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

By the way,

Does anyone know if there are threads discussing any of the following, in relation to 9/11 or even not in relation to 9/11.

-super-secret weapons
-DEW
-HAARP
-weapons in R&D
-black ops weapons


If so, could you post the link?

I'm sure somebody has discussed this here on ATS before.

Thanks.

[edit on 27-12-2008 by nikiano]

From what I am reading on this thread, it would be infinitely cheaper, more reliable, and actually doable just to pay 20 suicidal Arabs to fly planes into the WTC.

Contrary to what anyone has said, flying a plane is not difficult. Getting one off the ground and landing safely are the only things that require precison and experience.

The denial that two huge planes filled with fuel crashing into the towers, essentially becoming gigantic bombs, could do the damage they did, I find mind boggling.

It happened, it's been proven not just by officials, but independent and concerned engineers, physicists, demolition experts, and so on - throughout the world.

The US government has sanctioned a lot of nasty things, but cutting a major artery of it's commercial heart as some excuse for a protracted war was not one of them.


Mik F

reply to post by mmiichael


I haven't even talked about how the planes fit into my hypothesis yet.

I was just responding to jf123 who insinuated that the holographic planes theory was basically absurd, and I said I didn't think it was absurd given what I know of chemistry and physics.

But, I also said that I thought more than likely that the planes that flew into the WTC WERE real, and it was the VIDEOS that were doctored. But they didn't do such a good job doctoring the videos, because the planes in the video encountered no resistance.






[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

if you want to believe no-one in those areas wishes you harm, well good luck to you.

Actually, I never said that.

My hypothesis states that the people who carried out 9/11 are either rogue government scientists, workers, or black ops agencies, or government contractors, or people/students who work in Universities working on government-funded weapons projects. I believe whoever it was was a part of the vast government network of agencies, contractors and universities. They could have been US citizens, or they could have been foreign visitors.

The problem is, we have such a vast network of government agencies, conract agencies, intelligence agencies, and universities working on government projects....that they could easily hide in that network.

We have alot of foreign scientists that are here from countries that are considered to be "hostile" towards us. (The countries, not the scientists.) I'm sure we have a lot of government contract workers who are here from foreign countries that we are not on really friendly terms with. And I have always had a hunch that foreign university "grad students" could have been directly involved in 9/11.

(I even e-mailed the FBI about it in the days right after 9/11, about my "hunch" that foreign university students could have been involved, although I'm sure they got millions of people sending in tips and hunches and probably didn't give mine a second thought.)

I went to a state university, and I remember there were a heck of a lot of grad students from other countries that could be considered "hostile" countries. I always thought that was unsafe, as a general policy, given the current climate of the world, but nobody else seemed to mind.

Now, a lot of them were very nice people, and I am certainly not insinuating that all students from all governments mean us harm. 99% of them are probably wonderful and kind people.

However, a lot of these "students" don't really attend class, and were just here on a student visa.

And some of the students, even the ones who seem to be the best students and grad students, COULD be part of a terrorist cell. The perfect, hard-working grad student would be a perfect cover-up for an embedded terrorist.

For example, somebody posted a video about HAARP. Within the first few minutes of the video, it said that there were a lot (can't remember the number) of Universities around the country that were doing research affiliated with HAARP.

Well, in case you haven't been on a U.S. college in a while, there are a lot of foreign students on our campuses. And basically, the colleges don't really check into their past too much. The basic feeling is "if you can pay, you can stay." There was a big debate about that in the media years ago, but I don't know if anyone did anything about it.

Personally, I'm thinking this: if we're at war with another country, or even in hostilities with another country, we shouldn't educate them. Because if they are embedded terrorists, we are letting them have unlimited access to our cities, and to our universities. In addition, if they are in a university working on a government-funded project (like HAARP), a lot of information could be found out that way, and there is a risk associated with it.

Like I said, I'm not insinuating all foreign students are hositle and part of a terrorist network. I'm sure 99% of the foreign students from other countries who are studying here are friendly and nice. One of my TA's in biochemistry was from China, and I really thought he was a great guy. He was in Bejing when the army opened fire on the students in Tienneman square, and he told me how terrible it was was.

But what if there are 1% of those students who are embedded terrorists? Aren't we kind of being reckless as to who we educate in this country?

Plus, I know that there have got to be scientists and government contractors here in the US who are from countries that are hostile towards us. If there are terrorists here in the US, those places would be perfect places for them to hide.

I need to watch that video again and find out exactly how many universities are working on HAARP projects....





[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

reply to post by nikiano


Hey...

Well.. I just came across a very interesting video.. (its in french but I got a crude translation already... anyone speak french well?)

This was written in September and looks like it goes back to March.

"A website close to French intelligence services said that an earthquake will take place in California, a Big One: 9 on the Richter scale, in order to hide the bankruptcy of the financial system and of course of US citizens."

This goes along with your theory.. because.. well, the collapse didn't happen and, obviously the earthquake didn't happen all because of the "bailout".

Here is a link to the thread with translation... I NEED a better and complete translation though.. if you (anyone) can do a better job.. please help me out.

Link to thread

I need to get a better translation and to digest this more... just thought I'd inform you what I randomly came across while doing some research on something that was not relevant to this topic.

Ok, well, I didn't make that perfectly clear in my hypothesis.

So let me add that adendum to the "who" part:

I believe the people who perpetrated were from within the vast network of big-government (i.e. government agencies, contract agencies, and universities working on government projects) but were not elected officials. They could have been US citizens or foreign citizens., foreign workers, foreign scientists.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by danman23
reply to post by nikiano

 

This goes along with your theory.. because.. well, the collapse didn't happen and, obviously the earthquake didn't happen all because of the "bailout".

Actually, I was thinking along similar lines.... of how the web bot program, (which has been pretty accurate in predicting economic crises and earthquakes) had predicted these huge twin earthquakes in December, but they didn't happen.

I was also thinking....hmmmmm.....maybe the bailout prevented those from happening, if the weapon used was HAARP.


We're thinking along the same lines, here!

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

reply to post by nikiano


You're sailing close to the 'official' version of events there with the enemy under cover and already within your borders while international defense is concentrated on threats coming from outside those borders. To cap it off, your own everyday machines were turned against you with devastating effectiveness. I've yet to see any hint of 'super science' devices being employed.

From when I first heard of the attacks, my gut feeling was that western economics was the actual target and with current developments they may now be feeling it was a success but it just took somewhat longer than expected to get results.

www.youtube.com...

Nora O'donell of MSNBC grills Rummy and Gen Myers on particle beam weapons.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Jezus

 

Yes, you're being illogical. Paper, which burned inside the WTC's burn at 451 degrees F. This is a fact. The video said 220 degrees F so either the video was wrong or no paper burned in the WTC. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If I find one video showing one piece of burning paper, the video is wrong. Wanna bet I can find the video????

I'm not debating this.

Maybe paper was burning, maybe it wasn't, but I still have no reason to discard hard scientific evidence based off of speculation on what might have happened.

Thinking you can ignore the evidence because of what you think SHOULD have happened is delusional.

Yes I agree the fact that you're ignoring evidence IS delusional.
It's easy really. 220 is less then 451. If you can prove 220 is more then 451 then please do so. What I posted was more then just evidence but FACT.
451 F is hotter then 220 F.
My guess...Yes it's a guess.... is that whomever made the video did not interpret the data correctly. Either way, their interpretation of the temp is WRONG based on FACT.
I'm done discussing this with you as you have no interest in fact but supporting some other agenda.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by nikiano

 

You're sailing close to the 'official' version of events there

As we all know, sometimes the very best cover-ups are half-truths. What is a half-truth? It's when someone tells truth, but they leave out the most important details, often the MOST important detail.

The government said that there was more than likely people working from the inside (terror cells) against us. What they did NOT say is that they used our own weapons against, us, and that they used our own SYSTEM (government agencies and networks) against us.

What they did not say is that the government "machine" got away from them, and now they had no control over anything.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by nikiano
Jf123-

In regards to this statement that you made:

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by nikiano

 

My favorite conspiracy theory relating to 9/11.
Some in the truth movement think the planes that hit the pentagon and WTC's never existed and were really....get this.... HOLOGRAMS.


[edit on 27-12-2008 by jfj123]

Actually I don't find that laughable at all.

At least, that's what I thought, and I took A LOT of chemistry in college. I also know the basic laws of physics.

link: en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore, even anybody who has a basic understanding of chemistry and physics should know that:
1. Aluminum is lighter than steel
2. There should have been at least SOME resistance when the aluminum plane hit the steel building.

I would have expected, for examples, that the extremely light aluminum wings would maybe have fallen off outside the building. (Same thing with the Pentagon crash, if it really was an airplane that hit the side of the building.) At the very least, however, I would have expected some resistance, but there seemed to be none on the videos. That does not follow the laws of physics.

This has been debated in other threads so I don't want to get into great detail but haven't you ever seen high speed winds force a more fragile material THROUGH a harder material?

Here's a wonderful example of what I am referring to. Not about high speed winds.
www.youtube.com...
You have someone putting their hand through CONCRETE. Now lets look at it from another perspective. What if that same man layed his hand on the ground and let the concrete fall from the same distance he struck the concrete from? The answer is that the concrete would crush his hand so how can he crush the concrete?

Just curious, jf123...did you take any physics or chemistry classes in high school or college?

Yes as part of my 3 degrees.
2 of the 3 include electronics and computers with a background in laser optics.
I also have knowledge of building design as I am a licensed builder.
I get around

Because if you did, you wouldn't really find the hypothesis that the planes IN THE VIDEOS were holograms absurd. Because the planes in the videos did not really follow the laws of physics.

They actually did.
And regardless, holograms of this sophistication are not possible for a number of reasons let alone the computing power required to project a hologram of that type simply doesn't exist.

Particularly, they did not follow Newton's third law of motion which states: any time a force acts from one object to another, there is an equal force acting back on the original object. There should have been some resistance when the planes first impacted the steel buildings, but there was none (on the airplanes in the videos).

The buildings actually swayed in the direction from which the planes hit. How would a hologram do that? And keep in mind that the planes were traveling near the speed of sound. Isn't it possible that the resistance may not have been seen due to the speed. Keep in mind that most video camera's film at approx. 30fps
en.wikipedia.org...

However, if lots of people on the ground did see planes hit the building, then that means that planes did inded hit the buildings, but the planes in the videos were faked. Why? Maybe because the true identity of the planes needed to be hidden by somebody.

But in any case, the planes on the videos do NOT behave as aluminum planes should when impacting a 110 story steel building. Thus, the hologram theory is not that absurd.

Research the capabilities of holograms and I'm not talking about looking at some youtube videos. I'm talking about researching lasers, optics, computing power required for projections,mediumless projection, , dispersion, divergence over distance, acoustic projection.

Once you've researched some of these basic concepts, you'll realize that the hologram idea is simply nonsense.



[edit on 28-12-2008 by jfj123]

[edit on 28-12-2008 by jfj123]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by nikiano

 

I've yet to see any hint of 'super science' devices being employed.

There are plenty of hints. See the following from my previous post:

So, let's use deductive reasoning on this new "super-weapon". What can it do? What is it capable of?

It can:
1. Turn steel into dust (you can see videos of that happening on Dr. Wood's site.)
2. Burn cars, twisting and warping the metal, getting rid of all the door handles on the cars in a single area. Flipping over cars. Setting cars on fire.
3. One eye witness said she saw a plane in the sky go "poof" into a fireball....and then it was gone.
4. Shake the ground so that it felt like an earthquake (eye witness transcript)
5. Eliminate all filing cabinets, except for 1 that was shrunk, but leaving the paper.
6. Create a "dust volcano" as the towers collapsed. It looked like a volcanic eruption.
7. Collapse the towers from the top down at free-fall speed.
8. Create a hole in the center of the WTC buildings (once again, see Dr. Wood's website)

You are just choosing to ignore the hints/evidence that there was a super weapon.

(As I said before, I will get more into the specifics in section 3 (supporting evidence) but for now, I'm just giving a general outline.)

This is actually, unfortunately, another very common occurrence in science and conspiracy theories, and usually happens when one group of scientists or researchers (or debunkers) has a stake in keeping the "status quo" going.

For example, let's take archaeology. There are a lot of archeological anomolies that do not fit into the "prevailing theory" of the rise and fall of major civilizations here on earth. Many, many many anomolies. However, when questioned about them, instead of addressing these anomolies in a well-thought out manner, the archeologists choose to simply ignore it, or deny it, as if it wasn't even there.

That is what is happening with the 9/11 truth movement. There are lots of hints, lots of evidence, suggesting that a super-weapon or a weapon still in R&D (or even more than 1 weapon) could have been used on 9/11.

But instead of addressing the evidence that has been clearly laid out before them, the 9/11 truth movement just ignores them, or says there is no hint of a super-weapon, or even worse, makes up these stupid pseudo-scientific answers as to how the "official version" could have happened, to lure people into side arguments. (And unfortunately, this tactic often works, eventually rendering people too frustrated to go on with their original argument.)

But their arguments completely do not address the main point... which is that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a new weapon was used. And these arguments have been brought up by people a lot smarter than me when it comes to weapons technology and physics, etc... I am only citing their work.



[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by jfj123

The buildings actually swayed in the direction from which the planes hit. How would a hologram do that?

First, I did not say that a hologram did that. I never said that I thought there were holographic planes. YOU were the one who mentioned holographic planes, not me.

I said that I thought that the videos were doctored (i.e. that they inserted a holographic version of the planes in the videos.)

The fact that the buildings swayed when the planes hit actually SUPPORTS my thinking that the videos were doctored, because you can't doctor an entire building swaying, now can you?? No.


See, everybody....just like I said, what these debunkers do is throw out something that was never part of your hypothesis (like the holographic planes), luring you into an argument, then twist your words making it sound like something you said was different than what you actually said, and argue it to death, trying to get you off the main topic.

That's what they are doing with the plane argument. I never mentioned planes in my hypothesis. He mentioned it in his post, trying to lure me off subject. (And like an idiot, I took the bait.)

I am not arguing the planes anymore until after I finish laying out my hypothesis of what happened, because my original argument about the planes in the video was in response to one of YOUR posts. You were trying to lure me off subject when YOU first mentioned the planes.

Congratulations...it worked. You have now just inserted a nice little argument about planes into my hypothesis that has NOTHING to do with the planes. I was not the one who first mentioned holographic planes....YOU were. I just "took the bait."

And now you probably think you can go around telling every one you de-bunked my hypothesis, which you clearly have not. You simply inserted an old argument into a new thread. You tried to debunk something that is not even part of my hypothesis!

Well, I have news for you, your debunking tactics have just been exposed.

I am more than willing to continue to debate the holographic plane hypothesis with you on ANOTHER thread, where it belongs. Because it does not belong here, because it is not a part of my hypothesis. YOU were the one who brought it up, not me.


[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by nikiano
reply to post by ipsedixit

 

I was just letting jf123 know that based on my knowledge of chemistry and physics, I didn't think the "holographic planes hypothesis" was absurd, considering the videos I saw of the aluminum planes slicing cleanly through a steel building, like a hot knife through a stick of butter. Big red flag.

I know what jf123 is trying to do, he's trying to lump me in with all the so-called crazy "no plane people" that the 9/11 truth movment is always trying to debunk.

You really have misinterpreted almost everything I've said. At what point have I ever insulted you or even implied you were nuts?
I went out of my way to clearify my stance regarding your posts but apparently that was lost on deaf ears.

Remember when I tried to answer your question but wasn't exactly sure what you were looking for so I did my best based on my understanding of what you wanted. You asked me a question and I showed you respect by answering it without calling you cowardly or nuts.

You have the right to your opinion however if you have to bring this down to name calling, your position must not be very strong.

If you'd like to continue with this discussion, I'd be happy to as long as you can do so in an adult manor.

That's how these debunkers work. Debunk, debunk, debunk, but never provide theory of their own.

Here are a couple points.
There are so many ideas out there in the truth movement, nobody can agree on 1 solid idea and go with it. So, based on that, we must try to eliminate the least probable ideas until we end up with the best. What's wrong with that?

They never leave themselves open to any REAL debate, because they never provide any real theories of their own. Very cowardly indeed.

Posting factual information is cowardly. Hmmm. You may want to reflect on this statement a bit.


[edit on 28-12-2008 by jfj123]

Yes, it is very cowardly, in the scientific world, to argue somebody else's theories to death without providing a theory or a hypothesis of your own. I stand by that statement.

You still haven't given me an entire 9/11 conspiracy theory of your own. I ask you to give me an entire conspiracy theory here. You never responded to that, you just said "I believe the NIST report", and that you believe the government allowed it to happen.

All the NIST report does is say that faulty fireproofing brought down the towers. What about the rest of the story that happened on 9/11? You said that you think that the government allowed "it" to happen. What is "it", and why? Motive? Let's go into some detail.

You won't, because then that would leave YOURSELF open to argument, and you refuse to do that....which is a cowardly tactic.

The NIST report is not a conspiracy theory. It is a report investigating the fall of the towers, and that is all.

Saying that the government allowed it to happen, is not a complete theory. What is "it"? And why did they allow it to happen? What was their motive for allowing it to happen?

A theory needs who, what, when, where, why and how. I'm working on mine, but you refuse to even post a complete theory.

Until you post a theory of your own, I'm considering you a debunker, who has an agenda.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

Originally posted by nikiano

Originally posted by jfj123

The buildings actually swayed in the direction from which the planes hit. How would a hologram do that?

First, I did not say that a hologram did that. I never said that I thought there were holographic planes. YOU were the one who mentioned holographic planes, not me.

You said it was NOT absurd, I said it was.

I said that I thought that the videos were doctored (i.e. that they inserted a holographic version of the planes in the videos.)

If the videos were doctored, then that would be CGI and not holograms.

The fact that the buildings swayed when the planes hit actually SUPPORTS my thinking that the videos were doctored, because you can't doctor an entire building swaying, now can you?? No.

Sure CGI could make that happen on film but it happened according to witnesses in the building and that wouldn't be possible to doctor.

See, everybody....just like I said, what these debunkers do is throw out something that was never part of your hypothesis (like the holographic planes), luring you into an argument, then twist your words making it sound like something you said was different than what you actually said, and argue it to death, trying to get you off the main topic.

No I never said that. I was responding to your question. You opened the door, and I brought it up as you asked. If you don't want someones input, don't ask for it.

That's what they are doing with the plane argument. I never mentioned planes in my hypothesis. He mentioned it in his post, trying to lure me off subject. (And like an idiot, I took the bait.)

Again, you asked me what I thought and I told you. You should never have asked. Your fault.

I am not arguing the planes anymore until after I finish laying out my hypothesis of what happened, because my original argument about the planes in the video was in response to one of YOUR posts. You were trying to lure me off subject when YOU first mentioned the planes.

I'll be honest, I don't care enough about your hypothesis to try and "lure" you off your subject. Your post just isn't that important to me, just like mine shouldn't be all that important to you. Feel free to not respond to my posts, put me on ignore, etc.. I really don't care

Congratulations...it worked. You have now just inserted a nice little argument about planes into my hypothesis that has NOTHING to do with the planes. I was not the one who first mentioned holographic planes....YOU were. I just "took the bait."

There was no bait. You asked me for my opinion, I gave it. YOUR BAD!

And now you probably think you can go around telling every one you de-bunked my hypothesis,

Why would I? I don't consider it a trophy or even an achievement of any kind. Your post simply doesn't matter that much.

which you clearly have not. You simply inserted an old argument into a new hypothesis. You tried to debunk a hypothesis that is not even part of my hypothesis.

Then don't include it. It's easy, right ?

Well, I have news for you, your debunking tactics have just been exposed.

Oh no ! Please don't call the debunking police ! I beg you !
Just for the record, I'm what's known as a skeptic, not a debunker. I don't believe something just because someone says it's so. I require evidence to believe it.

You seem like a passionate person who has a lot to say but you also seem a bit paranoid. Please understand I have no personal interest in trying to make you look bad or derail anything you're trying to accomplish here. If you think I am, simply ignore my posts so I don't distract you from your task at hand.
I wish you well and good luck with your hypothesis

Originally posted by nikiano
Yes, it is very cowardly, in the scientific world, to argue somebody else's theories to death without providing a theory or a hypothesis of your own. I stand by that statement.

You still haven't given me an entire 9/11 conspiracy theory of your own. I ask you to give me an entire conspiracy theory here. You never responded to that, you just said I support the NIST report, and that the government allowed it to happen.

All the NIST report does is say that faulty fireproofing brought down the towers. And what, exactly, did the government allow to happen? Let's go into some detail.

You won't, because then that would leave YOURSELF open to argument, and you refuse to do that. Which is a cowardly tactic.

The NIST report is not a conspiracy theory. It is a report investigating the fall of the towers, and that is all.

Saying that the government allowed it to happen, is not a complete theory. What is "it"? And why did they allow it to happen? What was their motive?
[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

Calling me cowardly doesn't motivate me in any way.
If you were more adult about it and said you were expecting me to post more details such as......blah blah blah
and treated with with a bit of respect AS I HAVE TREATED YOU, I would do my best to answer your questions.
Trying reverse psychology on me simply is a waste of time.
If you really want me to post something as you've asked, maybe you should act like it.

I didn't call you cowardly, I called your tactic cowardly.

As far as details, more details will come in section 3. I told everybody that at the beginning of this hypothesis. This is just an outline of the general hypothesis.

You're a professional debunker, and that's all there is to it.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

Ok, for the record, I'm going to say one thing about my theory about professional debunkers who are interested in keeping the "prevailing theory" going.

Personally, I think they might be government plants or intelligence operators or working for the government in some way. Or, if they're not working for the government, they have an agenda to keep the "status quo" (the prevailing theory) going.

Oh, sure, they'll get on this thread and go off on the government, saying how deplorable they are to have "let" this happen. But the truth is, they have an agenda to keep one major conspiracy theory going which makes the US government look like criminals.

Why? Because if the government can keep all the conspiracy theorists focused on that one idea (that the government did it or that the government allowed it to happen), it will keep their attention off the super-weapons and black ops weaponry that this the focus of my, and other's theories.

Notice how if anything coming close to super-secret weapons is brought up (i.e. DEW or HAARP or holographic planes, etc..) they pounce.

These "professional debunkers" want to keep everybody thinking the government is evil and complicit in this crime, so we don't go off on other tangents....and start looking at the evidence for super-weapons. The government, in this case, is happy to play the "patsy" because at least it keeps the focus off the real issue; secret weapons programs.

Maybe they are government contractors for weapons agencies or black ops weapons, making sure that if anyone starts bringing up super-weapons, they are thoroughly "debunked".

That's what I think is happening.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]

[edit on 28-12-2008 by nikiano]