidence to support it. Simple, right?

The question is where did all that steel go? The official explanation offers no proof for their claim. So we rightfully ask: steel, how, where?

You've presented a question. That's fine but when someone presents "the dust hypothesis" as something more then that, it only does a disservice to the "truth movement".

We are not satisfied with explanation that jet fuel melted steel. It is not possible. It is so obvious.

First, you must define "melt" then you need to explain where the steel melted and how long it had been in liquid form. Steel can be greatly weakened by heat and never reach a melting point.

The whole building pulverized. How is that possible knowing that much of it was steel core?

Massive structural damage due to high speed plane impact with additional damage from structural weakening due to the ensuing fires.

You are not a bad guy, you're just insisting on the wrong thing. Try to rconsider.

And you don't seem to be a bad guy either, just missing some important points.

Originally posted by jfj123
Theories require evidence which they are not providing.

I consider scientific logic as pretty good evidence.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jfj123
Theories require evidence which they are not providing.

I consider scientific logic as pretty good evidence.

www.youtube.com...

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Interesting video but has a lot of problems.
One that stands out the most is that according to the speaker, 15 minutes after impact, the fires were approx. 220 degrees F. A basic office fire would be hotter then that. For example, paper ignites at 451 degrees F. So if a basic office fire was burning, the temp would have been hotter then the 220 claimed.

Ok, sorry it took me so long to get back here. I decided to go out last night and have some fun instead of typing on the computer all night again.

Ok, so today I'm going to post section 2: my general hypothesis and start posting section 3: supporting evidence.

I have a favor to ask. I need some statistics that I have not found. I'm sure they are out there from the 9/11 truth movement, but I haven't found them yet. So, if anyone can help me, I'd appreciate it.

A.I'm looking for the following statistics:
1. The odds that a plane flying into a steel building as tall as the WTC could bring it down in a collapse.
2. The odds that 2 planes flying into 2 steel buildings as tall as the WTC could bring them down both in a collapse.
3. The odds that both of these plane crashes bringing down 2 steel buildings would happen on the same day.
4. The odds that no plane debris was found at the crash site in Pennsylvania.
5. The odds that both buildings would collapse straight down onto themselves into their footprint, despite the fact that the plane crashes were each on one side, which meant that the steel would have not reached the same temperature uniformly at that part of the building.
6. The odds of the conspiracy theory from 9/11 truth movement actually happening.
7. The odds that a terrorist attack would happen on 9/11 during a terrorist drill of the exact same type of attack.
8. The odds that the conspiracy theory suggested by the 9/11 truthers happened (that it was a vast conspiracy between many departments within the American Government to attack the WTC and Pentagon in order to eventually bring around a NWO who would enslave and kill 80% of the world's population) happened.
(You see, I know that everyone says the odds of WTC coming down the way they official story says they did are astronomical, but I'm just curious if the odds of the 9/11 conspiracy theory happening are any greater than the" official story.")

Anyone know anyone from Architechs and Engineers for 9/11 truth? Maybe they'll have those statistics for some of the statistics I need. I know they've done a lot of work on the technical aspects of the WTC towers collapsing.

B. I'm also looking for the following film footage:
1. Also, I am looking for any videos of controlled demolitions that can be posted on this site. I know that they exist somewhere out there, and I'll try to find some of my own. But if anyone has any others, I'd love to see them.
2. Any videos of controlled demolitions of very high steel buildings would be very useful.

C. I'm also looking for any websites that have eye witness transcripts (besides those I found on Judy Wood's site) from anyone who was there in person on 9/11.

D. I'm also looking for some fact checks here:

1. Is it true that there were no eye witness testimonies ever taken by the official 9/11 commission? Is that really true, or is it a rumor? Anybody have a copy of the official report? Does it contain any transcripts or testimonies from eye witnesses?

2. Does anyone know what happened to all the cars that were towed away on 9/11? Anyone know any impound yards they were taken to? Or any junk yards? The reason I ask, I've seen pictures of the warped and twisted cars with door handles completely gone, and she has claimed that all the engine blocks were completely gone. Somebody asked for evidence of that, which seems fair. I'm wondering if anyone knows of any places where the cars were taken so someone can find out if the engine blocks were indeed missing. Or maybe even the drivers of the tow trucks would be able to answer that question.

3. Is it true that the attacks on the subways in the UK on 7/7 were also supposedly from Al Quaeda terrorists, and also on the same day that the UK was conducting a terrorist drill of terrorists attacking the subways? Or was that just a rumor?




Ok, thanks. That's if for now. I may have other questions for people to help me with later.

Section 2 will continue in a bit.

(continued on next post)





[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

One more favor to ask:

1. Can anyone post (or send a link to) the official theory (or working hypothesis) that has been submitted by by the 9/11 truth movement? Is their entire theory written down in any one website? I don't want to quote the wrong or unofficial hypothesis/theory.

Maybe you can help me out here, jf123; Can you tell me where I can find the official 9/11 truth movment's written hypothesis?

I want to post their theory not only for comparison purposes, but also because an ethical scientist also always needs to refer to previous research done in the same area, and credit those who have come before.

Like I said before, despite what others have said about me on this thread, I'm not trying to "debunk" the hard work that the 9/11 truth movement has done. I think they've done amazing work. I am just trying to BUILD on their work, and I'm coming up with a different ending. That's what science does, build on theories that came before, from researchers who came before.

That is how every theory develops. For example, the theory of evolution did not come from one scientist, but from many, each one building on the work that was done before. (Not that I'm saying that the theory of evolution is 100% right, I'm just giving an example of how science works.)

I'm just tweaking their theory a bit, and coming from a different premise. Like the 9/11 truth movement researchers, I also agree that what happened on 9/11 is vastly different than the official story.

Also, anyone know of other theories (beside the HAARP theory that has been submitted here on this thread) besides mine that are floating out there? In any hypothesis, a researcher should always reference other previous studies.

Thanks.



[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by jfj123
Interesting video but has a lot of problems.
One that stands out the most is that according to the speaker, 15 minutes after impact, the fires were approx. 220 degrees F. A basic office fire would be hotter then that. For example, paper ignites at 451 degrees F. So if a basic office fire was burning, the temp would have been hotter then the 220 claimed.

So based on your speculation that the fire must have been hotter you make the assumption that the video is wrong?

Assumptions based off of speculation is not science.

Ok, so I went looking for the official theory that the 9/11 truth movement stands behind, and what I found is troubling.


First, I went to their website, which is this:

www.911truth.org...

Well, the first time I went to their website (years ago), I clicked on The Top 40 reasons to Doubt the Official Story. Those arguments were very compelling, and they (along with the movie Loose Change) convinced me right then and there that something was not kosher with the official story from the Government.

Here are those 40 reasons:

www.911truth.org...

But this time, I wanted to find the "official conspiracy theory" that the 9/11 truth movement stands behind, so I could compare it to my own and cite it in my hypothesis. So, I went to the next link down, which "A Short Course to the Quickest Paths to 9/11 Truth". I figured their central hypothesis should be in there.

Here is the link:

www.911truth.org...

And I found two things on their site which really troubled me as a scientist.

First, there are no hypothesis or theories stated anywhere in his website.

Any good research paper should clearly state the hypotheses which are out there, and also clearly state their own (or their organization's) hypothesis. It doesn't. That, to me, is suspicious.

But secondly, and even more troubling, they discourage research from other researchers who come from a different "angle" that they come from, and call them "zany."



Here is the direct quote from 911truth.org. Go to their front page. There is a link entitled:

Wildlife to be Avoided: Note on some of our zanier friends along the way

Wildlife to be Avoided

There are a good number of irrational and unsupportable 9/11 theories and theorists "out there" that have been used to great effect to discredit 9/11 truth advocates as whole (Check out Rule 4 in "The Twenty-five Rules of Disinformation" to grasp the tactic and then watch it in action in Popular Mechanics' recent 9/11 smear). We are therefore also concerned about these spurious plot lines and how they are exploited, and we criticize many on our site. Every large and growing movement picks up a few noisy dunces or provocateurs in the margins, but they do not in any way invalidate the well researched evidence at its core. We only pray that those drawn to the 9/11 issue by sensationalist claims will stay long enough to learn the less theatrical but equally damning truth.

First of all, that is not the mark of a scientist. That is the mark of someone with an agenda. Someone who is using other scientist's research to further their agenda.


ANY ethical scientist will always INVITE further research at the end of their paper. They do not discourage further research. If you are an ethical researcher, you ALWAYS invite further research, , even if the further research is opposing their viewpoint, or if it comes from a different angle, or relies on a different starting premise. A good scientist doesn't mind if the premises from which other scientists start are different than theirs, because scientists know that sometimes, the most amazing discoveries are made by connecting areas of research which before seemed completely unrelated.

But instead of inviting further research, the 911truth.org people instead DISCOURAGE further studies that differ from their own premise that the US government is behind it. And not only that, but they also call anybody who submits an alternative theory "zany" and all other areas of further research "wildlife."

This is hypocritical of the 9/11 truth movement. How dare they condemn the US government for calling the conspiracy theorists crazy, but then turn around and call anyone else who submits any theories that aren't in line with their theory "zany". Hello!?!

This is totally hypocritical. This is not good science.

And...this has actually turned another light on in my head and has caused me to further tweak my own personal hypothesis even further. The gears of my mind are working again.

So, for all of you who are condemning me for not submitting my hypothesis in a clear concise manner, I tell you that's funny (not), considering how I cannot find a central hypothesis on 911truth.org anywhere yet. All I can find are arguments against the official governmental story.

So, the author of the 911truth.org website says that there are many different theories proposed by many of their members. Where are they? I can't see that he puts them on his website. I'll do the research myself and find them, but I find that to be not "good science." You should always list opposing hypothesis if they are indeed out there.

So, let me get this straight. When the US govt submits their commission report, 911truth.org tears it apart. Fine. But they do not submit a alternative theory of their own. And on top of it, when other researchers or theorists out there submit any alternative theories that diverge from their own views, they accuse them of trying to discredit the 911 truth movement?

Discredit what? I don't see any truth; any hypothesis. I see only arguments to the 9/11 commission report, and assertions that there are indeed many hypothesis by many of their members. Where are they? Where are the links to these hypothesis?

And then, some of them get on this website and demand that I share my own hypothesis in clear and concise language, when the 9/11 truth movement hasn't submitted one of their own.

Something IS rotten in the state of Denmark.

Well, I'll keep searching for the hypothesis (now that it seems that there are multiple theories) from the 9/11 Truth Movement members. I really would like to see if any of them have published any of their theories or hypothesis either on the web or in handout form. If any of you can out there point me to them, please do so.

But I'm further amending my hypothesis now after reading the 911truth.org website, because a big red flag just went up, and a big bright lightbulb in my head just went on.

Stay tuned....I'm amending my hypothesis and will try to post it today or tomorrow, but I'm also going to step back, take a deep breath, and make sure I put my hypothesis together right.



[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

Furthermore, if you go to the 911truth.org website, and take a look at their mission statement, you'll see this:

OUR MISSION

TO EXPOSE the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001 in a way that inspires the people to overcome denial and understand the truth; namely, that elements within the US government and covert policy apparatus must have orchestrated or participated in the execution of the attacks for these to have happened in the way that they did.

TO PROMOTE, and in part to provide, the best in investigative reporting, scholarly research and public education regarding the suppressed realities of September 11th, its aftermath and exploitation for political ends, the toxic air cover-up, and the anthrax attacks; mindful always of standards of fact and logic, the limits of what we know in the absence of official investigative powers, and the dangers of rumor and unconfirmed or false claims.

TO ORGANIZE and network grassroots communities promoting truth and reform; and to support their development with materials, coaching, conference calls, working retreats, and other tools to enhance the people's democratic powers; and to promote global grassroots cooperation to halt corporatist crimes, abuse and dominion worldwide.

TO SEEK justice and redress for those wronged on September 11th, or as a result of the events, beginning with complete disclosure of all records and evidence; reversal of all domestic and foreign policies following from the false premises of the official story; and full accountability for any and all individuals inside and outside the US government involved in the attacks who engaged in crimes of commission, facilitation, complicity, gross negligence, cover-up or obstruction of justice after the fact.

TO ADVANCE the insight that ending a world in which 9/11-type and other "synthetic" events dictate the agenda requires the fall of the present US and global system of warfare and fraud, of secret government and hidden economics, of power concentrated in the hands of the vanishingly few; the rebirth of constitutional, open and accountable republican institutions with absolute protection for the natural rights and liberties of human beings; the rise of popular sovereignty over polity and economy; and commitment to the purposes of truth and justice, freedom and equality, peace and solidarity among human beings of all lands, and security and a sustainable living for all; cognizant that the tensions inherent among these purposes are to be addressed and resolved only in an open and peaceful fashion by a sovereign, educated and fully informed people who always hold truth first.

TO END, by way of integrity and god-given creativity, the regime and illicit power structures responsible for 9/11 and to replace the system that made 9/11 necessary. We solicit collaboration with others who are committed to achieving these goals by way of peaceful transformation.

While those are all fine goals (I'm all for government reform and exposing government lies myself), you'll see that nowhere in their mission statement does it say that one of their goals is to come up with the truth themselves.

No, they say the want to work towards getting rid of government cover-ups and lies, and to promote grassroots organizations that promote the truth....but nowhere in their website does it say that they themselves should be accountable for coming up with what really happened?

Well, that is a bit cowardly. I mean to come up with all these arguments of why the government's explanation is wrong, but unable or not willing to to provide a hypothesis of their own is quite cowardly in the world of science.

Why? I think that they have the agenda that they want to prove that the government is corrupt and wrong and should be completely taken down, reformed and re-organized. Fine.

But surely, if you're going to call yourselves the 911truth.org, shouldn't one of your missions be find out the truth of what REALLY happened, the REAL truth?

If not, then what they should call their organization is "Expose government lies.org" or "Americans for Government Reform.org" or something similar. Because there is more of an agenda to this website than 9/11, and they DON'T list theories or hypotheses for what really happened.

But to call it 911truth.org is wrong, because they haven't written down any opposing hypothesis to the official government story. They are just working to bring down the government.

Sure, there is undoubtedly evidence of a government cover-up of what really happened on 9/11, but does that mean that the government perpetrated 9/11 itself? No, it does not.

Just because someone covers up a crime, does not mean that they perpetrated that crime themselves. Lots of people cover up for others people's crimes for various different reasons. Watch any cop show and you'll see that it's a common phenomenon.

And that brings us back to my hypothesis: Who did it?




(Continued on next thread)






[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jfj123
Interesting video but has a lot of problems.
One that stands out the most is that according to the speaker, 15 minutes after impact, the fires were approx. 220 degrees F. A basic office fire would be hotter then that. For example, paper ignites at 451 degrees F. So if a basic office fire was burning, the temp would have been hotter then the 220 claimed.

So based on your speculation that the fire must have been hotter you make the assumption that the video is wrong?

Assumptions based off of speculation is not science.

Um no.
Did you happen to notice fires burning in the buildings? If not, I can point you to videos showing fires.
What kind of fires were they? Well the fires were in offices so lets call them office fires.
Now let's ask ourselves what are in offices? hmmmm. Papers, wood and plastic furniture, more papers, drywall, more papers, etc...
And we know that paper ignites at 451 degrees F so it is reasonable to conclude that the office fires would have been at least 451 degrees F.
The video says they only were 220 F. So in other words, no papers could have burned from an office fire. Does that seem reasonable to you?

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


No, if I am gorrect, HAARP was the High Altitude Artillery Research Project run as a joint project between the Canadian and American Militaries, directed by the Canadian scientist, Gerald Bull, later assassinated by the Israeli Mossad

Ok, I am going to post section 2: my hypothesis in the following format:

I. General hypothesis:

II. Details:

A. Who

B. what.

C. when

D. Where

E. Why

F. How

Then, I will give supporting evidence (in more detail) in section 3: supporting evidence.

So, as you read my general hypothesis, please do not condemn me for not giving detailed, supportive evidence. That will come in section 3.

I know that the "who, what, when, where, why and how" format is more like a newspaper article than a scientific hypothesis, but I was a reporter on my high school newspaper (a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away) and that writing format has always been one of my favorites.

In fact, I was going to major in journalism in college, but that was right about when CNN came onto the scene, and I didn't like the direction in which the mainstream media was going, so I changed majors. I felt that the MSM was becoming nothing more than....well, let's just say I thought the general integrity of MSM was going downhill.

But I digress....

(Continued on next post)



[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by jfj123
Does that seem reasonable to you?

seem reasonable??

I don't care what seems reasonable.

I don't make assumptions based on speculation, I am only interested in the science.

The whole point of the video is that the fire was not that hot...maybe it was nothing but a smoldering fire, I don't know but again I don't care to speculate and make assumptions, I side with the equipment and the evidence.

I have no reason to think a hotter fire existed when no proof of it exists.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by Jezus]

reply to post by nikiano


Who said ALL the engine blocks were COMPLETELY gone? I've not seen that before. What is the source of the statement that all of them were gone? (Dr Wood has never, to my knowledge, said that).

Originally posted by nikiano

While those are all fine goals (I'm all for government reform and exposing government lies myself), you'll see that nowhere in their mission statement does it say that one of their goals is to come up with the truth themselves.

Yes - this is very interesting. I think that the actions of Drs Wood and Reynolds are the closest we have gotten to a true independent enquiry into some of the events of 9/11 - yet they are completely marginalised not only by the mainstream media but the the 9/11 "truth movement" in general. Indeed, I wrote an article about this earlier this year if any reader is interested:

www.checktheevidence.co.uk...

reply to post by nikiano


Well, we're in debt to China, India and the oil states now, so maybe they don't need a ransom.