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.


you can't deny, bush knew of 911 prior

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 08:56 AM

you know the saying ...the last resort to which a scoundrel clings (Bob Dylan's phrasing).

Refuge...It's last refuge to which a scoundrel clings.

Hey Dark, notice the brackets? It's Zimmie I'm quoting (What's a Sweetheart like You, doing in a dump like this) ...not Samuel Johnson.

By the way the correct one of him is: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"

Read my signature post!

[edit on 26-10-2006 by khunmoon]

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 09:06 AM

Originally posted by khunmoon
Hey Dark, notice the brackets? It's Zimmie I'm quoting (What's a Sweetheart like You, doing in a dump like this) ...not Samuel Johnson.

By the way the correct of him is: "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel"

I know its Dylan you're quoting.

Dyaln's lyric goes "'s the laaaaast refuge, to which a scoudrel cleengs".

I thought you said "resorts".

No big deal. Sorry for taking thread off course. I'm just a little fanatical about Mr. Zimmerman.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 09:24 AM
so if everyone questions the OP's there any way to verify the content? so we're looking at the data not the poster or the source?

its like a convo i had recently...if i post that im an explosives expert and that the RE factor for C4 is 1.34 and you look it up and it IS in fact 1.34, do you really care who i am?

btw, we all know i dont think the wtc's were rigged with demo, but THIS kind of conspiracy i do NOT see as outside the realm of believable.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:33 AM
While I don't think that Bush knew exactly what was to happen, I think that he was aware that something was going to happen.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:51 PM
I have a question for anybody reading this thread that thinks this is a Republican problem: if the democrats had been in power does anybody here think anything different would have went down?

Keep in mind how Clintoon sold out the US to China for example and the still prevelant power of the Israeli lobby on the left.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 01:01 PM

Originally posted by semperfortis
This is what concerns me about this thread..

Garland Favorito is an independent computer consultant who became concerned about government corruption after viewing and verifying the accuracy of videos about the murders of Vince Foster, Kevin Ives and Don Henry. When he realized that a cover-up of these and other serious crimes were linked to Clinton administrations, he planned and helped organize America's first National Impeachment Town Hall.

After the Republican leadership protected Bill Clinton from facing the more serious charges that initiated the impeachment movement, Garland decided to find out why. His remarkable findings are published in his book, Our Nation Betrayed, available from Epic Books at 888 808-5440.

He is a computer consultant, not even an investigative reporter..

So this is really all is own opinion. If not I would like to see his sources...


ALso know as, SHOOT THE MESSENGER!!!!! Hahahahaha, every topic this guy ever posts on is nothing more then this! I haven't read one topic where this guy does anything but shoot the messenger! Anyways, avoiding all NeoCon discussions since there is none it is just STM...

It might happen, I mean, the FBI was busy being used by the Republicans to prove Clinton cheated on his wife while calls were coming in about Arab terrorists learning how to fly planes but not land them and other things that could have prevented 9/11 if the FBI had been doing it's job not being used by Republicans to prove CLinton cheated on his wife.

Man, if only the Dems used the FBI to prove Bush cheated the elections, at least the Republicans could then push that it was the Dems fault for 9/11 because they were using the FBI to prove they stole the election instead of taking calls about terrorists learning how to fly but not land airplanes.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 01:09 PM
I just emailed Garland and encouraged him to address the credibility issue on this thread.

We'll see what happens

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 02:40 PM

Hahahahaha, every topic this guy ever posts on is nothing more then this! I haven't read one topic where this guy does anything but shoot the messenger!

I'm an important man...

I got attacked on a thread that isn't even mine...

And with such eloquence and intellect as well..

I bow to the greater post.

Are you still surprised there is no interest to your threads?


(edited for sarcasm)

[edit on 10/26/2006 by semperfortis]

[edit on 10/26/2006 by semperfortis]

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 03:00 PM
Don't worry semperfortis, he did that to me too. He try to even put the words in my mouth.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:41 PM
Whenever someone is faced with irrefutable facts that contradict their core beliefs they are presented with a dilemna that forces them to adjust their beliefs. If they physically cannot do this and do not want to confuse their belief system with facts, they must resort to attacking the messenger. I noticed that all of the negative replies on this thread attack me personally rather than debate any of the facts I presented with contrary evidence. The truth is that it does not matter if I am an independent conputer consultant, investigative reporter or the man in the moon if there actually was one. The facts have to stand or fall on their own merit and it appears that they are still standing undamaged. Many of these facts have been confirmed by FBI agent testimony in the recent Moussaoui trial and others by FBI agents in cases such as the one involving Robert Wright. I suggest reviewing the Moussaoui trial transcript and welcome any conflicting evidence. Those who cannot rationally discuss the facts but can only attack the messenger are the ones who lose credibility.

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 10:55 PM
I don't think anyone was "attacking" you, myself included and I apologize if you perceived it that way.

What we are all asking for are your sources or some indication there of, independent preferably so that we can verify the information for ourselves.

Look at it this way, I could say that I "Know for a FACT" that President Bush removes his human suit and reveals his true self to Donald Rumsfeld every day at noon. Just because I said it, in no way makes it true. However, if I supply four other independent individuals that have also posted this as having observed the phenomena, then I obtain credibility and my hypothesis is understandably more concrete.

What you are saying, may very well be 100% true. However, is it that you expect the vast number of conspiratorial members here to accept any allegation simply on your say so?

Much has been said on this thread about "Proof" and "Evidence" and yet, only one link to the story that you wrote has ever been supplied to the readers here. Our main concern is why is that? Several times it has been aluded to that this is all a matter of public record. If that is the case, why not post supportive evidence to substantiate your claims?

The very fact that there has been so much arguing and so little to no evidentiary posting, is suspicious would you not say?

Again, let me reiterate, you may well be 100% correct, all we ask for is some small amount of the proof or evidence that has been proclaimed and denoted to.


posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:05 PM
Semper and Delta still doing it. Attacking the messenger and not the message because they can't. So far they have attacked the maker of topic, the guy maker quotes, and me, without really commenting on the topic itself. Good job guys, how much do you get paid?

posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:08 PM
And the intellectual responses keep coming...



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:25 AM
I didn't necessarily see attacks on this source, but saying that because he is a computer consultant, his research couldn't possibly be reliable is just stupid.

I am an IT consultant, does that mean the music I spin sucks?

It is just a garbage arguement. I would like to see some docs to back up what Garland says, sure, but who gives a sh.. if he is a computer consultant, really.

Thanks alot for posting Garland. We look forward to seeing more from you.

posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 03:05 PM

I apologize that my reference insulted you or the author of the piece. Such was not my intent to insult computer consultants.

Though I failed in saying it, my intention was that the source was not a "Main Stream" Media source or really any media source at all.. I was attempting to say that as a computer consultant, police officer, or carpenter, it behooves one that is not routinely attached to "source" information to reveal the "source" the information was collected from.

Again, I apologize for any insult. It was truly not my intent.

I hope you all will accept my apology, I was wrong in the manner I approached this.


[edit on 10/27/2006 by semperfortis]

[edit on 10/27/2006 by semperfortis]

posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:44 PM
No problem Semper, it seems we all have dismissive moments. I enjoy your perspecitve, it is often opposition that makes the conversation interesting to me.

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 05:53 AM
Iran confirms what most open minded people already suspect and says U.S & Israel ordered September 11 attacks.

Considering how much Iran has been in the news lately, I'm surprised theres no mention of this story.

Rumsfeld said Flight 93 shot down - Oops the truth finally slips out.

posted on Oct, 30 2006 @ 06:34 AM
You know IF 9/11 was an inside job (which I don't believe ONE bit) it would have been planned by no more than 3-4 CIA operatives and the operation would have been handed to Bin Laden. Plausable Deniablitiy on Bush's part and FEW people would know of the plot beforehand. As opposed to the thousands that would have to have been involved in the current theory.

But somehow you end up with theories that have all been disproven totally ruining your argument.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in